People like the OP is why Dawkins wrote Unweaving the Rainbow.
I don’t know what god you worship…
But I think it’s harmful - maybe even child abuse - when people tell their kids that the only way to heaven is belief in God, and the alternative is Hell. Plus, you don’t have to be “moral” to get into heaven, all it takes is faith.
That’s just wrong. What kind of “god” would be such a dick?
Bumping this question, because I (a) can’t phrase it any better than Mangetout did, and (b) want to hear the OP’s answer.
Secular humanism isn’t a religion.
It has to do more with actions than with the nature of the universe. It may encompass some beliefs, but no more so than various ideologies (say political philosophies or corporate cultures) whose promotion to the status of religion would really water down the concept to the point of just plain silliness.
All of that aside, I find none of the wonder or beauty of the world lost just by adding morality and removing religion - the world is immensely fascinating and truly beautiful. And it is so because of the wonders of the universe itself, and because of the people in it. Great stuff. It has bad parts too, but challenges can be overcome and mistakes learned from.
I’m sorry my friend, but you’re incorrect. Please provide a cite that proves your assertion that those who do wrong, and don’t care (whatever that means) do so specifically because they don’t believe in a deity. I’ve never, ever heard of such a thing, well, except for in stories.
If anything, non believers, in my personal experience, tend to be more law-abiding than theists, and without a supernatural policeman on their shoulders. They do so because it’s right. That’s it. Why is that so difficult for believers to comprehend? It seems to me that a lot of the “bad stuff” in our society right now is coming from hypocritical, bigoted, self-proclaimed Christians. Let me know if you need some cites.
I think that true morality is only known when there is no ultimate reason for the action other than a need to adhere to one’s inner integrity as a human being.
And this is what truly scares me about many Christians. Da Mikster is far from the only believer to imply that without a god to keep his creation in check there’d be no reason for people to live law-abiding, moral lives.
This reminds me of a FB friend of mine who always tries to argue that atheism is a religion. I find it hard to argue with “logic” like that.
A lot of believers don’t comprehend Secular Humanism. For instance, one Christian once attacked it, in my hearing, for being tolerant of animal abuse! He claimed that Humanism only defended Humans, and thus that Humanists would be just fine with torturing cats and dogs! He totally failed to get the point, made several times in this thread, that Humanism is about being good, because being bad is bad for the person performing the bad acts. Humanists no more approve of animal abuse than of any other immoral act.
Another commonplace Christian misunderstanding is exemplified, in the Bible, by the attack on Epicureanism, caricaturing it as no more than “Eat, drink, and be merry.” What this fails to understand is that proper Epicureanism seeks for self-improvement, learning, moderation, and discipline. It is more exemplified by the wine connoisseur than by the wino!
A very nice Christian once tried to get me to deny morals and ethics, given that I am an atheist. He asked, “What prevents you from stealing or even killing?” I said (pretty much as BunnyTVS said, in very large letters) “I don’t want to be that kind of person.”
Trinopus
I’m getting real tired of folks snarkiness, condescention, and just plain rudeness. If that’s how you ‘prove’ your morals and ethics and beliefs are ‘superior’ to mine. Then you’ve really proved something alright.
You made a lot of wrong assumptions about me. You’ve belittled me, and the beliefs of others for no good reason. So what does it “prove”? That it isn’t belief in God, ANY God, that makes people turn into self-righteous, obnoxious hypocrites?
I don’t want to be “that kind of person” that many of you’ve displayed you really are, either. So I’ll simply leave it at that.
You started it.
Hey kettle, meet Da Mikster! He says you’re black.
Doubt it.
This particular forum is no place for respecting peoples beliefs. Your beliefs will only be respected to the point that you can defend them. That said, there is no need for insult.
One of your beliefs is apparently that atheists are arrogant and disagreeable, else why would you find it neccesary to lecture us like you do your children? I don’t see any attempt to limit your lecture to particular posters, or the board in general, so I assume you feel that atheists as a class need to learn respect. If I am twisting your words, I apologize, as you may be speaking just in the context of your treatment in this thread. If so, then please re-read my first sentence.
If I am not, though, then I am tempted to conclude that you find atheists to be disagreeable because they have the gall to state and defend their opinion in public, without thought to the tender feelings of theists. The mere existence of atheism is treated as a de-facto attack on theist belief, so the only way I can fully respect theist belief is to shut the hell up. Not that I make a practice of buttonholing theists about their beliefs, but why should I voluntarily submit to “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
As for arrogance, there is nothing arrogant about being skeptical about beliefs that don’t hold water. I used to feel that my atheism was no more valid than any other opinion, but I eventually got curious enough to investigate religious claims. They were not at all persuasive. I make no claim that I hold all the facts, but I don’t see why I should feel shame because I have taken the time to be confident in my opinion.
What Mosier said. You made claims that secular humanism sucked the beauty out of life, that it is intolerant, that its adherents have no moral code to keep them from raping, murdering and pillaging. Then when people criticize religion in turn you get mad and offended. Clearly what you wanted was to be able to dish out insults and criticism towards secular humanism, while receiving none in return towards your own pet beliefs.
I know you didn’t actually start the thread, but you were quoted as saying something along the lines of “secular humanism is just another form of religion.” That is not a thread starter that is going to lead to a placid, philosophical thread. You are clearly not aware of it, but that kind of baldly misinformed assumption drives some people way up the wall.
I don’t believe anyone here means to upset you. In any case, I believe you were the first to, in the quote below, claim a moral superiority for believers, based, seemingly, solely on their theism.
And I think it’s relevant to ask why you think those who do right because they believe it matters to their deity shouldn’t be a concern for society. Based on your words, we can presume they’re not doing right simply because it’s the right thing to do, but because they’re compelled by a supernatural force. This is akin, in my mind, to those who make decisions based on hearing voices. You further assert, and again, in your own words, so as not to misrepresent what you wrote:
Think about it for a second. To me, and I see to others in this thread as well, this is a very scary prospect. What it says to me is if something were to ever occur to cause your, or the average theist’s, faith to be shaken, then we’re all in for a world of hurt because you would then, according to your words, have no reason to behave ethically.
Listen, I understand that you have your beliefs and nothing anyone says on a message board is going to change that, which is probably as it should be, who knows? But if you’re going to make assertions on a board like this, you should be prepared to defend them. We’re not against you, at least I’m not. We’re against hackneyed proposals with unsupportable premises. The supernatural, regardless whether it has a 2000 year history, or was thought up by a washed-up science fiction writer 50 years ago, is one of those proposals.
Also, please understand, because to many of us what you believe is not only not real, but impossible, we’re not coming from the same place you are. We start from the premise that supernatural intelligences, including gods, don’t exist, period. I think theists make a mistake when they presume that secular humanism, or atheism, is just another religion and that arguing on that basis is a winner. It’s not. You can say our non theism is a religion until the cows come home, it doesn’t make it one no matter how tightly you shut your mind off to alternate ideas.
And finally, I have no interest in attempting to twist your words. Your words alone lead me to the conclusions I have.
I believe you’ve made the mistake of thinking that people are disagreeing with your arguments because of the camp they occupy. This is not necessarily the case.
If people are not capable of deciding, all by themselves, whether actions are morally and ethically right or wrong, then they are also not capable of judging whether an externally-imposed system of morality and ethics is a good or evil one.
Or in other words, you can’t say God is good, unless ‘good’ means something in a general sense.
This question keeps coming back from theists, and keeps chilling my bones, because it necessarily implies that the only thing keeping the one asking the question from stealing, killing, raping and so forth is their belief that they’d pay for it post-mortem. Not empathy, not decency, certainly not principle or morality. Just supernaturally fueled self-interest.
To me, that is creepy and sociopathic as all get out.
In fact, it’s really no different at all from the OP’s condescending assertion that the only thing keeping atheists from stealing, killing and raping is the threat of prison and the police ; only taken to the next step and life.
wow, how did you manage to miss the point so spectacularly?
Secular Humanism is specifically tolerant of religion. It guarantees freedom of, and freedom from religion. It leaves the choice up to the individual and ensures the government has no preference one over the other.
And what do you mean by “denying all gods”? Not believing in any gods? or stating definitely that no gods exists?
Because there is a massive difference between the two. And it would only take you a few minutes googling to check what the Secular Humanist view on that is. Indeed, you may be surprised to learn that one can be religious and still be a secular humanist.
In the “father thread” to this one, you asked me to give examples of the things that I considered “evidence” of God. The things I listed such as fractals, prisms, the scent of cinnamon were all about the natural beauty of the earth and cosmos. You ridiculed what I had to say. This is why I say to you that you don’t listen.
Generalize much? I believe that the photographs seen through the Hubble telescope were also on my list in the “father thread.” The “Father of Modern Genetics” was a monk, you know. Please don’t put us in a can and give us a label. My “tiny and cramped” life graduated with honors from one of the top ten universities. (Dopers hate it when I bring that up, but it is particularly hard being a Southern Christian white woman at the Straight Dope sometimes.)
One of my favorite hymns is “For the Beauty of the Earth” Also in our hymnal is “Morning Has Broken.” (Yes, that song.) You just don’t know what you are talking about, Der Trihs. I can give more examples of hymns about wonder and beauty.
As for me personally, I chose to have my wedding in “the world’s oldest cathedral” – outside, over a frozen lake, surrounded by woods. I couldn’t think of a more sacred place to exchange vows. And I don’t expect you to think of it as a 'cathedral." I just want you to stop “screaming” at us who do see it that way, about how violent and destructive we are. People didn’t even throw rice. They threw Rice Krispies instead.
I don’t see that your statements contradict each other at all.
Where are the Cumberland Presbyterians doing this? And the members of Unity? And the United Methodists? And the Episcopalians?
Cite for “Faith is a form of madness”?
You wish. That doesn’t sound logical at all to me. This believer provided evidence (which I said that you would be blind to and which you ridiculed, then forget, and then claimed falsely that religion doesn’t have to do with much. But it is not our “job” to do that. As for skeptics, you are right. They wouldn’t particularly want to prove a negative anyway. They are skeptics. They are in search of the truth wherever it leads them. The words that you write show that you are closed down. Der Trihs, skeptics are doubtful but openminded. You are not a skeptic.