Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gabriel Edilberto Cruz on July 13, 2011 at 8:56am

That post of yours reminded me of Ninoy's speech in the US when he said never to use violence against others, for this act will justify their violence. I as a humanist also share the same sentiments of doing non-aggression to those who believe. Given we may call them retards, should we force speech pathological individuals to speak, or judge them because they can speak good?

An attitude of bitterness or hatred, as well as any sort of unjustified competition, as well as aggressiveness towards others is possibly a projection of our attitudes against those whom we insist to justify our violence.

However, on pointing out criticisms against religion, I think one must understand it should be straightforward and more informative rather doing often casual things like God-busting or religion-bashing. Whenever we read works like that of Dawkins or Harris we see that criticisms are precised and informative rather delivered out of personal sentiments of bitterness and hatred.

We never have to be intelligent or intellectual to be atheists. We just have to keep our reasons relevant and always searching for solutions.

Confidence is not arrogance. We have to stay informative. We have to impress people around us, (non-believers, strong believers, or teenage bandwagon jerks), with our results. We have to impress them with our finished products rather our persuasion that it is an "important product".

Anyway, what makes us humans different as atheists or theists? (I know some would butt in the latter is dumb and stupid, but its a senseless statement beyond reasonable doubt) 

Surely what is obvious is what only differs is a pinch of our belief systems. Unless they are too fanatic to avoid atheists with their God-generated radar systems. But in a secular society, a Christian doing secular things and only leaving a few spaces for God (about 1%) to intervene, we can't judge them stupids agad. 

Permalink Reply by Gabriel Edilberto Cruz on July 19, 2011 at 12:56pm

I concur that there is no such a thing as atheist morality or a systematic notion of a secular morality. It has always been a blinding issue that the study of morality has to stay on two dilemmas, which are religion and irreligion. Given the fact that morality is itself without the necessary intervention of something supernatural, we must not assume it lest we accept the label that we are "dogmatic" or "close-minded". Perhaps the best suggestion here is a further study of moral standards among society without having to bother oneself with the presence of "religion-irreligion dilemma". In that case, even in conclusion as "atheist morality" (as one might want to call it), we made our fair contribution to research.

There will always be people of different values or manners that may tend to be either theist of atheist. I think this is where I have to personally objectify as a rational thinker, especially the fact that we are already gearing towards the public sphere. We just can't show off an organization with a chaos of people that tolerates diversity of thinking to the point of entertaining the spirit of paranoia and over-intellectualized hatred to things. We have to emphasize what we have, rather show a very wide perspective which includes things that we don't objectify. It's like telling a person in order to learn Romantic music he has to memorize the best song cycles of Schumann, piano transcriptions of Schubert by Liszt, and the piano studies of Chopin, plus the realism-inspired operas of Verdi and Puccini, and the nationalistic sentiments of the music dramas of Richard Wagner. (worse, if he doesn't know it, we often times call him a poser music lover). As an org we shouldn't staunch the threats of obscurantism by too-much complex ideas.

hehe, I tried to compare you with the daddy, not the retard son.