Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
You had to have breakfast with E. O. Wilson, the next day, if you wanted to fully understand what that video-conference stunt was all about. But, I still don't think it was worth interrupting Rushdie for.
Here are skeptics, demonstrating that they can read the Bible, without either them or the Bible bursting into flames.
![]()
You can be a Deist.
I could be wrong, but I suspect there are some people who believe in a deity, participate in a pseudo-religious humanistic congregation, and yet do not claim to derive their morals from their deity - they derive them this secular groundwork. So, the "religion" they practice takes on more of a personal-comfort role.
All of those churches would, more or less, go into the business of personal comfort, I guess. Perhaps something closely akin to the entertainment industry, but of a more personal and psychologically necessary (for some people) nature.
Also, as a reminder, I did correct that part of my writing by pointing out that most Humanists probably are atheists, or at the very least agnostics.
The Freedom of Speech applies to government intervention. As a collection of private, non-government organizations, the Humanist movement does have the right to say "we will not support any group that tries to make claims of fact that are clearly and demonstratably false", if it wants to.
Not all people who believe in God believe theirs is the One True God. Many believers are willing to admit that there are many equally "legitimate" ways to praise the Lord.
There could be issues of diplomacy, here. It might be a better strategy to reverse the steps: Do not call them "stupid" right off the bat. Instead, just give them a little education, and let them try to discover for themselves that their ideas could be called stupid.
That could well be true, but I think morality could best be "measured" in the actions one takes, not in where they claim those morals came from. If one acts like a very good, moral person, even if their beliefs are based on "stupid" ideals, I don't think you can generally call them immoral.
Sure, it ended up acting as a bad side effect, in the end.
That does not diminish the importance of acknowledging that spirituality is integrated into our evolution, and it is simply not that easy to shed off completely.
...
Although is it not the goal of Humanism to get rid of all religion, in a way Humanism might be the best bet for accidentally having it got rid of. Here's an analogy to think about:
Most people who have successfully quit smoking, have done so by slowly weaning themselves away from the habit, rather than just up-and-quitting cold turkey.
...
Perhaps the best strategy for ridding the world of religion is to allow it to get weaned away, slowly, generation by generation.
If you attempt to up-and-rip-out religion from the people, cold turkey, you are going to get a lot of resistance, and it could backfire: Many people will cling to their beliefs even stronger, if they feel they are threatened.
I say let religion fade away, slowly, in an evolutionary process, much like how it got into our mentality, in the first place. Humanism could be a step in that process: It could end up functioning like a nicotine patch.
See the responses in bpesta's link.
A Deist believes in the existence of God, and that God created the universe.
I don't see it. Could you quote the relevant parts?
No, not in the end. From the very beginning, superstition has always been a bad side effect.
And maybe this isn't the place to do it, but I also wanted to mention that possibly my favorite part of the weekend was on Sunday morning. I was playing a football game at Harvard Stadium, and I looked up to see Glenn and Laura sitting in the shade watching. Yay! I've never had fans in the audience, and they totally skipped E. O. Wilson to see me play. I mean, I was definitely the #1 reason why the skipped E. O. Wilson. Definitely. Anyway, it was nice.
But a Deist also believes that the creator God no longer has any influence in the Universe, and therefore that there will be no supernatural savior.
My interpretation of "militant" here is someone who is "excessively confrontational." Do you know of any atheists who are excessively confrontational?
Who is more likely to bring secularized-but-recently-religious people into the fold of humanism, Julia Sweeney or Brian Flemming?
I'd disagree with that. It's usually safer to believe in something that's not true than to not believe in something that is true.
Superstitions saved our ancestors' butts enough in the past for us to have evolved a tendency to be superstitious.
My understanding is that Deists believe that God does not intervene, whether or not he/she/it is omnipotent or omniscient.Apart from those being not exclusive, you can't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god that stops being both, or either.
How so?
I forgot I had peoples' phone numbers in my cell phone! (like fasionmars') Jeez Louise...*shakes head in shame*
Alright here are links to my photo albums in facebook. There are 200+ pictures. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th albums have the juicier pictures.
Album 1: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159783&l=0f08f&id=2505785
Album 2: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159816&l=daea0&id=2505785
Album 3: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159887&l=9b153&id=2505785
Album 4: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159891&l=37aea&id=2505785
Album 5: http://ucla.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2159894&l=40d19&id=2505785
Enjoy!
And yeah, I got confused, it was Hawkeye...Hawkeye and I had a discussion about the several Hawe---- people on the forum.
Sorry Hawkeye!
You had to have breakfast with E. O. Wilson, the next day, if you wanted to fully understand what that video-conference stunt was all about. But, I still don't think it was worth interrupting Rushdie for.
Eh, we were just getting drunk in a pizza place in Harvard Square, I doubt you would have enjoyed that very much.
![]()
You had to have breakfast with E. O. Wilson, the next day, if you wanted to fully understand what that video-conference stunt was all about. But, I still don't think it was worth interrupting Rushdie for.