There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
User talk:ListenerX/On Secular Humanism
On Secular Humanism[edit]
I'm not sure I understand the author's point of this quote. What is your take?--En attendant Godot"Such is life." 14:29, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- Mr. Bonewits explains himself more fully here (although in doing so he goes way over the top). I think he was trying to point out that Western atheists often reject non-Abrahamic religions not on their merits, but on the basis of what Christianity has to say about them.
- In this vein, many atheists (e.g., Richard Dawkins) think that all they have to do to argue for atheism is to disprove the idea of a monotheistic creator like YHVH, and secular humanists only reject a part of Christianity.
ListenerXTalkerX 15:02, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- Ah, that makes sense to me. I've often had that problem with some atheist writers. They lump all religion into one category, not understanding things like the Atheistic aspects of Buddhism, the pantheistic and panENtheistic aspects of some native American religion, for example or the monadism of Spinoza and Einstein. I have always been comfortable saying I can virtually *prove* that the tri omni god does not exist. But there would be no way to argue or prove that a pantheists' god does not exist, since it is by definition "all of creation" without transcendence.--
En attendant Godot"Such is life." 15:46, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- I tried to argue roughly the same thing in my first essay.
ListenerXTalkerX 16:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
- I tried to argue roughly the same thing in my first essay.
- Ah, that makes sense to me. I've often had that problem with some atheist writers. They lump all religion into one category, not understanding things like the Atheistic aspects of Buddhism, the pantheistic and panENtheistic aspects of some native American religion, for example or the monadism of Spinoza and Einstein. I have always been comfortable saying I can virtually *prove* that the tri omni god does not exist. But there would be no way to argue or prove that a pantheists' god does not exist, since it is by definition "all of creation" without transcendence.--
no gods[edit]
I don't believe in any gods, whichever you pick to say I don't believe in, they don't exist. They can make for fun stories, of course, and some gods make better fiction than others. Like the Thor hammer I made out of a shovel handle wrapped in strips of a dead vinyl soccer ball as a seven-year old. Sadly, I didn't have the biceps for the job, so I ceased to believe. ħuman 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)