The question is, why did UU do so well in the 19th century but is struggling now?Helluva good question. Let's explore it; and whether we find an answer to that question or not, let's put together and implement strategies for a more humanistic future.
We have important critiques to make of theistic religion. Let’s make them vigorously and with careful attention to detail and nuance. Let’s make them in a way that our arguments are unassailable in the eyes of reasonable people. And let’s make them together.
There is a covenant that members agree to about finding the bible the best way to connect with the divine, but as I was raised Christian and can consider the divine as whatever I choose, I have no problem with that for myself. I don't have to believe it's best for everyone. There's also a part about working to have peace, brotherhood and justice prevail in our world. I'm more than willing to sign up to that and happy to have found a community of people with similar ideas about what that means and that it is a worthy objective for society.Sounds like a great place to explore one's beliefs. I suppose. I'm not actually that interested as I'm fairly settled in my beliefs at this time. It was, however, a wonderful experience to have those beliefs accepted. I don't have to defend them, just respect the beliefs of others that differ from my own.
My point is, these kind of churches can be found in neighborhoods around the world, but they aren't game changers. There is a movement in that direction, but it is slow. I had to make a choice of trying to change something from the inside, or doing the kind of work I wanted to do on the outside.I disagree. I think (perhaps hope is a better word?) they are a seed from which churches of the future are likely to grow. At any rate, they are a place where people of differing beliefs can form a community and work together on making changes in our society to nudge it in the direction we want to go. I am somewhat offended by a common atheist trope that religion/churches are a universally bad thing, leading people to do evil things. Churches are a human creation that provides an opportunity for people to work together to accomplish goals they cannot as single individuals. Whether their actions are 'good' or 'evil' is always a value judgement, not an objective fact. Write4U's dogmatic and intolerant stance on what constitutes religion and why it is evil is just as repugnant to me as the dogmatic and intolerant beliefs of the church I was raised in.
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.It's not a creed you are required to believe. That's why it is in the category of 'creedless' which is not a made up thing, but a recognized class of churches. The covenant is not a statement of fact, but a form of making a promise. Accepting the covenant is a pledge to act in ways that comport with that promise not a statement of belief about reality. edit: Removed redundant sentence fragment
A religion without dogma is not a religion. IMO, the very belief in a god or deity is dogmatic (no proof). As an atheist I believe that the common belief in a god or deity itself is dogmatic and fallacious. No secret there.I find a insistent belief in either the existence or non-existence of a deity to be dogmatic. Not only am I agnostic about deities, I'm agnostic about solipsism, last Thursdayism, and pretty much everything else. I am militantly agnostic in that not only do I not know, but IMO no one else can possibly know either. Therefore I find atheists who stridently insist that nothing 'supernatural' is possible to be every bit as dogmatic as the literalist bible believer publicly evangelizing.
And you are completely wrong about my attitude toward human spirituality. It's the supernatural spirituality I have a problem with.If you believe nothing supernatural exists, why do you have a problem with supernatural spirituality as a general notion rather than a problem with specific activities like policies that start wars and legalize discrimination that result from a specific theistic beliefs?
Dogma is the enemy of philosophy and reason. And IMO there is plenty of it around and I am afraid of it.Yes. That's why it is important to recognize it and point it out when we see it in ourselves and those we would consider our 'allies' as well as those who are trying to nudge our society in directions opposed to those we want.
I am somewhat offended by a common atheist trope that religion/churches are a universally bad thing, leading people to do evil things. Churches are a human creation that provides an opportunity for people to work together to accomplish goals they cannot as single individuals. Whether their actions are 'good' or 'evil' is always a value judgement, not an objective fact. Write4U's dogmatic and intolerant stance on what constitutes religion and why it is evil is just as repugnant to me as the dogmatic and intolerant beliefs of the church I was raised in.I don’t disagree with your seed analogy. The implied part of my earlier statement is that the change was too slow FOR ME. I felt I could make more difference in the world standing outside the church, any church. It’s a spectrum, I have less of a problem with Westernized Buddhism or atheist gatherings than I do with Baptists, and I understand others get value from them, just not me. Some churches should be investigated for child abuse and others are just fine. I hope you haven’t thrown me into the “common trope" group. I’ve never met a theism that I can believe but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one, so I guess you could call that agnostic. What I’m against is intolerance in all forms. No matter how liberal the teachings or actions of a church may be, if it claims that its god is special that is a form of intolerance. We provide a special class for that. We have religious exemptions for taxes and it is considered rude to challenge someone’s beliefs. Non-religious candidates for public office have had a very difficult time getting elected. All of that makes it difficult to challenge the more outwardly intolerant actions of the fundamentalists. If we allow all that other stuff, how do we draw the line? Once we say its okay for one person to claim a supernatural being exists, how do we tell someone else that their being doesn’t? Especially when both are using the same book to justify their claim?
If we allow all that other stuff, how do we draw the line?I'm not sure what you mean by 'all that other stuff'. Could you give examples?
Once we say its okay for one person to claim a supernatural being exists, how do we tell someone else that their being doesn’t?I don't think you can or should - at least, not unless they have asked you for your opinion. What we can and should do is require that any policy decisions they advocate be justified on a basis that doesn't include the fact that their god doesn't like it.
Especially when both are using the same book to justify their claim?I'm not clear on what you asking here. I think you mean what is the justification for telling someone their supernatural being doesn't exist. IMO, the only justification for that is that you are a) responding to their inquiry regarding your opinion or b) you are speaking in a place that requires no justification other than you desire to state your opinion.
A religion without dogma is not a religion. IMO, the very belief in a god or deity is dogmatic (no proof). As an atheist I believe that the common belief in a god or deity itself is dogmatic and fallacious. No secret there.I find a insistent belief in either the existence or non-existence of a deity to be dogmatic. Not only am I agnostic about deities, I'm agnostic about solipsism, last Thursdayism, and pretty much everything else. I am militantly agnostic in that not only do I not know, but IMO no one else can possibly know either. Therefore I find atheists who stridently insist that nothing 'supernatural' is possible to be every bit as dogmatic as the literalist bible believer publicly evangelizing.
And you are completely wrong about my attitude toward human spirituality. It's the supernatural spirituality I have a problem with.If you believe nothing supernatural exists, why do you have a problem with supernatural spirituality as a general notion rather than a problem with specific activities like policies that start wars and legalize discrimination that result from a specific theistic beliefs? There may be atheists who don't accept anything supernatural exists and there may be some who do, but it has nothing to do with their atheism, which means only without belief in god. Atheism says nothing about a position on anything else but god(s). Lois
There is a covenant that members agree to about finding the bible the best way to connect with the divine, but as I was raised Christian and can consider the divine as whatever I choose, I have no problem with that for myself. I don't have to believe it's best for everyone. There's also a part about working to have peace, brotherhood and justice prevail in our world. I'm more than willing to sign up to that and happy to have found a community of people with similar ideas about what that means and that it is a worthy objective for society.Sounds like a great place to explore one's beliefs. I suppose. I'm not actually that interested as I'm fairly settled in my beliefs at this time. It was, however, a wonderful experience to have those beliefs accepted. I don't have to defend them, just respect the beliefs of others that differ from my own.
My point is, these kind of churches can be found in neighborhoods around the world, but they aren't game changers. There is a movement in that direction, but it is slow. I had to make a choice of trying to change something from the inside, or doing the kind of work I wanted to do on the outside.I disagree. I think (perhaps hope is a better word?) they are a seed from which churches of the future are likely to grow. At any rate, they are a place where people of differing beliefs can form a community and work together on making changes in our society to nudge it in the direction we want to go. I am somewhat offended by a common atheist trope that religion/churches are a universally bad thing, leading people to do evil things. Churches are a human creation that provides an opportunity for people to work together to accomplish goals they cannot as single individuals. Whether their actions are 'good' or 'evil' is always a value judgement, not an objective fact. Write4U's dogmatic and intolerant stance on what constitutes religion and why it is evil is just as repugnant to me as the dogmatic and intolerant beliefs of the church I was raised in. Atheists have no "common tropes". They are no more likely to claim that religions/churches are a bad thing than anyone else and their position on it leads no one to do evil things (or even plain old negative ones, evil being a supernatural concept). "Churches are a human creation that provides an opportunity for people to work together to accomplish goals they cannot as single individuals." Like working together to annihilate anyone who believes differently or not at all? That's a "common goal" of many of those human created religions that we have experienced all too often.
I think you mean what is the justification for telling someone their supernatural being doesn't exist. IMO, the only justification for that is that you are a) responding to their inquiry regarding your opinion or b) you are speaking in a place that requires no justification other than you desire to state your opinion.Though I wouldn't frame it as "their supernatural being doesn't exist," I can think of other justifications for telling people that there's no reason to think it exists, such as when they are trying to force or promote their beliefs. Unless you're in their church, opposing views are fair to give. And even then, if you were invited in, depending on the circumstances and terms of the invitation.
If we allow all that other stuff, how do we draw the line?I'm not sure what you mean by 'all that other stuff'. Could you give examples? I listed in the previous paragraph. Everything from laws that treat them special to social conventions.
Once we say its okay for one person to claim a supernatural being exists, how do we tell someone else that their being doesn’t?I don't think you can or should - at least, not unless they have asked you for your opinion. What we can and should do is require that any policy decisions they advocate be justified on a basis that doesn't include the fact that their god doesn't like it. Do you think we should allow people to take their kids out of school because they teach creationism? Should they be allowed to beat their children because their God said it was okay? These are not isolated extremes. The question is not where the extremes are anyway, the question is, how do we decide where to draw the line. I agree we should take gods out of these decisions. That's exactly what I've been saying this whole thread. The problem is religiously motivated people keep getting themselves elected.
Especially when both are using the same book to justify their claim?I'm not clear on what you asking here. I think you mean what is the justification for telling someone their supernatural being doesn't exist. IMO, the only justification for that is that you are a) responding to their inquiry regarding your opinion or b) you are speaking in a place that requires no justification other than you desire to state your opinion. And if that was how all religious people acted, there wouldn't be a problem.
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.y?
We have important critiques to make of theistic religion. Let's make them vigorously and with careful attention to detail and nuance. Let's make them in a way that our arguments are unassailable in the eyes of reasonable people. And let's make them together.Well, pussyfooting around doesn't get it done. I make my case vigorously and with careful attention to detail and nuance, and I end up arguing with an ally about the nuance and detail, while the pope sits on his golden throne in his vestments, practising his religious dogma, a profitable business, so I've heard IMO, the theist's unassailable argument is "supernaturalism", spooky stuff that does not belong in a natural world and cannot be addressed by logical argument.
Naturalism (philosophy), Wikipedia. This article is about the term that is used in philosophy. For other uses, see Naturalism (disambiguation). Part of a series on Irreligion, "αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "those without god", as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as "Papyrus 46" Irreligion[show] Atheism[show] Agnosticism[show] Nontheism[show] Naturalism[show] WikiProject Atheism Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.[2] "Naturalism can intuitively be separated into a [metaphysical] and a methodological component."[3] Metaphysical here refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]That is where I can be found. In context of the thread title we are not trying to reconcile religion and science. This is a contest as indicated by the use of "versus" which is antagonistic by definition.
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.y? Lack of coherent argument.
We have important critiques to make of theistic religion. Let's make them vigorously and with careful attention to detail and nuance. Let's make them in a way that our arguments are unassailable in the eyes of reasonable people. And let's make them together.Well, pussyfooting around doesn't get it done. I make my case vigorously and with careful attention to detail and nuance, and I end up arguing with an ally about the nuance and detail, while the pope sits on his golden throne in his vestments, practising his religious dogma, a profitable business, so I've heard Well said Write4
Well, pussyfooting around doesn't get it done.Oh, good grief, here we go again. George W. Bush "diplomacy" in a so-called "humanism." If you ain't yellin' and screamin', burnin' all bridges and taking no prisoners, then you ain't doin' it right. And here I thought for a few hours that we might have made some progress.
I make my case . . . with careful attention to detail and nuance, . . .No, with all due respect, you don't.
... If you believe nothing supernatural exists, why do you have a problem with supernatural spirituality as a general notion rather than a problem with specific activities like policies that start wars and legalize discrimination that result from a specific theistic beliefs?[Beth, It is gratifying to me to see a new person, taking an active part and making cogent points. (I would like to add that although Write4U seems to be rubbing you the wrong way, so to speak, in the context of this thread, in my experiences and impressions in many discussions in other threads, he is a very intelligent and good person. I suspect that you will discover this for yourself, if you participate in enough threads.)] In regards to your question above, I have a problem with people believing in the supernatural, at all, because it seems to me that it often leads to unnecessary difficulties for individuals on a personal and emotional level, that can in turn, for example, lead to societal development of policies that can in turn lead to things such as wars and legalized discrimination. AND supernatural beliefs are based on what we cannot know from a reality based perspective. For example: (I enjoy watching the TV series, "The Walking Dead".) If I and others truly believed that a zombie apocalypse could be imminent at any given moment, imagine the repressive societal policies that would likely be implemented to protect us from such an eventuality. Now, we cannot absolutely know that a zombie apocalypse is not going to occur (despite there being no reality based evidence that it will.) IMO, it is ever so much more practical to not believe in something that we have no reality based evidence to support, and ever so much more, potentially destructive to believe in things that we have no reality based evidence to support. One could counter that there are non-reality based beliefs that can lead to positive societal consequences. It seems to me, however, that the net effect of non-reality based belief systems is negative, and sometimes, profoundly negative.
There is a covenant that members agree to about finding the bible the best way to connect with the divine, but as I was raised Christian and can consider the divine as whatever I choose, I have no problem with that for myself. I don't have to believe it's best for everyone. There's also a part about working to have peace, brotherhood and justice prevail in our world. I'm more than willing to sign up to that and happy to have found a community of people with similar ideas about what that means and that it is a worthy objective for society.Sounds like a great place to explore one's beliefs. I suppose. I'm not actually that interested as I'm fairly settled in my beliefs at this time. It was, however, a wonderful experience to have those beliefs accepted. I don't have to defend them, just respect the beliefs of others that differ from my own.
My point is, these kind of churches can be found in neighborhoods around the world, but they aren't game changers. There is a movement in that direction, but it is slow. I had to make a choice of trying to change something from the inside, or doing the kind of work I wanted to do on the outside.I disagree. I think (perhaps hope is a better word?) they are a seed from which churches of the future are likely to grow. At any rate, they are a place where people of differing beliefs can form a community and work together on making changes in our society to nudge it in the direction we want to go. I am somewhat offended by a common atheist trope that religion/churches are a universally bad thing, leading people to do evil things. Churches are a human creation that provides an opportunity for people to work together to accomplish goals they cannot as single individuals. Whether their actions are 'good' or 'evil' is always a value judgement, not an objective fact. Write4U's dogmatic and intolerant stance on what constitutes religion and why it is evil is just as repugnant to me as the dogmatic and intolerant beliefs of the church I was raised in. Beth, I have purposely avoided commenting on your philosophical worldview, because you sounded entirely reasonable to me and as a humanist I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. Please note that this only applies at a personal level. But you brought me up as the "bad guy" in this discussion, a viewpoint which I find naive and ill considered. I disagree with your assertion that churches where created for the people. IMO the driving force was power and control over the people. When the churches' actions involved castigation, torture, burnings, beheadings, drownings, flying planes into buildings, IMO, one can make a value judgement about the physical methods used to implement the "good intentions" at a spiritual level. Read the "Inquisitions Manifesto"
The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."[7]Think about why our founding fathers (good people of various persuasion) found it necessary to include a "establishment (seperation} clause" into our Constitution. They recognized the enormous consequences if they allowed the power of religious zealotry and bigotry to be practiced anywhere, anytime, on individuals who were "different". But now that you have mentioned me personally as dogmatic and intolerant, I should like to have you clarify where exactly I have demonstrated such behavior. Just a link to the post number and a comment will do fine. I am not trying to draw you into this "spritual war of gathering souls". You may never have been exposed, lucky you, but history (both old and recent) should give pause for thought and (I hope) active participation in rooting out such "physical practises" as martyrdom in a "spiritual endeavor". More peope have died in religious wars than in any other cause. What is it that turns sheep into wolves? I am a metaphysical naturalist and souls are not of interest to me. But false information does interest me because some people will believe it at both spritual (philosophical) and physical level. And actions based on false information scare me. Remember Iraq our most recent Crusade? GW's own words were that he listened to a greater (spiritual) Father than his own. Go figure. You cannot talk about these things in the abstract when people are dying!
Well, pussyfooting around doesn't get it done.Oh, good grief, here we go again. George W. Bush "diplomacy" in a so-called "humanism." If you ain't yellin' and screamin', burnin' all bridges and taking no prisoners, then you ain't doin' it right. And here I thought for a few hours that we might have made some progress.
I make my case . . . with careful attention to detail and nuance, . . .No, with all due respect, you don't. Yes I do as per your own well appreciated compliment earlier in this thread.