RE: Why Atheism and Secular Humanism are Failed Philosophies
November 27, 2011 at 7:19 pm
(This post was last modified: November 27, 2011 at 7:21 pm by mayor of simpleton.)
(November 27, 2011 at 5:58 pm)TheReal Wrote: Secular humanism (which now will be abbreviated as SH and is synonymous for atheism or agnosticism) is an absolute cancer, a poison to society. I could give you the arguments of communism, Hitler, etc, but I used to read these forums and realize these are old tired points, so here’s something fresh.
Confusing association with causation
This assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time.
TheReal Wrote:SH does have a God. That God is I. The God of SH is me and all that matters (the alpha to the omega) is my personal happiness. This philosophy is deeply flawed. And the ultimate referendum is coming very shortly.
I'd be a bit careful about placing such an accusation forth.
A god/deity has the earmarkings of a classic anthropomorphic extention of human character traits upon the universe/cosmos. Suggestions that the universe/cosmos is god and that this in turn has such human traits/desires as moral agendas or purpose/intention is indeed an anthropomorphic fallacy. In fact, a god/deity, especially one who happens to dislike that same people that the believer happens to dislike, is a proxy of ego; thus the god of such theistic constructions is the "I" wearing the 'mask of a god/deity'. A very convenient methods of finding the necessary (self) justifications for whatever one choose to wish for.
(btw... don't start a sentence with "and"...)
TheReal Wrote:I am entirely convinced (as is Stephen Hawking and many others) that in the very near future – we’re talking a decade – humanity itself will start to unravel. In order to enhance our happiness and well being, we’re going to begin putting machines in our bodies. At first it will be a chip in our brain to augment our intelligence, then we’ll replace our organs, perhaps even lack a corporal form and so on and so forth until we can no longer be considered human. If this doesn’t happen, within the next 30 – 40 years we’ll have full immersion virtual reality, where we can live in fantasy lands of unending pleasure. We can be Jake Sully in Avatar, have sex that feels real, go to the moon, the stars – who would ever want to live in this pathetic world? Eventually we’ll be so dependent; we’ll forgo our bodies and place our brains in boxes so we can live in our virtual ‘reality’ unmolested. And why will all of you do this? Because again, happiness is what it’s all about – there ain’t nothing higher.
You can call me crazy, which I’m sure a lot of you will. But they said the same thing of Einstein, and Darwin, the examples go on.
If you’ve read the literature and understand what our fate will be – chew on this: since my little scenario will mean the destruction of humanity (the ultimate evil) was the medieval Church right for hating science?
Why won’t I become a machine? Why won’t I let the Matrix come true? Because through my finding of religion (Judaism in case you’re wondering) I realized there’s something higher in this world than me.
It might surprise you, but the vast majority of SH tend to be focused on empirical evidences and not intuitive desires and agendas. There is really no SH handbook or concrete doctrine. SH is, for the most part, a very general term. More or less a place to dump any non-theistic systems of understanding. Indeed some may seem to be very "self-serving", but there have been (and are) a great umber of people involved in the seats of power within theistic belief systems who are just as "self-serving".
I really don't know you and really would like to hope that the rather flamming rants you have tended to put forth are not representative of your character. That aside... I seems as if you are in "need/want/desire" of a center in your life. There are many options for this process of centering, but it would be perhaps of good reason to acknowledge that you are not everyone and perhaps there are those who are not in need of the same things or perhaps not in need of a center at all.
You are aware that your making such a blanket proclaimation will give others the impression that you are indeed attempting to play "master of all knowledge of what is right and wrong within the universe"? Sure, frustration is one thing, but you have to admit that there is very much of the "pot calling the kettle black" going on in your posts. It does rasie the question, is the god that you are perhaps placing forth here indeed the god of everyone or just your own private reflection in the mirror?
From my perspective, I am willing to make a debate with you, but I fail to understand what grounds you have to make such accusations for or against any particular position presented here thus far. All I can see is a bit of an intuitive observation on your part, but there is nothing other than conjecture or speculative correalation to back up the claims.
My reason for asking for more on your part, is you do indeed have a "new perspective" within the realm of philosophy, you'll have to do much more than "yell and scream" at people via short posts and quips in this thread. You yourself said that this is a challenge to the philosophies of SH and atheism. A bit odd concerning atheism, as this is simply the answer to a single question and not a philosophy at all. To make claim that there is a philosophy via a single answer is an absurd notion, much like attributing character traits to all individuals who happen to have size 9 shoes. More or less, to challenge or make the claim of failure of other philosophical positions and premises, you'll simply have to do much better than just rant out loud. Please, if your claim to have such a new view, please write it out so that it can be understood, in a clear empirical logical manner.
I would not say that you are "crazy", but simply unclear and lacking a logical structure in your position; thus rendering it completely incoherent.
Meow!
GREG
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it all too be. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
