It may be that you left your church and its ideas too soon, Durkan. This may not be the place for you yet. Possibly you should go back to your church and work on your dichotomies to find what really works for you rather than asking others to justify your concerns.
Occam
Who is "we"? Atheists and Humanists manage to survive without religious practices. Do you think we're using magic, or what? Slavery was also the result of millennia of evolution. How are we managing without it now? LoisGood one Lois. I think gets to the heart of problem with Hume's law, the idea that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". The problem is, he didn't say you can't, he just said it's not automatic. You have to look a little harder at what "is" you are looking at before you propose an "ought". Slavery was argued for throughout history as something completely natural, the way it is and how it ought to be. Christianity has sold itself as the source for good. It was easy when you could convince people hell existed and you were the way out. You could make up any rules you want, call them "good" and get people to believe it. Now that we have been examining what works for individuals and societies for centuries, I can't figure how they keep pulling it off. Their main tool seems to be indoctrination of the young, and their starting to seriously fail at that. I'll give Durkan a little bit of credit. I think Scientology is a good example of what happens if you take away religion, but don't also take away superstition. But that grew 50 years ago, I don't think it could be done today. His idea is to replace religion with some other sort of superstition, some sort of in-group that appears to be holding the higher ground. My preference is to tell people they all have the moral authority within themselves, they don't need external validation. Humanism has no superstitions. And Humanism does tell its adherents that they have moral authority within themselves and that they don't need external validation. Ethical Culture has a similar philosophy. Humanism is on the upswing. Lois
Humanism has no superstitions. And Humanism does tell its adherents that they have moral authority within themselves and that they don't need external validation. Ethical Culture has a similar philosophy. Humanism is on the upswing. LoisI hope so. It seems people are uncomfortable with the idea of handling morality on our own. Like since we have had so much war in the past, we can't be trusted or something. Or that we need a church to go into to feel safe supporting each other. But I think we're getting better.
Does anyone know what a “concern troll” is? If not, you might want to read back through the thread postings. Just curious.
Humanism has no superstitions. And Humanism does tell its adherents that they have moral authority within themselves and that they don't need external validation. Ethical Culture has a similar philosophy. Humanism is on the upswing. LoisI hope so. It seems people are uncomfortable with the idea of handling morality on our own. Like since we have had so much war in the past, we can't be trusted or something. Or that we need a church to go into to feel safe supporting each other. But I think we're getting better. Humanist and Ethical Culture organizations offer the same support. The difference is that they don't threaten people with hellfire and damnation if they step out of line. I'm not too sure how comforting and supportive it is to be threatened in that way. Lois
Does anyone know what a "concern troll" is? If not, you might want to read back through the thread postings. Just curious.You're probably right, Lee, but the members here enjoy discussing anything, and also we pretty quickly go off topic to something else that happens to be more interesting no matter what the thread title and first post are about. So, rather than the troll frustrating us, we probably frustrate the troll. :lol: Occam
Does anyone know what a "concern troll" is? If not, you might want to read back through the thread postings. Just curious.You're probably right, Lee, but the members here enjoy discussing anything, and also we pretty quickly go off topic to something else that happens to be more interesting no matter what the thread title and first post are about. So, rather than the troll frustrating us, we probably frustrate the troll. :lol: Occam *cues eeeeevil music* ;-P
Does anyone know what a "concern troll" is? If not, you might want to read back through the thread postings. Just curious.I suspect you know what it is, but for those who don't: Concern Troll: A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending. But I'm not sure who you mean. Maybe I'm just being dense. Lois
I’m pretty sure Lee meant Durkan, who was sort of a jerk in his posts.
Occam
Many trolls don’t know they are trolls. Durkan has shown a lack of desire to engage in dialog, rather he keeps repeating his diatribe. I suspect he is sincere in his thinking that “we”, the “atheist community” need to do something that competes directly with religion. He may be unaware that people are doing that, since there are many examples and he’s mentioned none. He certainly hasn’t presented any data or even an expert opinion. He might as well be telling us to believe in Jesus to save our souls, because without anything other than his personal experience, I read his stuff for entertainment purposes only.
Many trolls don't know they are trolls. Durkan has shown a lack of desire to engage in dialog, rather he keeps repeating his diatribe. I suspect he is sincere in his thinking that "we", the "atheist community" need to do something that competes directly with religion. He may be unaware that people are doing that, since there are many examples and he's mentioned none. He certainly hasn't presented any data or even an expert opinion. He might as well be telling us to believe in Jesus to save our souls, because without anything other than his personal experience, I read his stuff for entertainment purposes only.I think you're spot on. Often times, these earnest "quasi-trolls" are more frustrating than the real deal. That being said, and in durkan's defense, I don't think his point is completely without merit. I think secular organizations do have a challenge ahead in trying to create that unique sense of community and common cause that small town churches often do. Although, whether that "unique sense of community and common cause that small town churches" often create is ultimately a positive unifying force in society rather than a force of divisiveness and spite is debatable. Did that make any sense whatsoever? Orphan Black is on right now and I'm a bit distracted...
You know, this whole thread has made me ask myself this question repeatedly. How much of the positive influences that religions claims to be the author of, is really just part of being human? Like morals, religion has long claimed to provide human beings with a moral compass that we now know are actually just part of being human. I read over and over how religious groups take care of each other and it seems to me that the assumption is that those good works are the products of religions and religious communities, not because those people were good people regardless of where or if they attended a church. I don’t believe for a minute that our desire to help each other evaporates because we leave religion behind. And, I don’t think even religious people do good things only to please their god, they’re just good people to start with. But, when the topic of “what religions do right” comes up, we secularist kind of buy right into the idea that we are less caring about our communities and don’t take steps to help others out. This thread has been filled with lots of examples that prove that assumption wrong.
So I guess what I’m asking is, how many other things do we continue to let ourselves believe are things that only religions do or do well?
Also, a lot of what religion promote as it’s good works are really just proselytizing and propaganda, not charity work at all.
Exactly Handydan That’s when I realized I wasn’t a Christian. I was a “liberal” Christian, one who didn’t worry that much about the actual existence of Christ. Then I realized that organizing as a church only made sense if the stories were true. Morality comes from God, only if God exists, otherwise its just good people working together. And if that’s what we’re doing, then we shouldn’t be doing all that other stuff, because that would be immoral.
You know, this whole thread has made me ask myself this question repeatedly. How much of the positive influences that religions claims to be the author of, is really just part of being human? Like morals, religion has long claimed to provide human beings with a moral compass that we now know are actually just part of being human. I read over and over how religious groups take care of each other and it seems to me that the assumption is that those good works are the products of religions and religious communities, not because those people were good people regardless of where or if they attended a church. I don't believe for a minute that our desire to help each other evaporates because we leave religion behind. And, I don't think even religious people do good things only to please their god, they're just good people to start with. But, when the topic of "what religions do right" comes up, we secularist kind of buy right into the idea that we are less caring about our communities and don't take steps to help others out. This thread has been filled with lots of examples that prove that assumption wrong.I agree wholeheartedly. To quote Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
So I guess what I'm asking is, how many other things do we continue to let ourselves believe are things that only religions do or do well?If religion does anything better than your run-of-the-mill secular institution, it's that it creates social connections that facilitate volunteer work and the such. I think there actually is good evidence that churchgoers are more likely to volunteer for soup kitchens, food banks, homeless outreach programs, etc. than their avowed-secularist counterparts.
Also, a lot of what religion promote as it's good works are really just proselytizing and propaganda, not charity work at all.I agree, and this is what annoys me about studies that purport to show that churchgoers give more to charity than the nonreligious. For one thing, much of this data comes from tax returns and I suspect that churchgoers are particularly savvy about getting the maximum tax deduction for unverifiable, "honor system" contributions such as the pass-the-basket-around-the-pews variety of "tithing". I know first hand that churches are eager to give advice to their flock on how to get charitable tax deductions because this encourages more donations to such churches. Secondly (and I think this is the point you're making), most of the money donated to churches doesn't end up being used for anything that would be remotely considered charity in a non-religious organization. In fact, churches don't even have to file the same tax forms that every other non-profit does--their propriety is basically taken on faith by the Federal Government. Imagine donating money to a movie theater where 90+% of it is used for paying concession stand cashiers, installing some beautiful stained-glass windows, and having a speaker come every Sunday to talk about his or her devotion to various film characters and the moral values that can be learned from them--while less than 10% of the revenues went to actual charity. Good luck with that tax write off. ;~) (By comparison, the average church spends 82% of its revenue on personnel, buildings, and administration expenses alone--and that doesn't even take into account the cost of other, non-charitable religious/recreational expenses.) Another part of these studies is, of course, self-reporting. Apparently, churchgoers claim to give more to charity than non-churchgoers. There's one problem with this; if everyone who claimed to be regular churchgoers in polls actually were regular churchgoers, the U.S. would need like 50% more churches than it actually has (if I remember correctly) in order to service all of these supposed "churchgoers". In other words, a hell of a lot of these "churchgoers" are lying--which means they may not be the most trustworthy sources for self-reporting on charitable giving.
There is an alternative to mainstream religion that is friendly, warm and welcoming-- Scientology.
Lois
There is one thing about the “competition” as it were, for a wholesome, thriving secular community that we cannot ignore. They’ve been at the whole community group thing for centuries. We’ve just barely begun to come out so to speak and even though we know what goes into making a successful community group I think it’s generally harder to make a positive successful regular gathering about what you don’t believe as opposed to what you do believe.
It seems to me if the secularists want to form a strong community they need to focus on a positive way of giving to the community. There seems to be two real ways to go with non-belief, you can all get together and agree there’s no god and then go home, which is not very productive or you can do either the political activist thing or the volunteer to the community group thing. I’m not saying there is a hard line but many times the two types of participants in these groups have ideals that are polar opposites. Rarely do you see an cohesive mix of politics and volunteerism because the goals of the personality types differ. This is one of the reasons we have less success at this, multiple main goals is somewhat divisive.
It is also possible that this is a phase much like in the last century where every 5 people who varied in their opinions of religion started their own church. For the most part that has not worked out too well. Now, the mega churches are in full swing as the pendulum pulls back the other way. We could also be going through our own phases of adaptations.
JMO, of course.
MzLee
There is an alternative to mainstream religion that is friendly, warm and welcoming-- Scientology.Sarcasm, I assume. :-) Frankly, I don't know why Scientology gets such a bad rap. Are their beliefs really any more ridiculous than those of mainstream Christianity or other religions? Is the creepy, cultish behavior among some of the high level members really any creepier than the suicide bombings of random civilians by radical Islamists, the Catholic Church's facilitation of mass child rape and exploitation, much of protestant Christianity's shameless bigotry towards LGBT people, etc.?
There is an alternative to mainstream religion that is friendly, warm and welcoming-- Scientology.Sarcasm, I assume. :-) Frankly, I don't know why Scientology gets such a bad rap. Are their beliefs really any more ridiculous than those of mainstream Christianity or other religions? Is the creepy, cultish behavior among some of the high level members really any creepier than the suicide bombings of random civilians by radical Islamists, the Catholic Church's facilitation of mass child rape and exploitation, much of protestant Christianity's shameless bigotry towards LGBT people, etc.? I think because they bastardize the term "science" into something mythical to help validate their belief system. MzLee
There is an alternative to mainstream religion that is friendly, warm and welcoming-- Scientology.Sarcasm, I assume. :-) Frankly, I don't know why Scientology gets such a bad rap. Are their beliefs really any more ridiculous than those of mainstream Christianity or other religions? Is the creepy, cultish behavior among some of the high level members really any creepier than the suicide bombings of random civilians by radical Islamists, the Catholic Church's facilitation of mass child rape and exploitation, much of protestant Christianity's shameless bigotry towards LGBT people, etc.? Probably not, but I hear they harrass people who dare to leave. I haven't heard that mainstram religions do that. It's very cultish behavior. And, yes, I was being sarcastic. Lois
There is an alternative to mainstream religion that is friendly, warm and welcoming-- Scientology. LoisScientology is a finger in the eye of organized religion because it is an obvious scam based on the model of organized religion. And, it's a finger in the eye of science because try's to abscond the notion of rationality.