When has religion irked you personally and why?

Craven has said what I would like to have said, but had not the wherewithal to do. It is obvious maliagar does not want a level playing field in any of this.

OK, OK, you're not taking my arguments seriously... you're just having a little bit of fun... :wink:

I'll take you seriously (sort of) one more time:



Do you know how to read? I didn't ask for celebrities. I asked for examples (famous or not). You know the difference, right? Example is a case; celebrity is a famous case. Get it now?

And the point was to examine those examples, to see:

(1) the extent and radicalism of their commitment, and

(2) if this commitment really was a result of embracing the Secular Humanist faith (or of other influences).

But you're avoiding this simple point by trivializing it. The issue is not the spotlight, fame, fortune, or awards, oh profound Craven... Check this out:

- In Auschwitz St. Maximilian Kolbe was not under the spotlight when he volunteered to die in place of another inmate (a death of starvation; after almost 2 months he was the only one left barely alive - he was killed with a lethal injection - the inmate he saved is still alive). And once Max Kolbe died, his name did not hit the news for decades. Most people in this forum hadn't heard of him.

- Father Damien was not under the spotlight when he volunteered to go and work alone among the lepers in a forgotten island near Hawaii. And when he decided to share the life and death of a leper, his name did not hit the news. Most people in this forum hadn't heard of him.

- Mother Teresa, dear Craven, had been working for decades with Calcutta's poorest of the poor before anybody noticed her. Some people in this forum don't even recognize her picture.

- Right now there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people doing exactly that, and nobody notices.

So, what is it that makes these kinds of commitments possible? What kind of character, holiness, and specific spiritual motivation makes these sacrifices possible? Are we likely to find comparable generosity among secular humanists? What kind of a world would we have if Secular Humanism triumphed?

Once again, the issue is the kind of lifelong commitment (under the spotlight, away from the spotlight, I DON'T CARE). And you're still unable to mention one of the tens of hundreds of thousands of famous or anonymous cases you know.



I know: You've met many many many many many :wink: . Mention one (inspired by secular humanism, of course). Tell us what this person did, and how Secular Humanism motivated him or her to do it. Then compare it with the examples I brought.



Yes, yes, yes, yes. You've said thousands of times already that there are thousands of secularists helping millions of poor and sick and destitute. Present one case for our consideration.


Of course. I never denied it. I could even help you mention some examples… But my intention escapes your grasp: I just want to examine how radical their commitment to others can be. Get it now?


Well, let's see: How many people would agree that sacrificing your life for others is a good thing? The Communists did. Is this a specifically Christian idea? Or is it a value that is shared by larger groups of people (I already mentioned this, but once again, it escaped your attention).



No, that's not my point. That's what happens when you don't read carefully.



Thousands upon thousands upon thousands. I just want to mention one example. Of course, you cannot mention those who were in any way influenced by religion. I am waiting for your Secular Humanist Hero!!!

Seriously.

:wink:

maliagar, What is your definition of a "Secular Humanist Hero?" c.i.

maliagar, Are YOU a religious humanist hero? c.i.

When will you get that I do not make heros out of secular humanists?

When will you get my refusal to play your name dropping game?

When will you get that whether or not people on this forum recognize Mother T's picture has nothing to do with your attempt to differentiate the morality of the religious versus the secular?

See, I have said since the beginning that the "let's measure the size of their charitable peni" game was silly and that I'd not play.

Your respose has just been "play, play". I am addressing your uderlying implication that religious people and secular people have differing morals.

Again (not that you'll get it) I am disinterested in dropping names with you.

Maliager - "Do you know how to read?"

A serious response wouldn't attack the reader personally, esp. as the very first argument. So the rest of the post was ... scrolled. Sorry 'bout that.




----------
"Gimme somethinna lurk to!"

I'm asking these questions, because I thought we all belonged to the "human race" with all its warts and beauty. Belonging to any man-made organization is simple, but if you wish to glorify the your own organization with praise and accolade, you must also see and claim the sins and dastardly deeds - past and present. If you are unwilling to see the atrocities perpetrated by the organization you belong to, it's called blind to the truth. So get over it, maliagar, and get real. c.i.

How convenient...

I don't care about who you admire, or if you admire nobody at all.

I don't care if you don't have any heroes whatsoever...

I'm asking you to tell me one of those thousands of stories of secularists types who did things comparable to Max Kolbe and such.


I'm getting your refusal to provide empirical evidence for one of your arguments (that secular types are equally capable of doing very good things).

Fine. If you can't, no need to sweat...

We can leave it there then. :wink:

Not the first time a A2K fellow is unable to provide empirical evidence for his strongly held opinions...

:wink:

Maliagar,

Will you first assert that a secular humanist has never existed? That's the only way that getting me to anme one would be relevant.

If you think there already has been a secular humanist then naming one is pointless.

This isn't aboout me not coming up with empirical evidence to support my claim. This is about you making a claim and then creating an elaborate game that everyone should play if they disagree.

Do you assert that there have been no secular humanists? If so I'll take it from there.

You guys are allowing Maliagar to dictate how this discussion will or will not go.

Maliagar, to his credit, has learned to use the methods his church uses when troublesome issues are raised.

When it happens with his church, his church simply ignores the issue -- pretends it is not there -- disregards it -- and changes the topic to something else -- a "something else" that they can handle.

That is what Maliagar is doing.

With all the respect in the world, folks, you all gotta change your tactics and require that he deal with the difficult items.

Yep.

I agree with Frank.

It's been obvious for quite some time.

Maliagar is welcome to his or her point of view.

I suppose it is awkward at the party, but what about the original question?
Not all of us want to play on constructed scaffolds.

truth
Gasp! Thanks Osso for suggesting we all just wake up from this bad dream (this constructed scaffold). I been amazed at the level of tolerance and energy shown here.

The Chinese have been building scaffoldings from bamboo for many centuries, because they are flexible and strong.

Actually, I think the entire diversion addresses the question of the thread quite nicely.

When a discussion becomes a diatribe, I want OUT. I think that it is extremely presumptious for people of faith to attempt to proselytize others. I have my beliefs, thank you. If I want to discuss faith, fine. But I do not appreciate monologues from people whose raison d'etre is to assemble a claque of people with rubber stamp beliefs.

I went through this when I was very young. I had "discovered" a philosophy of life, and made a total ass of myself by attempting to convince people of the rightness of my beliefs, and to convince them that my beliefs were the "right" way. I found that people were beginning to back away from me.

This philosophy is still with me, and colors a good bit of the way that I view the world. Even so, I do not embrace it wholesale. As an older person, I have learned that it is the height of naivete to incorporate an entire body of thought out of whole cloth. As intelligent beings, we have the capacity to think for ourselves, an option that is denied people of certain religious persuasions. I will NEVER accept a concept just because a religious body, a philosopher, or a politician said so.

Right on, big Ph.

Maybe this will give you an answer for me, as well as a path to a solution.