DiscussMormonism.com

Should you go on?

Well you seen to have stopped right before getting around to saying what you were thinking of. Unless you really are not interensted in any particular problems with in the ever upward path of human improvement.

Or were you thinking of some other unspecified problem with secular humanism, whatever that is.
I noted the swipes at religous apologists. I suppose so. As a religious exmormon I am not really fond of aplogists of any brand. They tend to be narrow. As a believer I cannot thnk of any reason to value evidence differently than a scientist does. We all live in the same natural world.

I dare you to try and tell someone living in a 1st world country that they are a slave to the dollar and that those living in a 3rd world country are, by and large, MUCH happier than we are.

They have all they need. Food, shelter, love and companionship. While we never have enough. No matter how much we have, we "need" more, and the more we get, the more unhappy we are with what we don't have.

It is VERY difficult for people to think outside of their paradigms and believe things that might cause them discomfort.

I'll bet that you yourself, Tal, are a slave to some beliefs for which you are too afraid to look outside of your paradigm. If you had to accept certain truths, it would be just too painful. And you are not ready for that pain yet. I know there are some I dare not look at yet.

So who are we to condemn religious folks for not being ready to look outside of their worldview? It is just too scary of a proposition for them right now.

Tal Bachman wrote:The fraudulent nature of Mormonism and other religious belief systems has been detailed extensively on this and other Mormon-related boards. Almost all of this detailing has been done by those who would identify themselves as "secular humanists": those committed to Enlightenment ideals like, inter alia, reason, science, naturalism, democracy, equality, and the possibility of progress in ethics, politics, and happiness through those means.

Religious (and Mormon) apologists, amateur and professional, have at times argued that secular humanism is but another "paradigm" - that it has no basis on which to claim a standing superior to that of religion as a means of acquiring knowledge about the world or facilitating the growth of human happiness. (In some cases, they have characterized secular humanism, or some prominent strain within it, like Darwinism, as being virtually indistinguishable from a religion itself).

The particular criticism that science comprises an equal or inferior epistemology to that offered by religion is very obviously false: while it may be the case that contemporary science in part derives from original religious and magical ideas, impulses, and traditions (Bacon's and Newton's interest in both religion and magic come to mind), it has not been the case that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or "modern-day revelations", or the Koran, or any other "religious" source, is superior to science in yielding information about the nature of the world (where, in Section 89, did we learn about germs?).

Even religions themselves regularly show that they recognize their inferior epistemic status, notwithstanding their rhetoric. That Mormon apologists, for example, even feel the need to come up with cryptogram, mnemonic device, or "disappearing DNA" theories, shows that even they do not - cannot - deny the force of empirical data. The chariot-pulling tapir, far from being a lethal strike or adequate repulsion, was just another in a very long line of frantically-waved white flags.

However, certain criticisms of secular humanism are quite devastating. And the most incisive and damning criticisms tend not to come from devoted religious apologists (who as a group seem ill-suited to the task of hard, clinical, rational criticism), but from secular thinkers themselves.

Is anyone reading this? Should I go on?

go on

Should you go on?

Are we even on the same page yet?

One thing I've consistently noticed in debates with believers - when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion".

Telling, isn't it?

Believers certainly admit, by the way they craft their arguments, that logic and science have "won", even if they can't bring themselves to recognize this reality.

I am guessing that Tal believes secular humanism is spiritually void and morally inadequate.

Tal Bachman wrote:The fraudulent nature of Mormonism and other religious belief systems has been detailed extensively on this and other Mormon-related boards. Almost all of this detailing has been done by those who would identify themselves as "secular humanists": those committed to Enlightenment ideals like, inter alia, reason, science, naturalism, democracy, equality, and the possibility of progress in ethics, politics, and happiness through those means.

Religious (and Mormon) apologists, amateur and professional, have at times argued that secular humanism is but another "paradigm" - that it has no basis on which to claim a standing superior to that of religion as a means of acquiring knowledge about the world or facilitating the growth of human happiness. (In some cases, they have characterized secular humanism, or some prominent strain within it, like Darwinism, as being virtually indistinguishable from a religion itself).

The particular criticism that science comprises an equal or inferior epistemology to that offered by religion is very obviously false: while it may be the case that contemporary science in part derives from original religious and magical ideas, impulses, and traditions (Bacon's and Newton's interest in both religion and magic come to mind), it has not been the case that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or "modern-day revelations", or the Koran, or any other "religious" source, is superior to science in yielding information about the nature of the world (where, in Section 89, did we learn about germs?).

Even religions themselves regularly show that they recognize their inferior epistemic status, notwithstanding their rhetoric. That Mormon apologists, for example, even feel the need to come up with cryptogram, mnemonic device, or "disappearing DNA" theories, shows that even they do not - cannot - deny the force of empirical data. The chariot-pulling tapir, far from being a lethal strike or adequate repulsion, was just another in a very long line of frantically-waved white flags.

However, certain criticisms of secular humanism are quite devastating. And the most incisive and damning criticisms tend not to come from devoted religious apologists (who as a group seem ill-suited to the task of hard, clinical, rational criticism), but from secular thinkers themselves.

Is anyone reading this? Should I go on?

Bring it Tal! :)

Target Exmo. Sounds like the latest Steven Seagal direct to video action flick.

However, certain criticisms of secular humanism are quite devastating. And the most incisive and damning criticisms tend not to come from devoted religious apologists (who as a group seem ill-suited to the task of hard, clinical, rational criticism), but from secular thinkers themselves.

Is anyone reading this? Should I go on?

No Tal, you should not, as the entire thing is nothing more than yet another excursion into your, what appears to be continual state of masturbatory intellectual narcissism.

Try to enjoy the daylight...