Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

Some profound witness stories from a gathering of 20,000 young people who have discovered God and found true meaning in their lives - contrasting with the shallow self centred nature of secular society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUOmU3ItXgo

Your 20,000 people should be glad they live in a secular society. If they lived in a religious one, but the religion wasn't the one they professed, they would be in serious trouble.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I witness to the obvious truth that we are in control of our own destiny by the God given power of our human soul.

No you don’t “witness to” that, you just assert it to be so with no justifying argument. Just calling something “obvious” is not an argument.   

Again then: why won’t you find out something about how logically sound arguments should be constructed? Is it:

A. Because you can’t be bothered;

B. Because you’re frightened of the possible consequences if you did;

C. Because you just don’t understand the question; or

D. Something else?

You literally only need answer this with one letter so I really can’t make it any simpler or less onerous for you to do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Here are some more things that are obviously true:

Chameleons change colour to match their surroundings

Bulls hate the colour red

Specific tastes correspond to different parts of the tongue

Coffee comes from beans

Sharks can smell blood from a mile away

Salted water boils faster

Pineapples grow on trees

Chimpanzees have more hairs than humans

There is zero gravity in space

Bagpipes were invented in Scotland

Just one problem though – none of them actually are true. Can you see now why something being “obvious” isn’t an argument for its truthfulness? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your 20,000 people should be glad they live in a secular society. If they lived in a religious one, but the religion wasn't the one they professed, they would be in serious trouble.

This post reeks of wanting to be shown gratitude for the freedoms others enjoy. Secular societies such as atheistic totalitarian states can be just as oppressive as theocratic totalitarian States.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some profound witness stories from a gathering of 20,000 young people who have discovered God and found true meaning in their lives - contrasting with the shallow self centred nature of secular society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUOmU3ItXgo

But from what I can see this is a convention of young catholics the vast, vast majority of whom will have been brought up as catholics, to believe the catholic faith etc.

Pivot to Israel and the equivalent young people would have been brought up jewish and would be at a convention telling the interviewing how wonderful it is to be amongst so many jews and how important the jewish faith is. Pivot to, for example, Turkey and the equivalent young people would have been brought up muslim and would be at a convention telling the interviewing how wonderful it is to be amongst so many muslims and how important the islam is.

It tells you little more than how effective upbringing and cultural expectations are. But, of course, despite the huge pressures from the catholic church, catholic societal culture etc to ensure upbringing churns out more young catholics certainly in the UK nigh on 50% of 'cradle' catholics reject that religion as adults. Where are those dissenting voices in your clip AB?

[ProfessorDavey]

This post reeks of wanting to be shown gratitude for the freedoms others enjoy. Secular societies such as atheistic totalitarian states can be just as oppressive as theocratic totalitarian States.

Face plant - a secular society, by definition, is neutral towards religion, neither favouring individuals nor discriminating against them on the basis of whether they are religious or not.

A secular society that oppresses religion is an oxymoron as it wouldn't be secular.

Perhaps you are confusing failing to provide special privileges for religions and the religious with oppression of religions and the religious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Face plant - a secular society, by definition, is neutral towards religion, neither favouring individuals nor discriminating against them on the basis of whether they are religious or not.

A secular society that oppresses religion is an oxymoron as it wouldn't be secular.

Perhaps you are confusing failing to provide special privileges for religions and the religious with oppression of religions and the religious.

Instead of "White saviour" nonsense, we are getting "Secular saviour" nonsense.

I confuse nothing since atheist organisations frequently assume the title secular then change the meaning to "a collection of believers and non believers" as it suits.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This post reeks of wanting to be shown gratitude for the freedoms others enjoy. Secular societies such as atheistic totalitarian states can be just as oppressive as theocratic totalitarian States.

Seriously though? You’ve been corrected on this several time in the past, so why return to the same mistake here?

Once again: states that were/are formally atheistic didn’t behave horribly because the tenets of atheism so dictated; states that were/are theistic did behave horribly because the tenets of their faith mandated them to do so. That is, you’re attempting a false equivalence. Hitler and Stalin wore trousers – you might as well therefore cite the oppressive totalitarianism of trouser-wearing states.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Instead of "White saviour" nonsense, we are getting "Secular saviour" nonsense.

What on earth are you on about. A secular society is one where individuals are neither favoured nor discriminated against on the basis of their religion or lack thereof. If a society is systematically oppressing individuals due to their religious beliefs then it isn't a secular society.

[ProfessorDavey]

I confuse nothing since atheist organisations frequently assume the title secular then change the meaning to "a collection of believers and non believers" as it suits.

There we go again, as usual. Vlad failing to understand the difference between atheist and secular. How many times do we have to spell it out.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Here are some more things that are obviously true:

Chameleons change colour to match their surroundings

Bulls hate the colour red

Specific tastes correspond to different parts of the tongue

Coffee comes from beans

Sharks can smell blood from a mile away

Salted water boils faster

Pineapples grow on trees

Chimpanzees have more hairs than humans

There is zero gravity in space

Bagpipes were invented in Scotland

Just one problem though – none of them actually are true. Can you see now why something being “obvious” isn’t an argument for its truthfulness?

These examples are so trivial in comparison to the question at stake.
The question is about the most fundamental truth in our existence.
What comprises "you"?
Are "you" in control?
Can "you" achieve anything in your own right?
Or are "you" just a label attached to a group of material elements driven by physically determined material reactions with no real purpose or meaning?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

These examples are so trivial in comparison to the question at stake.
The question is about the most fundamental truth in our existence.
What comprises "you"?
Are "you" in control?
Can "you" achieve anything in your own right?
Or are "you" just a label attached to a group of material elements driven by physically determined material reactions with no real purpose or meaning?

Your inability to grasp even a simple argument is letting you down again here. You implied in a previous post that being “obvious” was sufficient to justify a claim of truth – indeed calling something “obvious” is all you have in the absence of any sound reasoning to justify your claims.  I merely explained to you that it isn’t – lots of things that seem to be obviously true aren’t true at all. Whether the object of the claim is important or trivial IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO THAT BASIC ARGUMENT.

Dear god but you struggle. Try to focus just for once: just calling something “obviously true” does not thereby make it true, no matter what that something happens to be.

Do you get it now?     

Yet again, you'd avoid these types of logical howlers if you bothered to find out how logical arguments should be constructed. Why won’t you do that? Is it:

A. Because you can’t be bothered;

B. Because you’re frightened of the possible consequences if you did;

C. Because you just don’t understand the question; or

D. Something else?

You literally only need answer this with one letter so I really can’t make it any simpler or less onerous for you to do.

[Alan Burns]

Blue,

The fact that you can try to analyse your own inner self makes it pretty obvious that you do have conscious control of your thoughts.
Are you afraid to admit your own ability because of the of the implications concerning your own spiritual nature?
All I can say is -
Do not be afraid of the truth, because the truth does indeed set you free.

[Outrider]

This post reeks of wanting to be shown gratitude for the freedoms others enjoy. Secular societies such as atheistic totalitarian states can be just as oppressive as theocratic totalitarian States.

Isn't a secular atheist totalitarianism an oxymoron? Secular is that you have religious freedom, the state does not endorse or enforce any particular religion; atheist totalitarianism is the state enforcing non-belief (or, at least, the profession of non-belief).

O.

[Enki]

Although this was directed to Bluehillside, I see no reason why I cannot respond also.

Blue,

The fact that you can try to analyse your own inner self makes it pretty obvious that you do have conscious control of your thoughts.

It seems to me that my brain controls my thoughts and these are constantly modified by many kinds of input, ranging from sensory input, memory recall and, although it isn't completely understood, the conscious element. My brain is essentially what I mean when I talk about myself in those terms.

Are you afraid to admit your own ability because of the of the implications concerning your own spiritual nature?

Well obviously I can't speak for Blue, but I would suggest that my idea of a spiritual nature, as it appertains to me, is far removed from your idea. Furthermore I see no reason to think that it is not a product of the brain.

All I can say is -
Do not be afraid of the truth, because the truth does indeed set you free.

I try to go where any truth leads according to evidence and logic. Your complete disregard of logical arguments, your total lack of any evidence for your 'soul' idea and your habit of using emotive or misleading words or phrases(e.g. 'obvious' 'you need to realise' 'presume'), doesn't fill me with confidence that you're anyway near the 'truth'. Indeed, this suggests to me, that it would be you rather than me who is afraid of any truth which has the potential to upset your faith inspired views.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There we go again, as usual. Vlad failing to understand the difference between atheist and secular. How many times do we have to spell it out.

Professor, you seem to have a "sugar and spice and all things nice, that's what secularism is made of. Snips and snails and puppy dog tails, that's what religion is made of" approach.

That I, as a religionist should be grateful specifically to the likes of Bradlaugh and other secularists for my freedoms is absolute tosh

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't a secular atheist totalitarianism an oxymoron? Secular is that you have religious freedom, the state does not endorse or enforce any particular religion; atheist totalitarianism is the state enforcing non-belief (or, at least, the profession of non-belief).

O.

If you define secularism thus I.e. secularism is everything good in the world. But then you are giving secularism to broad and too rosy a definition.
As Bluehillside and the professor have amply demonstrated you cannot have perfect freedom FROM religion AND freedom OF religion.
The original definitions of secularism was merely those areas of life where religion did not have executive and judicial authority or issues of physical practicality, as far as I can see.

Is secularism responsible for our freedoms and without it...the Spanish Inquisition?...........not sure about that...sounds like antitheist wankfantasy IMHO.

[Outrider]

If you define secularism thus I.e. secularism is everything good in the world. But then you are giving secularism to broad and too rosy a definition.

No, that's just pretty much demonstrably the dictionary definition of secularism.

Cambridge online dictionary - "the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country"

As Bluehillside and the professor have amply demonstrated you cannot have perfect freedom FROM religion AND freedom OF religion.

Any competing rights are a balance, yes, but that does not mean that you can entertain two diametrically opposed concepts in the same instance: you cannot be totalitarian atheist AND secular as, by definition, a totalitarian atheist state is involving itself in the religious affairs of the citizenry.

The original definitions of secularism was merely those areas of life where religion did not have executive and judicial authority or issues of physical practicality, as far as I can see.

And if it were still 1400, or 1600 or whenever that might be relevant, but it isn't. It's today, and language moves and changes and grows.

Is secularism responsible for our freedoms and without it...the Spanish Inquisition?...........not sure about that...sounds like antitheist wankfantasy IMHO.

Wow, that's some Olympic-level straw-manning to get out of your own pile of self-contradicting victim-mentality bullshit. Bravo, have a sticker.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, I think this is t he ideal moment to let the Wikipedia entry on secularism speak.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism#/search

[SteveH]

What on earth are you on about. A secular society is one where individuals are neither favoured nor discriminated against on the basis of their religion or lack thereof. If a society is systematically oppressing individuals due to their religious beliefs then it isn't a secular society.

This looks suspiciously like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your 20,000 people should be glad they live in a secular society. If they lived in a religious one, but the religion wasn't the one they professed, they would be in serious trouble.

[Gordon]

This looks suspiciously like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

It isn't that at all: if it were he would say along the lines of 'no true secular society would xxxxxx, therefore it isn't a true secular society'. He's just noting compliance with a definition.

[Outrider]

Well, I think this is t he ideal moment to let the Wikipedia entry on secularism speak.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism#/search

"...uninvolved with religion." So neither endorsing nor prohibiting it, neither favouring nor disfavouring. Explain how you reconcile that with 'totalitarian atheism'... I'll wait.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

First, you made a basic mistake of conflating the soundness of an argument with the importance of its subject. I corrected you on that. Why have you just ignored that correction?

The fact that you can try to analyse your own inner self makes it pretty obvious that you do have conscious control of your thoughts.

It does no such thing for the reasons that keep being given to you and you keep ignoring.

Are you afraid to admit your own ability because of the of the implications concerning your own spiritual nature?

Are you afraid to admit that the moon is made of cheese because of your dairy allergy? You can’t be “afraid to admit” something that has no supporting justification whatsoever, and that's a logical impossibility to boot.

All I can say is -…

No, what you could actually say is: “I’ve finally found the cojones to stop ducking and diving in the face of every argument I’m given and will instead finally start engaging with them honestly, beginning now…".

You never will though will you.

Do not be afraid of the truth, because the truth does indeed set you free.

So far at least you given us no reason at all to think that you have the first idea what “the truth” is. If you want to do that you need to begin with some justifying arguments that aren’t hopelessly wrong. And to do that you need first a basic understanding at least of how logically sound arguments should be constructed.

Why won’t you do that? Is it:

A. Because you can’t be bothered;

B. Because you’re frightened of the possible consequences if you did;

C. Because you just don’t understand the question; or

D. Something else?

You literally only need answer this with one letter so I really can’t make it any simpler or less onerous for you to do.

[Alan Burns]

The fact that you can try to analyse your own inner self makes it pretty obvious that you do have conscious control of your thoughts.

It does no such thing for the reasons that keep being given to you and you keep ignoring.

Your reasons appear to be entirely based upon your own logically deduced conclusion that conscious control of your thoughts is deemed to be a logical impossibility.
In drawing this conclusion you are providing ample evidence that conscious control of your thoughts was a reality needed to reach such a conclusion.
You may label conscious control to be a logical impossibility, but this in no way can alter the fact that it is a demonstrable reality.