Well without promoting belief in God you get the Boy Scouts or Green Peace or any of the other excellent humanistic SECULAR organizations.
The question was not if there were good religious people, the question was if religion is indispensible to being a good person. And your answer is the same as mine. No.
I thought we criticized theists for being illogical like that. You framed your question to assume things that are not true, which is why I didn't answer it. One could as easily ask what singular contribution you have made to the world. If you haven't, that doesn't mean that you haven't made a contribution.You are still not answering the question. What has religion or theism accomplished that could not have been accomplished by secular means?
If you weren't so blinded by your obvious distaste for any and all religion, you might have framed your question properly. Perhaps you mean to ask what contribution theistic religions have made because they promoted belief in a god. The answer, in my opinion, is: none.I did not ask for any other concession that the one we are in agreement on. The proper answer is No or None.
We should be on the same side, but I can't side with you when you make ridiculous statements, engage in outrageous over-claims and don't even understand what our arguments are about.I consider myself on the same side as you, namely Humanism. Can you clarify which statements you consider ridiculous and outrageous?
You are still not answering the question. What has religion or theism accomplished that could not have been accomplished by secular means?Those are two separate questions. Which one do you want me to answer? Religion and theism are not the same thing. Everything is accomplished by secular means. Figure it out.
You are still not answering the question. What has religion or theism accomplished that could not have been accomplished by secular means?Those are two separate questions. Which one do you want me to answer? Religion and theism are not the same thing. Everything is accomplished by secular means. Figure it out.
Perhaps you mean to ask what contribution theistic religions have made because they promoted belief in a god. The answer, in my opinion, is: none.This is good enough for me. I am aware of terms like "he applied himself religiously to the task", but that doesn't really have anything to do with religion per se.
Happy to see that. Now please, from this moment forward and for the remainder of your life, say that. The statement you made originally is not the same thing, which is why I went ballistic. When we over-claim, we make ourselves look ridiculous, and box ourselves into corners with positions we cannot defend. Not all religions are dogmatic. Some religions, like Ethical Culture, are humanistic. They oppose dogma formally in their mission statement and in practice. We just had someone join us, Beth, who has been describing her experiences in a very liberal Christian church that is not dogmatic. You haven’t been to that church, I presume, so don’t make statements you can’t back up. Please. When you or anyone else goes out there, presenting as a humanist, and makes outlandish statements, it tars us all and damages our common causes.
Wow, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the top. I have not made any outlandish statements which would require anyone to go ballistic. Unfortunately, you have, but I am remaining calm.
There is the Church of Reality that has had tax exempt status, apparently, since 2005. If I had a need to be a church member, this would be one of my top candidates to join.
If you look at their own stated “hidden” agenda, it is: “We are really just trying to trick religious people into thinking.”
They appear to take on a lot of superficial trappings that we associate with some of today’s major religions, while having core reality based principles, instead of faith-based principles to guide them.
If their self-identification as a religion, helps them to someday break the stranglehold that faith based, dogma based, and supernatural based religions have on the world, and if they contribute to the progress of humankind (as is part of their more overtly stated agenda), I would consider that as good evidence supporting the expansion of how the term “religion” is defined.
See www.churchofreality.org
Also, I think a lot of us on this thread, think that much of humankind will inevitably continue to be “religiously” inclined. If this is the case, I would prefer they be members of a reality based “church”.
Wow, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the top. I have not made any outlandish statements which would require anyone to go ballistic. Unfortunately, you have, but I am remaining calm.The part about asking you to do something for the rest of your life is over the top. However, "all religions are dogmatic" is an outlandish statement that would make plenty of people go ballistic. It isn't true. In fact, it's more dogmatic than what you'll find in most liberal churches.
Wow, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the top. I have not made any outlandish statements which would require anyone to go ballistic. Unfortunately, you have, but I am remaining calm.The part about asking you to do something for the rest of your life is over the top. However, "all religions are dogmatic" is an outlandish statement that would make plenty of people go ballistic. It isn't true. In fact, it's more dogmatic than what you'll find in most liberal churches. I would need more evidence to support that statement. It is not what I found. There are churches that take on liberal causes but they still require stating the Nicene creed during the membership ceremony. You have given one example. You dropped Wiccan when I challenged it. Even Beth's church has a creed about accepting the Bible. You don't get to just make up a class of churches that doesn't exist.
Wow, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the top. I have not made any outlandish statements which would require anyone to go ballistic. Unfortunately, you have, but I am remaining calm.The part about asking you to do something for the rest of your life is over the top. However, "all religions are dogmatic" is an outlandish statement that would make plenty of people go ballistic. It isn't true. In fact, it's more dogmatic than what you'll find in most liberal churches. Please explain how my atheism qualifies as more dogmatic than most liberal churches, which are commonly referred to as "cults" by the adherents of the other 4200 dogmatic religions.
Dogma, Wiki Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology, nationalism or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. They can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.A religion without dogma is not a religion. IMO, the very belief in a god or deity is dogmatic (no proof).
Religion, Wiki Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1] Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion Dogma is religious Law asserting and reinforcing compliant behavior. It is a control mechanism. This is why religions are losing membership. Organized (dogmatic) religion is being replaced with personal (non-dogmatic) gnosticism, everywhere. Oh, lest someone goes ballistic, all posts are made IMHO
Wow, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the top. I have not made any outlandish statements which would require anyone to go ballistic. Unfortunately, you have, but I am remaining calm.The part about asking you to do something for the rest of your life is over the top. However, "all religions are dogmatic" is an outlandish statement that would make plenty of people go ballistic. It isn't true. In fact, it's more dogmatic than what you'll find in most liberal churches. I would need more evidence to support that statement. It is not what I found. There are churches that take on liberal causes but they still require stating the Nicene creed during the membership ceremony. You have given one example. You dropped Wiccan when I challenged it. Even Beth's church has a creed about accepting the Bible. You don't get to just make up a class of churches that doesn't exist. Number one, I thought you just wanted to get rid of me. Number two, what you "found" got filtered through your biases, which could explain why you only saw dogma. You also had some bad experiences at your churches, as you've related, and no doubt that didn't help matters. Number three, if you call what you said about Wiccan a challenge, then you have a vastly inflated view of the quality of what you wrote. As I recall, you said something about it being barely a religion, or maybe you called it a cult - either way, you essentially dismissed it as a religion - which only shows how narrowly you think about the subject. If you want a challenge, analyze Wiccan as per Smart's seven dimensions of religion. See how many of them fit. Your gut-level feeling about something doesn't match up against the criteria that people who spent their lives considering these issues use to evaluate these matters. Number four, there is a big difference between requiring members to share the group's central premises, and dogmatism. Ask Beth whether she thinks her church is dogmatic. She already told us the answer but it wasn't what you wanted to hear, so you didn't process it. You don't even remember what she wrote about that, do you. Number five, UU admits just about everyone. In fact, one of their main premises is to be open to a variety of views. If you call that dogmatic, it's only because you have a hang-up about all religion. And we're right back where we started. Because if we want to find an explanation for what you write on this subject, that's it.
Please explain how my atheism qualifies as more dogmatic than most liberal churches, which are commonly referred to as "cults" by the adherents of the other 4200 dogmatic religions.That's not what I wrote. Read my statement again.
A religion without dogma is not a religion. IMO, the very belief in a god or deity is dogmatic (no proof).There you go again. That statement is dogmatic. You can decide what you count as a religion but members of Ethical Culture, UU churches, Wiccan, Tibetan Buddhism and other religious groups that aren't particularly dogmatic, or at all, get to think of and call it their religion. And their reasons may be excellent. I spelled mine out a few days ago. If you don't recall that, let me know and I'll link you to the post. The remainder of your post operates from a blatant fallacy, the implicit assumption of which is that most religions are all religions. You don't seem like a stupid person, so what could explain falling into that gaping a logical hole? The only explanation I can think of is that you have a visceral reaction against religion, even the word itself.
x
xy?
Please explain how my atheism qualifies as more dogmatic than most liberal churches, which are commonly referred to as "cults" by the adherents of the other 4200 dogmatic religions.That's not what I wrote. Read my statement again. Your words, "However, “all religions are dogmatic" is an outlandish statement that would make plenty of people go ballistic. It isn’t true. In fact, it’s more dogmatic than what you’ll find in most liberal churches".
A religion without dogma is not a religion. IMO, the very belief in a god or deity is dogmatic (no proof).
There you go again. That statement is dogmatic. You can decide what you count as a religion but members of Ethical Culture, UU churches, Wiccan, Tibetan Buddhism and other religious groups that aren't particularly dogmatic, or at all, get to think of and call it their religion. And their reasons may be excellent. I spelled mine out a few days ago. If you don't recall that, let me know and I'll link you to the post.OK, their are a few religions which are not particularly dogmatic, just a little bit. Does that make you happy.
The remainder of your post operates from a blatant fallacy, the implicit assumption of which is that most religions are all religions. You don't seem like a stupid person, so what could explain falling into that gaping a logical hole? The only explanation I can think of is that you have a visceral reaction against religion, even the word itself.As an atheist I believe that the common belief in a god or deity itself is dogmatic and fallacious. No secret there. For sake of argument, I am speaking of dogma in context of any religion which has proscibed behaviors and scripture about the nature of a god or a deity which is to be accepted as truth. If an individual does not follow the proscribed rituals they are not following the tenets of that religion and they are not practising that religion, they just have a unfocused belief also called gnosticism, which itself is dogmatic.
Gnosticism, Wiki Scriptures Gnostic Gospels · Nag Hammadi library · Codex Tchacos · Askew Codex · Pseudo-Abdias · Bruce Codex · Berlin Codex · Clementine literature · Gnosticism and the New Testament Related articles Gnosis · Jnana · Esoteric Christianity · Theosophy · Neoplatonism and Gnosticism · List of Gnostic sects · List of gnostic terms Not to be confused with Agnosticism. Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnsis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions that taught that people should shun the material world created by the demiurge and embrace the spiritual world.[1] Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[2] that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, completely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.[3] However, practices varied among those who were Gnostic.Even in gnosticism we find dogma. And you are completely wrong about my attitude toward human spirituality. It's the supernatural spirituality I have a problem with.
Write4U: I didn’t comment on your spirituality, that I can recall, so I don’t know where you’re coming up with that.
Back to the top, you correctly quoted my words, which refer to your statement, not your belief system as a whole.
Whether it makes me happy is beside the point. You made a categorical statement that you cannot defend. In addition, you included humanists in your critique, without justification. You shouldn’t do either of those things.
You’re using an idiosyncratic definition of “dogmatic.” The main characterizing feature of dogma - the one that is most notable in encountering it - is the arrogance, unjustified certainty and overbearing authority with which the matter is presented. The word “incontrovertible” is often used. Most of the liberal religions do not come across like that, which is why I do not think your characterization of them as “dogmatic” is well taken.
Write4U: I didn't comment on your spirituality, that I can recall, so I don't know where you're coming up with that. Back to the top, you correctly quoted my words, which refer to your statement, not your belief system as a whole. Whether it makes me happy is beside the point. You made a categorical statement that you cannot defend. In addition, you included humanists in your critique, without justification. You shouldn't do either of those things. You're using an idiosyncratic definition of "dogmatic." The main characterizing feature of dogma - the one that is most notable in encountering it - is the arrogance, unjustified certainty and overbearing authority with which the matter is presented. The word "incontrovertible" is often used. Most of the liberal religions do not come across like that, which is why I do not think your characterization of them as "dogmatic" is well taken.Well, Dogma is an idiosynchratic primitive practice and it manifests itself in the most unusual forms. I hope you actually had a look at that Hypatia link I gave in a previous post. But I believe the current term for a dogmatic religious person is "fundamentalist". And there are a lot of them. And they have power. And that is why in certain States legislation has been introduced allowing the market place to discriminate against good people on religious grounds? I do not consider that trivial and it is based on dogma. In addition to indefensible legislation against women's rights on religious grounds. Dogma is the enemy of philosophy and reason. And IMO there is plenty of it around and I am afraid of it.
When you’ve dropped your girlfriend’s panties on the living room floor, you don’t make it less obvious by putting them on your head.
When you've dropped your girlfriend's panties on the living room floor, you don't make it less obvious by putting them on your head.Do I take that as a contextual argument or the end of this discussion? Frankly, I see no need to continue, I am satisfied with the objectivity of my position on the issue of religious dogma, especially when it invokes a supernatural intelligence.
in·voke transitive verb \in-ˈvk\ : to mention (someone or something) in an attempt to make people feel a certain way or have a certain idea in their mind : to refer to (something) in support of your ideas : to make use of (a law, a right, etc.) in·voked, in·vok·ing Full Definition of INVOKE 1 a: to petition for help or support b: to appeal to or cite as authority 2: to call forth by incantation : conjure 3: to make an earnest request for : solicit 4: to put into effect or operation : implement 5: bring about, causePowerful psychological forces, not to be trifled with.
Number three, if you call what you said about Wiccan a challenge, then you have a vastly inflated view of the quality of what you wrote. As I recall, you said something about it being barely a religion, or maybe you called it a cult - either way, you essentially dismissed it as a religion - which only shows how narrowly you think about the subject. If you want a challenge, analyze Wiccan as per Smart's seven dimensions of religion. See how many of them fit. Your gut-level feeling about something doesn't match up against the criteria that people who spent their lives considering these issues use to evaluate these matters. .All I know is that you didn't follow up. I have known Wiccans and I've read about it. I don't think I'm filtering anything (anymore than you or anyone else is, after all, that's all we do as humans)
Number four, there is a big difference between requiring members to share the group's central premises, and dogmatism. Ask Beth whether she thinks her church is dogmatic. She already told us the answer but it wasn't what you wanted to hear, so you didn't process it. You don't even remember what she wrote about that, do you. Number five, UU admits just about everyone. In fact, one of their main premises is to be open to a variety of views. If you call that dogmatic, it's only because you have a hang-up about all religion. And we're right back where we started. Because if we want to find an explanation for what you write on this subject, that's it.I hope to hear more from Beth. My point is that it's important to look not just at the members. Of course churches allow their members to have a variety of beliefs. That is what most orgs do and they would lose a lot of members if they didn't. But what does the leadership say? Look at Ryan Bell. He lost his jobs in church leadership because he dabbled a little too much in liberal theology. (He is blogging about it on patheos.Com, "Year Without God") Okay, two examples, both of them are declared non-deistic "religions". I realize those exist. The question is, why did UU do so well in the 19th century but is struggling now?