Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (7480)	4/6/2002 4:06:04 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I never thought about it that way before. Although people who don't know any better can sometimes decide to criticize the existentialists as a way to textual (offbase) critique, since some people assume all people who aren't religious must be fondling dog-eared copies of the Stranger and bemoaning the meaninglessness of life. Which, as you and I know, is not the case.

To: Solon who wrote (7480)	4/6/2002 5:06:48 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

That's an interesting point. One can make the point that the believer willing puts himself/herself in a vulnerable position when questioning the sincerity of a secularist's view. This all seems kind of silly, no?

To: Solon who wrote (7480)	4/6/2002 6:00:19 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

That's a really great post, Solon. I agree with your first paragraph. You said it beautifully. On the second paragraph: The basic criticism against the non believer (regardless of how moral or exalted is his/her character and values) ultimately must come down to the fact that he is an "infidel" and "Godless"...and, of course "blasphemous"...for not sharing the particular religious belief of the person he is talking to. I can see how a Pentecostal could approach a secularist with that kind of critique, but I think you're off the mark about the reaction of most people, who simply believe in God, and who may or may not attend church regularly. There isn't a judgement, but a mild curiosity.

To: Solon who wrote (7480)	4/7/2002 7:01:45 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 21057

A credo for atheists or secular humanists? Solon, your post suggests that atheists or secular humanists have no "dogma" other than their non-belief. You makes an excellent point. However, I raise the question of whether "non-belief" does indeed create its own credo. Here is a (clumsy? incomplete?) attempt to suggest a necessary belief system which would arise from the condition of non-belief per se, and which could provide grounds for non-personal challenge by believers. There is no inherent purpose or meaning to our existence, which occurred as a random or happenstance event of nature. There is no such thing as absolute morality; societies determine what is moral through logic, reason, and consensus, which determination is subject to change in tempo with time and circumstance. Humans are not born with any intuitive sense of what is moral, but can only learn it through education. Marriage is purely a civil contract between two persons, which can be entered into by any two parties or subsequently dissolved by them, consistent with any applicable laws enacted by society. The permissibility of choices concerning human life such as birth control, abortion, or euthanasia should be governed by the needs of society, as reflected through decisions by legislatures and courts. All religions are based upon superstition and mythology, have caused more harm than good in human history, and humankind would benefit from their disappearance. No expression of religion should be permitted in any any public school, nor in any public place. There is no such thing as "sin." No form or manner of individual behavior is immoral if it does not cause harm or pain to others. The highest aspiration for humankind should be the achievement of the greatest happiness for all. My point is, would it be possible for any atheist or secular humanist NOT to agree with any of these propositions?