http://secularright.org/wordpress/?page_id=2
It has potential, but if all they're going to do is dissect religion I shall grow bored rather quickly.
Printable View
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?page_id=2
It has potential, but if all they're going to do is dissect religion I shall grow bored rather quickly.
Just found this earlier-http://atheistnexus.org/ Haven't looked into it much yet, but it may have potential. They seem to be less militant than the extremist types.
Secular Right
hmmn
I don't see that really appealing to anyone except for those who are anti this or anti that, just an opinion. Who knows, whatever works for some doesn't work for others BUT hell it gives people another place to debate, learn and edumucate each other.
That blog is just for religious humanists with conservative views. The ironic thing is conservative views come from a Christian perspective, not a secular one.
What a ridiculous notion. By that logic, there was no conservative philosophy until the rise of Christianity. History makes a mockery of that assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theocrat
I would argue instead that many "christian beliefs" come from a conservative perspective, and that those "christian beliefs" are just a shabby attempt to justify a conservative philosophy through a fallacious appeal to supernatural authority.
The golden rule existed long before jesus.
Actually, history makes it pretty clear that any society which embraced Christianity became virtuous and prosperous for a time. The deterioration of Christian beliefs came about when churches abdicated their authority to other competing beliefs, such as Islam, humanism, and others. There has never been a secular society which has been successful towards mankind nor utilizing conservative beliefs to advance a nation of people. The United States was heavily inculcated by a Christian outlook on life, liberty, and property, and this has been proven and documented numerous times on these forums alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanEdwards
Your assertion that "the golden rule existed long before Jesus" contains a gleaming faulty assumption. Jesus Christ always existed because He is God, and He manifested Himself in human form to make an atonement for the sins of mankind. Christianity did not begin in 33 AD; it started in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of all creation. You need to get your facts straight.
And there's the fallacious appeal to supernatural authority yet again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theocrat
There's no debate if you can't craft your arguments from logic.
I can make a fallacious appeal to supernatural authority too:
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the golden rule when his noodles inscribed the truth of his philosphy on the soul of man."
Now what? There's nothing to debate. Just two jerks babbling at each other. You can't refute my assertion about a mythical spaghetti monster creator, because it rests not on facts, but on faith, and faith is impervious to reason.
How is my statement fallacious, and on what objective grounds do you judge it to be so?Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanEdwards
My statements are based on logic, but you, as a materialist, have no absolute basis for relying on logic to begin with.
Let me ask you this: how do you prove the truth of your statement that "There's no debate if you can't craft your arguments from logic?" If it's proven from logic, then you're arguing in a circle. If it's proven by something other than logic, then you refute your statement itself.
You're the only one making the claim that faith is impervious to reason. I do not believe that. It is my contention that reasoning itself is based on one's faith about the nature of the world he lives in. Can you even give a reason for reason itself?
"You're the only one making the claim that faith is impervious to reason. I do not believe that."
Whether you believe it or not, your a prime example of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authorityQuote:
Originally Posted by Theocrat
relevant excerpt:
Quote:
Examples of appeals to authority....
Referring to a sacred text. "If (the text) said it was so, it is so." Like in the previous example, such an appeal may be based upon the belief that the sacred text in question is inerrant.
Your statements are certainly not based on logic, as I've already indicated. They are based on revealed knowledge from a bunch of dead people. If that revealed knowledge that you believe in was passed down from mayan priests, instead of from christian priests, you'd be here arguing the moral correctness of human sacrifice and cannibalism. Your belief system is not based upon independent reasoning (using the mind god gave you ;) ) but is instead based upon a non-rational belief that dead people had some special insight that we no longer have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theocrat
You are correct though in pointing out that I have no absolute basis for relying on logic. But this is a necessary attribute of trusting to reason and logic as a tool to understand the world. My worldview must necessarily accept the possibility, however remote, that some observable fact may utterly destroy my entire concept of reality. This is the nature of scientific and rational thought. Nothing can be proved absolutely, only disproved.
Your belief system implicitly denies the possibility that any observed fact can disprove your worldview. Thus your beliefs are not logical.
Again you demonstrate your fundamental lack of understanding of scientific thought. Nothing can ever be proved. There is always the possibility of some exception somewhere in the universe, somewhere outside of our experience. Logical thought is based upon what is observable and falsifiable, and that inherently means that new observations can alter previous beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theocrat
So the challenge to you is to DISPROVE my hypothesis that there can be no debate between logic and faith. If you can disprove my claim, then I will consider abandoning that belief.
Maybe there is some land of the smurfs on the other side of the universe where debates are conducted by one smurf asserting priveleged knowledge, and other smurfs asserting empirical evidence, but I'm unaware of the existence of such a place. In the world I live in, arguments are made based on empirical observed facts and logical deduction, not on the basis of appeals to authority.
My worldview does not require an absolute faith in reason. I'm fully willing to abandon reason and adopt superstitious mumbo-jumbo just as soon as that superstitious mumbo-jumbo becomes a more effective tool for understanding the universe I live in. You're the one that seems hung up on absolutism. I'm quite content to exist with uncertainty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theocrat
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Theocrat
Is that before or after they kill off all the nonbelievers, as your little storybook commands you do?
Can't we go one day without fighting?
aren't non-religious conservatives just neocons?