Staff |  joewalp | Jun 6, 2004 2:19am | Wimbledon54:
I consider summarizing to be difficult, as I find it difficult to succinctly capture both the essence and the emphasis of someone else's statements. I could perhaps describe how the topic of conversation has drifted, but, frankly, I don't consider this thread to be cumbersome or complicated enough to warrant that.
dtgm:
At first I was offended by your implication that the thread features debate rather than proposals and discussion; however, by prompting me to reconsider, your post highlighted that I had withheld some thoughts that weaken my case. As I vastly prefer discussion to debate, the following fills some gaps.
all:
I think a consequentialist secular humanist church would be most likely to schism over relative emphasis. Three dimensions where emphasis is likely to vary are individual welfare versus group welfare, contemporary welfare versus future welfare and statism versus dynamism.
An issue classically used to distinguish emphasis on individual welfare vs group welfare is capital punishment. Although I think that capital punishment under current criminal justice rules as implemented across US states cannot be supported regardless of emphasis, I can imagine a reformed system that would be reliable enough to prompt support to hinge on philosophical issues that depend on emphasis.
Addendum:
If anyone comes across resources regarding how statism versus dynamism emphasis impacts evaluating moral guidelines or critiquing parables, please toss 'em my way. |
|
| | | diglossiablues | Jul 17, 2004 1:16pm | This whole guilt issue is wrong-- wrong for atheists, wrong for people of faith:
1- "I" am here.
2- "I" didn't ask to be here.
3- These people are telling me "I" should feel guilty about being here.
4- "I" didn't ask for them to be here to tell me that either.
or even
5- "I" didn't ask for God to be here, to make me without permission.
Even so-- I figure it'd be most Christians who felt guilty rather than atheists... it's that whole forbidden fruit/original sin fiasco. "Oh... you're bad, make no mistake about it. You personally didn't do anything... but well damn, your anscestor sure messed it up for you. Now grovel or burn!"
Guilt and fear = tools of oppression.
I'll take absurdity any day. |
|
|  |  122797 | Jul 18, 2004 4:23am | oh-ooh: split infinitive:
as I find it difficult to succinctly capture
joe. I forgive you. |
|
|
Staff | | joewalp | Jul 21, 2004 10:53pm | Here's an excerpt from a related post elsewhere [1].
=== quote ==
Social change doesn't necessarily work to maintain patterns identified by sociology; it frequently takes the path of least resistance. Affiliated local secular humanist churchs that I advocate above may be the most straightforward way to reassure theists and to promote morality among atheists. But I certainly don't claim that their advent is the most likely scenario. In particular, strong trends toward increased mobility, increased specialization and individualized solutions point in other directions.
=====
[1]
american.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/1312/221/ [american.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/1312/221/] |
|
| 
Sponsor | | SpitOutTheSuffer | Jul 21, 2004 11:53pm | | I've gone to church in a school enviroment over a summer when I was younger and hated it and begged my parents not to make me go ever again.. Only times its come up recently is when listening to bad religion.. funny how everything has to black and white/or devil and god.. FUCK YOU! The grey area owns you.. |
|
| 
|  chopperx | Jul 26, 2004 8:50am | "It is criminal to steal a purse, daring to steal a fortune, a mark of greatness to steal a crown. The sin lessens as the guilt increases."
Johann Friedrich von Schiller |
|
| | | Praxil | Aug 21, 2004 7:22pm | Personally I've found it more annoying being agnostic than atheist. You recieve guilt from both sides of the fence. Atheist guffaw at you for having faith in something and those of a specific creed mock you for not knowing the name of your god. I don't know his/her/it's name. Honestly, I never bothered to ask.
Maybe the term "agnostic" doesn't fit me either. simply put, I think there's more than meets the eye when it comes to life. But I do know that since I've taken that stance in life I've recieved guff equally from both sides. |
|
| | | 125840 | Aug 21, 2004 7:38pm | Hi,........ "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the
extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
H.L.Mencken |
|
| 
Sponsor | | bookbakery | Aug 26, 2004 3:56pm | | As an agnostic I like the Unitarian / Universalist Church. These people respect all religions or no religion; all gods or no god or one god. My kind of people. |
|
|
Staff | | joewalp | Aug 27, 2004 4:01am | re: Unitarian Universalist
As a community it's alright. I'm not a parent, but I'd like to involve a prospective child in a nurturing community. I have misgivings about exposing the kid to an apparent hodgepodge of belief systems, but on balance, I think it would convey moral wisdom, offer insight into cultural tradition and offer friendly support without necessarily inculcating mysticism.
I just think it doesn't offer much socio-political leverage to counter the influence of theist religious organizations. Here's an excerpt from another post [1] from the same American forum thread cited in post 44.
===== quote ===
As homebase and squirt point out, theist organized religions have vested interest in depicting secularism as a threat to traditional morals. What's more, it's easy for them to make that case because some secular philosophies do promote very different morals. In particular, both nihilism and some types of existentialism potentially reinforce selfishness and discourage personal responsibility. Currently, 58% of Americans (more than 120 million adults) think that unless you believe in God, you cannot be a moral person [2].
I know that those 120 million people are wrong, and I strongly suspect that government endorsement of theism is miguided in the long term. But I'm curious what arguments and strategies my fellow secular humanists might use to rebut the perspective outlined above and to change conventional wisdom about secular morality.
[...]
[2]
Those without a subscription probably don't have access. If you want a copy of this article via e-mail, let me know. It's also available via EBSCO at most libraries.
"Therapy of the masses" Nov 6th 2003
economist.com/displaystory.cfm [economist.com/displaystory.cfm]
========
[1]
american.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/1312/125/ [american.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/1312/125/] |
| |
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
Atheist/Agnostic → Discussion