- Joined
- 4 February 2006
- Posts
- 564
- Reactions
- 0
needs refocussing methinks as its getting a little distortion in there already - original stated wars not secularistic humanism
I agree with 20/20 its a funny quote, but its not a true quote.
Wars are caused by what's in the human heart - envy, greed, jealousy, hate, and love of power and control. Sometimes religion is used as a excuse for these, and some religions use them more often than others, and some sections of certain religions more so than other sectors.
However, the 20th Century put paid forever to the idea that religion is the root cause of war. Secularistic humanism in its different guises killed more people under Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and others than all the religious wars put together.
re the causes of war - (many exchanges on this with Rafa - who agrees with you)I agree with 20/20 its a funny quote, but its not a true quote. .
needs refocussing methinks as its getting a little distortion in there already - original stated wars not secularistic humanism
It's a bit too simplistic to class everyone secular as a humanist. It's just blatantly incorrect. Hedonists wouldn't be humanists in most cases, and I certainly wouldn't class Stalin or Hitler as humanists, because they were only interested in the certain advancement of specific groups, not human kind as a whole.I used secular humanism as the opposite of 'religions'. In other words, the non-religious or atheistic/agnostic would be categorised as 'secular' or 'humanistic'.
Or to put it differently, much of the carnage, wars and killing in the 20th century was carried out by those who didn't believe in God, were adamantly opposed to religion, and believed instead in the improvement and progress of the human species without religion or God.
ditto wys , lolHappy 2008
Hi Treefrog,
Not sure I quite understand what you are saying.
I used secular humanism as the opposite of 'religions'. In other words, the non-religious or atheistic/agnostic would be categorised as 'secular' or 'humanistic'.
Or to put it differently, much of the carnage, wars and killing in the 20th century was carried out by those who didn't believe in God, were adamantly opposed to religion, and believed instead in the improvement and progress of the human species without religion or God.
re-reading my original post i see my omission of quotation marks and just use of return to start my own comment needs clarification
the orignal should have been
"while i really like u, afraid I'll have to kill u because my imaginary friend doesn't agree with your imaginary friend"
my comment on this is .....and >90% of wars have occured because these imaginary friends don't agree - I feel well able to get by without an imaginary friend
Your definition of religion is much narrower than mine (and that of the Macq concise) that being, (ensures quotes this time),
"1. The quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe."
I still find it hard to cite a war, terrorist event, or political atrocity (if we are into separating them) that doesn't fit in there, including stalin, hitler, bush and co
It's a bit too simplistic to class everyone secular as a humanist. It's just blatantly incorrect. Hedonists wouldn't be humanists in most cases, and I certainly wouldn't class Stalin or Hitler as humanists, because they were only interested in the certain advancement of specific groups, not human kind as a whole.
And because of that, most religions at their core, are humanistic in nature...
If you are going to call Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot religious, when they were all as atheistic and anti-religious as possible, persecuting followers of all religions, then you are being a bit disingenous. Likewise Hitler with his perfectability of the Aryan race, hated Christianity and persecuted any church or individual that didn't roll over and give him absolute support. These people were not Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, etc, so to claim their atrocities, and killings as part of the religious total is plainly incorrect and misleading.
What is god.....good question but what has it got to do with trading...... as we all know , market action/ market depth is god on the equity matket.... not meaning to be sacriligeous ...... lol
go go go fdl
refined
I quoted the Concise Macquarie Dictionary's primary definition of religion hoping to clarify; but you have your own narrower definition - fair enough.
To me those crackpots clearly fit the definition of religious - I would be interested to know how they don't fit that Macq definition.
refined
I quoted the Concise Macquarie Dictionary's primary definition of religion hoping to clarify; but you have your own narrower definition - fair enough.
To me those crackpots clearly fit the definition of religious - I would be interested to know how they don't fit that Macq definition.
Atheism is actually a religion, and Dawkins followers, even tho some fail to realise this, are actually part of a religious movement.
This is a fairly clear definition of secular humanism:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what §ion=main
This is a fairly clear definition of secular humanism:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what §ion=main
Why on Earth would I think a thing like that?
But yes, the rest of your post there is along the lines of perhaps the most reasonable arguments for god's existence. Which is akin to the "Best of all possible worlds" theory, coined by Leibniz - which was then famously ridiculed by Voltaire in Candide (you can find out the literal translatin of that in French pretty easily). Leibniz has one of the only 2 arguments for god's existence that I think is in any way remotely possible, and although I hate to disappoint, are in absolutely no way congruent with any western religion.
But if you want to get into arguments needing the assumption of god, check out Berkeley. "To be is to be perceived" and all that jazz, really awesome stuff. Had some pretty big ding dong battles with Newton as well...
Ok I have no problem with calling them religious, if you like. But using this definition everyone becomes religious, including the hedonist. Tell me your beliefs and I will tell you your religion.
Hence to use this definition and and then say 90% of all wars are started by religions is firstly meaningless, as under this definition everyone is religious, and secondly it is purposely misleading, as most people reading the statement, associate religion with the major organised religions, usually to do with God .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?