Atheists and Humanists Group

[canada-goose]

I am trying to remember Akems razor. spelling is incorrect.

Occam's Razor, according to Wikipedia.
I'm not a huge fan of that set of arguments either. At least it's part of the fine tradition of religious debating rather than being an afterlife insurance policy, though.

 

[ocap]

Occam's Razor, according to Wikipedia.

I'm not a huge fan of that set of arguments either. At least it's part of the fine tradition of religious debating rather than being an afterlife insurance policy, though.

thanks for finding the correct spelling for Occam's Razor.

 

[jmandawn]

I prefer to say I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ rather than just calling myself a Christian. That being said the one thing Jesus commanded me to do was to "love" one another (John 15:17)

He didn't say ONLY love those like you but he said to love everyone the same. This includes agnostic, atheists, jew, catholic, gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and any other term/religion you can "classify" some one as. If you build your life on love even the most violent of storms in this world will be unable to shake you.

We have traveled all over the world and the natural beauty and majesty of places all over are overwhelming evidence of a Supreme Being in our opinion. My husband enjoys science very much but has no problem accepting God on faith.

If we would all "love" one another think about how much better a place the world would be.

 

[Rosa moschata]

I prefer to say I have a personal relationship with the natural world around me, logic and reasoning, rather than just calling myself a non-believer in religion. That being said the one thing which I remind myself is that I came to my own philosophy through lots of investigation, debate, thought and introspection, which was possible because of the freedom I enjoy to engage in these activities without reprisal (i.e., I live in a land where there are no blasphemy laws). For me to not allow someone else the same journey would be hypocrisy.

To see all the beauty in the world as evidence of a supreme being (because that being created it all), you must also accept all the horrible things in the world as its handiwork. When Sir David Attenborough, world-renowned naturalist, was asked if seeing all he's seen has given him a sense of god's pattern, he responded:

"Well, if you ask…about that, then you see remarkable things like that earwig and you also see all very beautiful things like hummingbirds, orchids, and so on. But you also ought to think of the other, less attractive things. You ought to think of tapeworms. You ought to think of … well, think of a parasitic worm that lives only in the eyeballs of human beings, boring its way through them, in West Africa, for example, where it's common, turning people blind. So if you say, 'I believe that God designed and created and brought into existence every single species that exists,' then you've also got to say, 'Well, he, at some stage, decided to bring into existence a worm that's going to turn people blind.' Now, I find that very difficult to reconcile with notions about a merciful God.
And I certainly find it difficult to believe that a God — superhuman, supreme power — would actually do that."

Some people look at things they think are wonderful and think that those things must have been purposely "created" for their own pleasure. Others realize that whether or not something is deemed "wonderful" or "awful" is very much dependent on the perceptions of the viewer -- a large, steaming pile of manure may not be "wonderful" for a human, but it is an absolute "joy" for the creatures inhabiting the soil. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and gods are in the eyes of the god-seekers.

For me, the very idea of thinking that a "being" or "creator" is responsible is merely the result of anthropomorphizing the unknown (i.e. "What moves the tides? Why, the Tide-Mover, of course!"). If that's the way you're comfortable understanding the world, then continue to do so. But it's a little condescending to say someone "enjoys science very much but has no problem accepting god on faith" because it implies that those of us who don't need to create a creator DO have a problem. We don't. We do just fine without one.

 

[ocap]

The times in my life when these kinds of "conversations" were the most "fun" was when both people in the conversation loved the other and both knew that the love existed.

 

[Rosa moschata]

I agree....so if you're not an Atheist/Humanist, then just scroll past this thread -- the same way we scroll past the prayer requests without commenting how we feel about prayer.

 

[Rosa moschata]

Some short YouTube videos further explaining things:

Secular Humanism

Sam Harris -- Secular Fundamentalism

Secularism -- A Short Film

#8 Atheism and Secular Humanism

Richard Dawkins on Humanism



Simply put, Secular Humanism is the philosophy of doing your best to make the world better, for the benefit of everyone including yourself -- not because some "being" is telling you to do so, or for some reward after death in an "afterlife" promised but never delivered. Use logic, reason, our human capacity for empathy, philosophical thought, and scientific insight to form your own morality. We are all one family of humanity.


One more short clip, regarding the question of morality without religion:

Richard Dawkins on Absolute Morality

 

[canada-goose]

I do like the Secular Humanist philosophy a lot. It's such a mouthful to say though.

 

[off-grid hen]

You managed to post videos I haven't seen. Well done!

 

[Adorkable]

Just wanted to say helloooooooo