or
Join Now!
|
|
These are answers that Oldstillwild has provided in Atheism
| Question/Answer | | Mary_Susan asked on 01/17/08 - Then New Secularism--The New Athiesm
Center for Inquiry
Report for the Year 2007
The Rise of the New Secularism and the New Atheism
By Paul Kurtz, Chairman
The year 2007 is noteworthy for the sudden emergence of “the new secularism” and “the new atheism.” These two powerful intellectual forces have brought to public awareness the existence of widespread dissenting views on religion.
The new atheism, so-called, provoked widespread discussion because of the publication of several new books denying the existence of God—by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor Stenger—all contributors to Free Inquiry. Their views were not new to readers of Center for Inquiry or Prometheus Books publications; but for the first time they were presented to a broader public. They were praised by supporters and were criticized by conservative commentators who believe that the world is going to hell in a hand-basket, blaming secular liberals, notwithstanding the fact that the number of pro-God books published far exceeds those by unbelievers.
The new secularism, launched by Free Inquiry, is likewise skeptical of the claims of theistic religion, though it has a more comprehensive agenda for people who do not practice religion. It focuses primarily on: (1) the separation of church and state; (2) the secularization of ethical values; and (3) inspiration drawn from science, reason, philosophy, literature, and the arts—rather than from the books of Abrahamic religion. It appeals to large numbers of the unchurched worldwide who prefer secular, rather than otherworldly, values and who are indifferent to religion.
Although the new secularism emphasizes the methods of science, including skepticism, it offers affirmative humanist ethical values as an alternative to ancient creeds.
In the Muslim world, secularism is subjected to unremitting attack. Likewise in the United States, conservative theists seek to exorcize the souls of secular liberals. Critics from Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, and Dinesh D'Souza to Pope Benedict XVI are scathing about secularism and relativism. They insist that the twenty-first century will become “desecularized”—this seems to us to be an expression of pious hope. These views are reinforced by many Republican candidates in the primaries, especially Huckabee and Romney—singing hosannas to God. Regretfully, religiosity has also affected Democratic candidates, who chime in about the importance of “faith” in their personal lives. Happily, secularism still thrives in the contemporary world. Europe today is recognized as post-religious and secular. Similarly, so are many countries in Asia.
Comments? Oldstillwild answered on 01/17/08:well,
I do miss one feature,
and that would be Own (intro/inter/extra-spective)Experiences.......
I dont have to suffer from carrying the burden of these books,happily so!
But let alone that!
People do not change.
In the cause of the struggle for survival and in saving one's achieved level of prosperity and freedom,people'd feel a growing need to unite,preferably under guidance of charismatic leadership,by lack of which a simple reverend or priest would do......,who would politely curse the community once a week for its sinns....!
So,
my expectations are,death to secularism and even atheism.Dictatorship of religion,like communism.
Lets say,after Ive sneeked into my heaven.....(<:)~lol!
| | Question/Answer | | Peric1es asked on 12/30/07 - About Atheism Atheism, as commonly defined by atheists, expresses a lack of belief, or disbelief, in deities. It is not a positive belief in anything, but a negative concept. That is why atheists, inasmuch as they are atheists, are nothing like a coherent or concerted group. Organizations like American Atheists serve a role of broadcasting information more than anything else, because there cannot be concerted action when nobody agrees on what to do (except of course on direct concerns like the rights of atheists or separation of church and state). Most atheists disagree strongly on whenever atheism should be propagated, or promoted, and on the matter of doing so.
There are good reasons for this. An important premise is that we have to examine the problem in the light of the non-acceptance of atheism in our modern society. Surveys show that atheism is the least liked "religious belief," even below Scientology. When people prefer pseudo-robots who use electric circuits to find their past lives and exorcise small aliens from their body to atheists, you know there's at least an image problem.
From this fact, we must conclude that being an atheist requires a lot of intellectual independence. As I like to say, "To be open-minded is to be misanthropic; to most people, reasonable disagreement is hatred." At any rate, the independence of reason entails a strong possibility of non-cohesion. And when there are no strong, popularized positive systems of belief that appeal to this peculiar population, it is perfectly normal to find a total lack of cohesion.
In contrast, the role of faith has mostly been to give cohesion and focus to a group. Religion in particular steals the place of valid worldviews because its memetic complex of positive beliefs gives this sense of belonging to a group that supports one's views. Strong-atheism, being a positive belief, can fulfill part of this role. However, it is only a positive belief about one, inconsequential point, the existence of gods.
Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, ontological belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of metaphysical and epistemological deductions. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.
One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, "there is no god!" is not a very motivating call for most people. It's not that there are no reasons to fight the influence of religion in our daily lives. It's just that it's not a very inspiring call to arms. Besides, atheists, as a general rule, tend to be more intelligent, independent and productive people, and therefore have other things to do. The problem is that by doing so, they let society undermine their efforts through wasteful laws, customs and regulations.
Atheism and freethinking in general have nothing to go for them, apart from being reason-able and good. But reason and truth doesn't sell.
These problems are reflected in reality. Awareness of atheism has not really changed since the beginning of the Enlightenment. Indeed, it could be said with much evidence that the Golden Age of atheism is behind us.
The turn of the last century saw incredible atheist luminaries like Joseph McCabe, who wrote a whole library of atheist books and was a popular lecturer in his day, Robert Ingersoll, of whom opposing attorneys, when he testified in various causes, said that his eloquence "is famed over two continents and in the islands of the seas (...) and transcending the oratory of Greece and Rome", and who was foreseen as possible President of the United States (a thing that would be unthinkable today!), when atheist writers had columns in the newspapers of the day, and the orators of the field were more popular than the pop singers of today, even without considering the subsequent increase in population. Surely such men of valour do not have the opportunity, nor the popular demand, to express themselves today as they used to. Nowadays the only people who can muster that kind of frenzy are religious leaders and preachers.
Atheism is eternal in terms of human existence, but the conscious widespread notion of explicit atheism, as a choice of disbelief, is, in terms of meme complexes, very recent. There were people who put forward arguments for atheist of all times, but the term "a-theism" itself originates approximately from the end of the 16th century, and atheism itself did not start in earnest until the 19th century. This makes atheism one of the youngest established "religious beliefs." Not that atheism is religious, mind you, but it is the best designation we have for this type of position.
Because of this recent emergence, we have good reasons to suppose that the growth of atheism is due to simple propagation of the idea, and is not any kind of permanent trend. As religion's grip on culture has weakened, people can more easily assess this kind of positions. As the mediums of communication transcend distance and time, we can expect that most meme complexes will be quickly available to anyone, and that we will then attain the upper limit of possible belief, constrained by people's psycho-epistemological choices.
-F.Tremblay Oldstillwild answered on 12/31/07:Okay!
lets say,
Every happy day,
Next year olé!
but,
Without Tremblay,
coz what he say,
is not only unreadablay,
but also not tray!
The true atheistay
has an even so true alternativay!
So I say,
Good day
and continue counting my monay!
Bay!
| | Question/Answer | | Liz22 asked on 12/23/07 - I'll be right back. I'm bored and going to play the piano. I'm practicing the Ra ch 3. A very hard peace, but it gets my mind off my troubles.
So I promise if I don't get kicked off, I'll be back and I hope more will be here. Oldstillwild answered on 12/24/07:May the hope be with you! | | Question/Answer | | Liz22 asked on 12/23/07 - Welcome all! Hello everyone!
I wish to Thank Chou, to get away from that Judgmental and craziness's forum. That all can see belongs to only two people on there.
I had to get away from a couple of abusers. Although. I do believe in God. Please do not confuse me with Christianity.
Believing in God is my faith. I can not prove it.
But I refuse to study the Bible and live like the Christians do and not follow the Bible, or live by it.
How do you feel about the way Christianity is paving the way in this world? I see much hatred, and hardly any love.
Any Comments?
I wish Temp a safe trip back from England, and to know that he is missed. Although he is having a good time with his Children and Grandchildren.
I wish Bobbie would visit here, and not be afraid to ask any questions or be abuse by so call Christians. Oldstillwild answered on 12/24/07:Yeah Liz22!
this is the atheism board.
so,chances aint remote,that youll get disappointed here as well......
Anyway,
There is no god, baby!
so,I suggest you to find a friendlier christianity board or just cope with the villains there and try to get some change.....!
Its not done for godbelievers to let the villains rule!
Youre responsible too!
So,go back and do your duty!
| | Question/Answer | | Mary_Susan asked on 11/28/07 - 11-28-07 Good Afternoon atheists and friends Doris and I cut my hair today...it is in a raggety bob...there is no replacement for a professional hairdresser! Feels great, though.
In the news....Huckabee is ahead in the a poll in Iowa for the Republican nomination for President. He has that soothing manner, friends; I said a coule of years ago that the American people want a smart President who is as comfortable as an old pair of shoes to be with. Actually, I said avuncular. :D Same thing. I was talking about Al Gore who is rather pudgy now and very easy going. Could it be Huckabee vs Gore/Obama in 2008???
What in the news tickles your fancy??? Oldstillwild answered on 11/29/07:Huckleberry is just a fugitive at large
and
Gore is as easy a pudgy as a frozen marsmellow,never being able to connect to allahobama!
Obama will need all his physical power to move that guy forward!
Preferently to the depths of the Grand Canyon......
Allahobama needs a beep-beep roadrunner!
Otherwise he will get himself drowned in his pond of words!
What did I say.....beep-beep...always an attention detour at hand at the right moment...!
What am I delivering.....beep-beep.....well...nicely in time pal!
hi! | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 10/10/07 - Who Should Have the Right to.... ...define evil? Oldstillwild answered on 10/13/07:All the victims! | | Question/Answer | | MarySusan asked on 10/10/07 - Unite Under One Name??? "I note with interest that Margaret Downey organized a blockbuster atheist conference in the Washington, D.C. area to which she brought many of the “new atheists.” We congratulate her on her energy. However, may I agree with Sam Harris who states that in accepting the label of “atheist” that “we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture... a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms.”
May I first compliment Sam (as the newest kid on the block) for his two fine books and his eloquent voice now being heard on the national scene. May I then disagree with his subsequent “seditious proposal” that we should not call ourselves “secularists,” “humanists,” “secular humanists,” “naturalists,” “skeptics,” etc. “We should go under the radar for the rest of our lives,” he advises. We should be “responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.”
That sounds lofty but in my view it is counter-productive. For in order to develop new ideas and policies that are effective, we need to organize with other like-minded individuals. And a name is crucial. If we followed Sam’s advice, the critical opposition to religious claims would naturally collapse. If we generalize from this, we could not come together as Democrats or Republicans, Libertarians or Socialists, feminists or civic libertarians, world federalists or environmentalists, utilitarians or pragmatists. Should we operate only as single individuals who may get published or speak on street corners with little influence or clout? Come on, Sam, that is unrealistic; for almost no one would be heard and we would be lone voices in the city canyons, unheard and drowned out by the powerful media. We say that democracy best functions when the citizens of a country unite under whatever label they choose to achieve what they deem to be worthy goals. True, you have had a best-seller which brought you to the public forum. But for most people the opportunity to affect the public debate is lost unless they work together with others to make their views heard, and unless they build institutions dedicated to their ideals and to the values they hope will endure."--Paul Kurtz
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What is your opinion??? Why? Oldstillwild answered on 10/13/07:Change starts with the individual.
No individual with the one and only true philosophy will be able to get his or her thoughts accross,than by individual demonstration.
Try to unite people on the one and only true philosophy and youll find no companions whatsoever.
So,
all people united on whatever grounds and under whatever name are not trustworthy in their fundamentals.
All organisations of united people are counterproductive and would produce only a bunch of hypocrits,screaming "halleluja"(not necessarily religious) when
having a meeting.HOAX is a good synonym for organisation.Or VOID.Or IDLE.Halleluja!
Let the snowball roll.
Change the world,starting with yourself ,is the only trustworthy phrase here.
Only,that starting......seems to be the biggest problem....!
The only thing one has to do and remaining is,being trustworthy to oneself on a basis of honesty,righteousness and all other virtues you can think of.
No organisation needed AT ALL! | | Question/Answer | | Toms777 asked on 08/29/07 - Good news! This seems to be an appropriate time to discuss why Jesus went to the Cross to die.
Rom 3:21-24
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV
We are all lost and have condemned ourselves because of our own sins, thepenalty for which is....
Rom 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death,
NKJV
Has anyone not sin? No, Romans 3:23 is clear about that, so that means that all of us, barring removal of our sins, are destined for death. Unless a Saviour comes along, we have no hope.
So, if we need to be saved, by implication none who require a salvation, and thus none who have sinned can be the Saviour. Thus we need to find someone who does not need a Saviour, one who is sinless, yet scripture says:
Rom 3:9-12
10 As it is written:
"There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
NKJV
So how does one find a Saviour? Let's see who is qualified.
Isa 43:3
3 For I am the LORD your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
NKJV
God is our Saviour. He is sinless. Are there others?
Hos 13:4
4 "Yet I am the LORD your God
Ever since the land of Egypt,
And you shall know no God but Me;
For there is no Savior besides Me.
NKJV
No, there is no one else qualified. There is but one way to the Father.
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
NKJV
Therefore if Jesus is the Saviour, he must be God in the flesh:
1 Tim 3:16
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
NKJV
It is interesting to note that Jesus name in Hebrew (Yeshua) means Salvation.
But is there not another way?
John 3:3
3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
NKJV
No, you must be born again.
Because Jesus was born in the flesh to enter the world as a man, Jesus is called the Son of God. Why would God come to earth to die for rebellious mankind?
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
NKJV
We also need to remember that as a man, He suffered all that we do and more, and it thus He knows our trials and tribulations. Further, He, as God, is merciful towards us because of His love and desired that none should perish.
Heb 2:17-18
17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
NKJV
And what is the impact of receving Jesus Christ as Saviour?
John 3:36
36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
NKJV
Rom 5:11
11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
NKJV
And this opportunity is open to all.
Rom 10:10-13
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."
NKJV
And there is absolutely nothing that we as men can do to save ourselves:
Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV
If you have not yet made the decision to receive Jesus as Saviour, please consider His invitation:
Rev 3:20-22
20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
NKJV
Remember what I said early that if one Saviour had finished the job, the rest would not be necessary?
John 19:30
30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
NKJV
Thus, Jesus finished the job. But the story did not end.
1 Cor 15:3-8
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
NKJV
So Jesus was resurrected on the third day and is alive today and ready to receive those who call upon His name in truth and are ready to accept Him as Lord and Saviour.
John 3:16-19
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
NKJV
This is what all those who are born again are celebrating when we celebrate Easter. It is the fact that through Christ Jesus, we can be born again as a result of His sacrofice on the cross.
And further that He did not stay dead, but He was resurrected, proving the fact that He truly was God in the flesh!
May God bless those who read and listen to the words of the gospel from scripture.
Those who would like to better understand the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ as given in the Bible are welcome to contact me at smithtj.geo@yahoo.com, or thorugh my website at Discern.ca Oldstillwild answered on 08/29/07:well,
you,like all religious people , are limiting yourself to a source outside yourself,whilst the true solution is to be found within yourself....!
Yes,
you can be your own saviour!
There is not a single person or creature,in the past,present or future,who is able to save anyone!
No need to prove that......!
And if youre going to start to talk about evidence....
Yes,
the evidence,thats me,baby!
and you can be it as well,if you want it!
Look into yourself and you must conclude,that you dont have a shred of evidence of anything you are alleging...!
If I look into myself and at my experiences and accomplishments,I know,that there is no god (needed) ,but only truthful accomodation of your (inner)self!
Because its all about LIFE itself and what you do with your life as well as what you let LIFE do for you(which is very much if you let it;many of the occurrences ascribed to (a or any!)god,are due to LIFE itself).
There is nothing or no one who will punish you for anything.
There is no omnipotent creature at all.
Youll have to discover and work and live with the limitations of your life and LIFE itself.
And that is very rewarding.....!
The only thing one is doing,is denying oneself the fruitfull support of LIFE itself,if one doesnt acknowledge the power of LIFE.
But these rewards are so big,that one will never leave his or her lifestile in order not to lose these advantages.
There is no god.
|
|
|
|
