(March 31, 2020 at 6:15 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:The point is that there are only a handful of reasonable opinions about any particular issue, and it only appears to be too numerous to list, because atheists are not willing to accept the possibility that they are wrong about some things that were established in a less sophisticated society.

The only thing atheists are required to be in agreement about is their lack of belief in gods, societal issues don’t enter into it.
Boru

There are only a handful of reasonable options/opinions to any particular issue - it is absurd to believe that every/any issue has tens of reasonable solutions.

Let's get serious, and solve some problems using those critical thinking skills that atheists are inherently endowed with and reason some reasonable solutions.

(March 31, 2020 at 6:43 pm)Prof.Lunaphiles Wrote:

(March 31, 2020 at 6:15 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The only thing atheists are required to be in agreement about is their lack of belief in gods, societal issues don’t enter into it.
Boru

There are only a handful of reasonable options/opinions to any particular issue - it is absurd to believe that every/any issue has tens of reasonable solutions.

Let's get serious, and solve some problems using those critical thinking skills that atheists are inherently endowed with and reason some reasonable solutions.

The problem with having atheists solve social issues is that we don’t have the votes. Unless you’re prepared to disenfranchise believers and set up some sort of atheistocracy (which would create a whole new set of societal problems, not the least of which will be armed rebellion), we’ll just have to muddle through.

But what social issues did you have in mind? Name one, and I’ll present a solution.

Boru

(March 31, 2020 at 6:43 pm)Prof.Lunaphiles Wrote: those critical thinking skills that atheists are inherently endowed with

This is sarcasm, right?

Anyway, I didn't see the original context of the quote. What social issue was being discussed? 

How many solutions are available might depend on what kind of problem it is.....

While it is a laudable pursuit to engaging in sophistry to solve problems it is difficult to guide atheists because one does not need to be at all rational to be an atheist. There is no "we" there is no movement nor thrust to being an atheist. What you want is Secular Humanism which does have a thrust although it is pretty loose weave, "Humans are important and we don't need religion." As you can see, not much of a framework. Many objectively good things emanate from the idea of increasing well-being for humans, even withing moral relativism.

(March 31, 2020 at 7:07 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: While it is a laudable pursuit to engaging in sophistry to solve problems it is difficult to guide atheists because one does not need to be at all rational to be an atheist. There is no "we" there is no movement nor thrust to being an atheist. What you want is Secular Humanism which does have a thrust although it is pretty loose weave, "Humans are important and we don't need religion." As you can see, not much of a framework. Many objectively good things emanate from the idea of increasing well-being for humans, even withing moral relativism.

Excellent point. I’m personally acquainted with an atheist who takes astrology and Tarot cards seriously.

Boru

Secular Humanism is a-ok with religion - and can be religion, itself.

-Most of my atheist buddies are conspiracy theorists. Not the cute amateur ones, either.

(March 31, 2020 at 7:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Secular Humanism is a-ok with religion - and can be religion, itself.

-Most of my atheist buddies are conspiracy theorists.  Not the cute amateur ones, either.

Nope, you're wrong on this. The secular part of Secular Humanism eschews religion. It is also NOT a religion for the same reason because a religion deals with some higher power. Secular Humanism does have a greater potential to create a voting block which is why I find value in it.

---

don't go all twisty on my Gae

Religion-

Quote:a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, — beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them

Durkheim [1915] 1964: 37 cited in Morris 1987.

Humanism(of any kind) is an explicit claim on these goods. Insomuch as a god or religion's interests and man's interests are in conflict, secular humanism eschews the divine, ofc.

However - a religion does not have to trade in higher powers...so that can't be a reason that anything isn't a religion - and secular humanism does have a "higher power" anyway. In humanism (of any kind), human being. There is no distinction between secular humanism and religious humanism in principle. The secular aspect most often refers to their reaction towards -outside- religious elements.

I'll have to keep All Twisty in mind for my next name change.

I waste alot of time reading about this stuff,lol. It probably helps to say that I'm not anti-religious. When I point out that something is amenable to and can be a religion - I'm noting that it is and has been. It's not some novel argument or a criticism of humanism. I also think that humanism has alot of potential to create a voting bloc - and would point to the abrahamics success as predictive of that. Claims on the set apart and forbidden, claims that unite all those who adhere to them into a single moral community, compel us to action.

There ya go gettin' twisty on me but not unsalvagably so...

To conflate secular humanism with religion is just such a misstep I don't see the value. You should include loquacious or verbose in there somewhere. Or maybe wall of text. I kid though, I appreciate your take on things.

Foundationally, if I had my way, I would want to stick with the vanilla, says what it is on the tin, meaning of secular humanism.

It means the same thing that religious humanism does. Secular humanism is secular with respect to -other- religions (but certainly not all of them - plenty of fuckin "buddhists", eh?).

Consider this. As a secular humanist, can you imagine any reason why you wouldn't want humanist principles, values, and conclusions informing your government and society?