Listen to this great man speak:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDBLY7y2FxM&feature=user

Enjoy

Please don't call these guys intellectuals. They are not using the Intellect. Call him the great Conjecturer.

Pastor AIO:

Please don't call these guys intellectuals. They are not using the Intellect. Call him the great Conjecturer.

Did you watch the video. How did you come about to your conclusion? Was is from a balanced perspective arrived at by having evaluated the content of the material and/or the output of Kurtz's work?


I would really like to know which aspect of his philosopher you disagree with?

Bits. but the video is rather long and there are soo many points at which I disagree but to comment would involve going back and finding each point before commenting. The video is much too long for me to be bothered.

For the reasons why I said what I said check out my last post in the thread 'Only a christian can be logical'.

Pastor AIO:

Bits. but the video is rather long and there are soo many points at which I disagree but to comment would involve going back and finding each point before commenting. The video is much too long for me to be bothered.

For the reasons why I said what I said check out my last post in the thread 'Only a christian can be logical'.

I deliberately avoided that post as it was devoid of logic. The least said about that one, the better.

Ahh, then we are at odds on that point. I suppose it would be asking for too much to wonder why you think it is devoid of logic.

I hope with this response to the Paul Kurtz video to make an exposé of some of my main beefs with Humanism.  Due to the length of the entire video I will be unable to address everything but the first 10 minutes.  Hopefully this will afford me with a great opportunity to not only express my views on his thoughts but also to cast light on some of my other posts and threads.

Before we get down to the main course let's start with some hors d'oeuvres.  At 02:35 the interviewer says, "you have spent the lion share of your career, Paul, searching for ethical alternatives to religiosity".  And here we find my first beef.  Religion is NOT about ethics but rather ethics is a side product of the spiritual life.  That argument that we need religion to be good people is just dumb.  Why would you want to be a good person anyway?  So when that is countered by demonstrating that actually many people without religion are 'good' people ('good' being by the definition in vogue in that particular context) one might as well be attacking a straw man. 
The purpose of spirituality is not to give you a moral code or ethics.  Spirituality is based on experience.  To say it was invented to give us ethics is like saying light was invented so that we can play darts.  Of course not.  We can see light because it exists and we have an organ with which to perceive it.  It is a happy consequence of this that we can therefore play darts.  If one now claims to be able to play darts blindfolded and then argues that subsequently there is no need for sight . . . well . . . I don't know what to say about that.  An alternative approach to ethics does not invalidate religion as neither does the ability to play darts blindfolded invalidate sight.
Let's look at what wikipedia has to say about ethics in philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics first discusses Socrates.  It explains that according to socrates Ethics is a natural consequence of self knowledge and it is ignorance that leads to evil actions.  Aristotle too places self realisation as the core of his ethical system.  Religion says that Spirituality is a part of man's self.  Now if that is true then how does one achieve an ethical alternative that does not recognise an essence of humanity.  This all rests on whether or not there is an experiential basis for spirituality.

Looks like I've over gorged myself on the hors d'oeuvres a bit. So I'd better move on to my main beef which is the appropriation and then misappropriation of terms and lexicons, especially in this case from the philosophical tradition.  First there is a claim around 03:27 that Humanism (his brand of humanism because I would distinguish it from the humanities that preceded the renaissance in Italy) harks back to Athens and it's philosophic traditions.  But how true is that?  Is there really a lineage harking back and how much do they have in common with GrecoRoman philosophy.

Now at 05:33 of the video he says that for humanity to prevail we need to develop 'Reason, critical intelligence and some Wisdom'.  Now I am very aware of how language evolves from generation to generation.  Listen to the youths talk today.  A kid goes to see a band in a club.  Afterwards he says, "I saw the Fratellis last night, man, they were Sick!"  Sick!?, you might first think with alarm.  "What, they were vomiting on stage?".  "No they were sick, it was the best gig I've ever seen in my life."  So sick means good now?  Na wa o.  Before it was Wicked.  Wicked?  I like you shirt it looks wicked?   Gay people used to be happy now they are homosexuals.  I can't even sing my favourite song anymore without causing sniggers.  My favourite song is Lush Life written by Billy Strayhorn.  It goes:
I used to visit all those very gay places
those come what may places
where one relaxes on the axis of the wheel of life
to get the thrill of life
from jazz and cocktails.

But as this man claims to hark from a tradition of Greek philosophy can I assume that when he talks about Reason and Intelligence he is referring to the same Faculties that Socrates was referring to?  How does Plato define these terms?

Let us look at how Plato used these terms in Timaeus. 

We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes (ie. the eternal) from that which is always becoming but never is (the temporal).  The one is apprehensible by INTELLIGENCE with the aid of REASONING, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real.  . . . . Thus a description of what is changeless, fixed and clearly intelligible will be changeless and fixed - will be, that is, as irrefutable and incontrovertible as a description in words can be; but analogously a description of a likeness of the changeless, being a description of a mere likeness will be merely likely; for being has to becoming the same relation as truth to belief.  Don't therefore be surprised, Socrates, if on many matters concerning the gods and the world of change we are unable in every respect and on every occasion to render consistent and accurate account.  You must be satisfied if your account is as likely as any, remembering that both I and you who are sitting in judgement on it are merely human, and should not look for anything more than a likely story in such matters.

We find that Plato says that Reason and Intelligence are used to apprehend eternal things while the world of change is apprehended by 'irrational sensation'.  Sensation in his understanding is IrRational.  So on one hand you have[b] Reason/Intelligence/Rational[/b] and on the other hand you have Sensation/irrational/opinion.  Yet I doubt the Paul Kurtz is referring to our need to apprehend the eternal when he says that we need to develop 'Reason, critical intelligence and some wisdom'.   Are these attributes not of a different order?  Do I not have a point when I say it takes a christian to be logical?  For have these terms not been Appropriated (along with the word philosophy) or rather misappropriated.

Lest this post gets too long I will move on to a quick pudding.  At 06:13 he says that altruism is a quality of humans and it has a biological basis.  I agree with him.  Yet I believe it is just one of many qualities.  You cannot pin all of your hopes for the future on the fact that some people are altruistic sometimes.  Does that make me a Cassandra?  While I agree with him that those doomsayers are wrong, afterall what is life but ups and downs.  There will always be downs which we will bounce back up from, but this Cassandra is saying something different.  It is Human nature that this Cassandra is prophesying against.  That some people may be nice once in a blue moon is not enough to pin all your hopes for humanity on.  To keep this brief I am going to have to continue on another post later.

I shall respond later. But I noticed you mentioned Billy Strayhorn and that got me all excited. Am a great fan of his work with Duke.

I've nearly passed out from holding my breath for your reply. Anyway, Like I promised I have a part 2 which brings us up to the first 10 minutes of his interview. I hope that I'll have demonstrated why I refuse to acknowledge that he's an intellectual but rather a conjecturer. My dismissal of him was not without reason, or just to be rude and I do not want to discourage you from posting links or suggest that I don't appreciate your links because I do appreciate them, probably more than what anybody else on this forum has to offer.


Part II)
At 7:20 he makes some humungous sweeping comments that convinces that not only does he know little about philosophy but he also knows even less about religion. What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems? Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts and that his will is the very substance of our natures. I think that he is picking and choosing, like they all do, which ostensible aspects of religion he is going to pit himself against. It is a lot easier to challenge those demagogues and religiously derived ideologies that have little in fact to do with religion. All religion and philosophy that I'm aware of teach that there is an essential nature or aspect to man. And that man has deviated from this essential nature.
In other words man is an appropriated being. Appropriation means that something has been set aside for a specific purpose. To be employed in any capacity other than that is to become misappropriated. Christianity teaches us that we have an anointing, ie we are chosen/appropriated. Islam teaches that we have Al Fitra which too is an appropriation. Philosophy teaches that we have an eudaimonia. Hinduism teaches that we have Dharma. Ifa teaches that we have Ori or Ayanmo, which is a chosen destiny. Taoists too say we have an essential nature. Please I need to know the religion that tells us to look outside of ourselves to find fulfillment because I don't know of any. Our interaction with God is within ourselves, that is where God speaks to us, and it is a part and parcel of us, without this you are not a complete human being. Kurtz is just picking and choosing what face of religion to attack according to if he thinks he can get away with it.
So you see we don't lack confidence in man, as he says, but rather in man's sinful nature. In other words we lack confidence in the misappropriation of man. (I will use the word misappropriation a lot because it is a theme that runs through my disagreement with Paul Kurtz).
For example at 09:00 He discusses the need to go beyond the 'courage to be' to arrive at the 'courage to become'. What a plagiarist. Here again he plagiarises Plato (and others before Plato) who makes the distinction between the world of Being and the world of Becoming. But of course he misappropriates the terms. The World of Being according to philosophy (real philosophy) is the eternal world where there is no past, future or movement of time and but things are constantly the way they are. This is contrasted with the world of Becoming which is the physical world of the senses where everything is a process and in a state of flux. So the human body is constantly becoming, changing from one form to another. Whereas the eternal aspect of a human is in a state of constant stillness. The world of Becoming is a projection of the world of Being. In other words it is a derivative of the world of Being.
So when he says we have to move from Being to Becoming he is talking absolute kaka. We are already becoming. It is impossible to just Be in the physical world. Nothing is still in the physical world. So what exactly is he saying here. I have no idea.
It doesn't just stop there. At 9:49 he goes on to talk about The Good Life. This is another misappropriation from Platon. He credits Aristotle, but Aristotle was a student of Platon. What is that nonsense about him being vindicated by modern science and the 'science of happiness'? The Good Life has been talked about for millenia before he even existed. How dare he credit himself with it! It is again central to every school of religion and philosophy that I'm aware of. What about Epicurus who wrote extensively on the subject?
"For the secular Humanist the goal is happiness for the individual and for the community . . .", he says. As well as in religion I say.
His doting interviewer says that the way to achieve happiness is to develop the capabilities of the human being. I totally agree. However I don't see how they hope to succeed if they deny the most essential features of the human being. How are you going to develop something that you deny exists?
Man, I could go on and on but then I'll just sound like I'm ranting. How do people like this get to be Professor Emeritus of anything? Maybe I'm just bitter because I want to be able to get paid to talk nonsense too. It must be a great job.

I will just cut to the chase, as they say in Nollyhood;

Pastor AIO:

I hope with this response to the Paul Kurtz video to make an exposé of some of my main beefs with Humanism.  Due to the length of the entire video I will be unable to address everything but the first 10 minutes.  Hopefully this will afford me with a great opportunity to not only express my views on his thoughts but also to cast light on some of my other posts and threads.

Before we get down to the main course let's start with some hors d'oeuvres.  At 02:35 the interviewer says, "you have spent the lion share of your career, Paul, searching for ethical alternatives to religiosity".  And here we find my first beef.  Religion is NOT about ethics but rather ethics is a side product of the spiritual life.  That argument that we need religion to be good people is just dumb.  Why would you want to be a good person anyway?  So when that is countered by demonstrating that actually many people without religion are 'good' people ('good' being by the definition in vogue in that particular context) one might as well be attacking a straw man. 

Look the history that humanity has traversed, a history in which religion and various forms of supernaturalisms and spiritualism have defined the way in which humans have lived.  There is no gainsaying that from this history, it would appear that there is no possibility or morality and ethics without religions/spiritualism.  Time was when if you were not with the eclesiastic  you would be branded a witch/wizard, bad person and your character would be maligned by the very religious.

The religious were in charge of all aspect of life, from what type of sex was legitimate, to the food you eat, to when to work, to the type of clothes to wear, to what sort of medical attention one could receive.  If you did not toe the religious line you were branded immoral and unethical. Even though morality and ethic are/were not necessarily bounded together with religion, it paid the religious authorities handsomely to portray it as though they possess the moral and ethical high ground on all aspects of life.

This deference to religion is still prevalent in most societies today.  Whenever they is a great human issue at stake, you see they always wheel out the clerical authorties to pontificate on the matter - not that they should not have a say.  They should as members of the general public.  But why are they also treated as experts on morality and ethics.  Why is the archbishop always the first to be contacted for things like stem-cell research, capital punishments, artificial insemination, euthenasia, etc, etc, etc.   Why do we see relatively fewer professional philosopher on the public media dealing with these issues.   And why do these religious authorities always have to find an approach that they think will please their various gods.

Does this not smack of the religious claiming territory as though they have sole right to the moral and ethical space.  See how for nearly eight years, reseach in stem-cell was hampered because of religio-ethical agendas of President Bush. I think this is what Paul Kurtz is getting at.

In the minds of many people, if you are without religions, you might as well be thrown into "hell".  In fact, I have heard religious people say that if there is no god, they would go out there and kill, steal, and commit all sorts of crime and offense against the person and the state.  They take the view that without religion/god ALL things are possible.

So you are right in saying that you can be good without religion/spiritualism, but the religious leaders would not want that to be heard and known widely because it would undermine their position and authority, which position is already so threatened with the spread of general skepticism about the religious narratives.

Pastor AIO:

The purpose of spirituality is not to give you a moral code or ethics.  Spirituality is based on experience.  To say it was invented to give us ethics is like saying light was invented so that we can play darts.  Of course not.  We can see light because it exists and we have an organ with which to perceive it.  It is a happy consequence of this that we can therefore play darts.  If one now claims to be able to play darts blindfolded and then argues that subsequently there is no need for sight . . . well . . . I don't know what to say about that.  An alternative approach to ethics does not invalidate religion as neither does the ability to play darts blindfolded invalidate sight.
Let's look at what wikipedia has to say about ethics in philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics first discusses Socrates.  It explains that according to socrates Ethics is a natural consequence of self knowledge and it is ignorance that leads to evil actions.  Aristotle too places self realisation as the core of his ethical system.  Religion says that Spirituality is a part of man's self.  Now if that is true then how does one achieve an ethical alternative that does not recognise an essence of humanity.  This all rests on whether or not there is an experiential basis for spirituality.

You keep throwing this word about- Spirituality.  What is it and why do we need it?  How does it benefit man?  Can one be spiritual without a belief in god / deity?   Who can avail themselves of spirituality?

I cannot make any headway into what you are talking about until I understand what you mean by spiritual.

Pastor AIO:

Looks like I've over gorged myself on the hors d'oeuvres a bit. So I'd better move on to my main beef which is the appropriation and then misappropriation of terms and lexicons, especially in this case from the philosophical tradition.  First there is a claim around 03:27 that Humanism (his brand of humanism because I would distinguish it from the humanities that preceded the renaissance in Italy) harks back to Athens and it's philosophic traditions.  But how true is that?  Is there really a lineage harking back and how much do they have in common with GrecoRoman philosophy.

There are many definition of Humanism, but central to each definition is the view that humans are alone (as in without a god to watch over us)  on the planet and that our plight and future is all in our hands. Thus we had better stand and rely on ourselves as brothers and sister who share a common lot.  This view goes back a long time, with philosophers like Epicurus, Lucretius, etc, etc.  The Epicurean school was a central school of greco-roman philosophy before they were maligned by the christians.

Pastor AIO:

Now at 05:33 of the video he says that for humanity to prevail we need to develop 'Reason, critical intelligence and some Wisdom'.  Now I am very aware of how language evolves from generation to generation.  Listen to the youths talk today.  A kid goes to see a band in a club.  Afterwards he says, "I saw the Fratellis last night, man, they were Sick!"  Sick!?, you might first think with alarm.  "What, they were vomiting on stage?".  "No they were sick, it was the best gig I've ever seen in my life."  So sick means good now?  Na wa o.  Before it was Wicked.  Wicked?  I like you shirt it looks wicked?   Gay people used to be happy now they are homosexuals.  I can't even sing my favourite song anymore without causing sniggers.  My favourite song is Lush Life written by Billy Strayhorn.  It goes:
I used to visit all those very gay places
those come what may places
where one relaxes on the axis of the wheel of life
to get the thrill of life
from jazz and cocktails.

But as this man claims to hark from a tradition of Greek philosophy can I assume that when he talks about Reason and Intelligence he is referring to the same Faculties that Socrates was referring to?  How does Plato define these terms?

Let us look at how Plato used these terms in Timaeus. 

We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes (ie. the eternal) from that which is always becoming but never is (the temporal).  The one is apprehensible by INTELLIGENCE with the aid of REASONING, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real.  . . . . Thus a description of what is changeless, fixed and clearly intelligible will be changeless and fixed - will be, that is, as irrefutable and incontrovertible as a description in words can be; but analogously a description of a likeness of the changeless, being a description of a mere likeness will be merely likely; for being has to becoming the same relation as truth to belief.  Don't therefore be surprised, Socrates, if on many matters concerning the gods and the world of change we are unable in every respect and on every occasion to render consistent and accurate account.  You must be satisfied if your account is as likely as any, remembering that both I and you who are sitting in judgement on it are merely human, and should not look for anything more than a likely story in such matters.

We find that Plato says that Reason and Intelligence are used to apprehend eternal things while the world of change is apprehended by 'irrational sensation'.  Sensation in his understanding is IrRational.  So on one hand you have[b] Reason/Intelligence/Rational[/b] and on the other hand you have Sensation/irrational/opinion.  Yet I doubt the Paul Kurtz is referring to our need to apprehend the eternal when he says that we need to develop 'Reason, critical intelligence and some wisdom'.   Are these attributes not of a different order?  Do I not have a point when I say it takes a christian to be logical?  For have these terms not been Appropriated (along with the word philosophy) or rather misappropriated.

Lest this post gets too long I will move on to a quick pudding.  At 06:13 he says that altruism is a quality of humans and it has a biological basis.  I agree with him.  Yet I believe it is just one of many qualities.  You cannot pin all of your hopes for the future on the fact that some people are altruistic sometimes.  Does that make me a Cassandra?  While I agree with him that those doomsayers are wrong, afterall what is life but ups and downs.  There will always be downs which we will bounce back up from, but this Cassandra is saying something different.  It is Human nature that this Cassandra is prophesying against.  That some people may be nice once in a blue moon is not enough to pin all your hopes for humanity on.  To keep this brief I am going to have to continue on another post later.

Was hard to make any sense to what you were saying here.  To help me out, can you give your understanding of the following words/concept and how they relate to what you just said and to what Paul Kurtz is saying.  Please, don't beat about too much as you have done above.

1) REASON
2) INTELLIGENT
3) WISDOM
4) RATIONALISM/IRRATIONALISM
5) ILLOGICAL

Pastor AIO:

I've nearly passed out from holding my breath for your reply.  Anyway, Like I promised I have a part 2 which brings us up to the first 10 minutes of his interview.  I hope that I'll have demonstrated why I refuse to acknowledge that he's an intellectual but rather a conjecturer.  My dismissal of him was not without reason, or just to be rude and I do not want to discourage you from posting links or suggest that I don't appreciate your links because I do appreciate them, probably more than what anybody else on this forum has to offer. 


Part II)
At 7:20 he makes some humungous sweeping comments that convinces that not only does he know little about philosophy but he also knows even less about religion. What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?  Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts and that his will is the very substance of our natures.  I think that he is picking and choosing, like they all do, which ostensible aspects of religion he is going to pit himself against.  It is a lot easier to challenge those demagogues and religiously derived ideologies that have little in fact to do with religion. All religion and philosophy that I'm aware of teach that there is an essential nature or aspect to man.  And that man has deviated from this essential nature. 

Have you lost you mind?  What religion does not said there are advantages to belonging to that religion?  Does it not say it will not only provide stairway to their deity and also make your life better here and now? 

Did Jesus not say these words?

1)   I will be with you always even till the end of times?

2)  Did Jesus not say, whatever you ask of me I shall provide you?

3)  Did god not promise riches on earth and in heaven for his followers?

4)  Have you ever read Psalm 91, where god promises protection from pestilence for his followers?  Here is it,  for your information:



Psalm 91:

1 ¶ He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

2. I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

5. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;

6. Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.

7. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.

8. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

9. ¶ Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;

10. There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

11. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

12. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

13. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

14. Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.

15. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.

16. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation






Have you never seen these passages from your bible were god promises really benefits to his followers:

Mark 16:

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Luke 10:

17And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
19Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
20Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

1 Peter 5:
7  Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.




In fact, it was this carricaturing of your own religion, blatantly refusing to acknowledge what YOUR religions says that caused me to not respond.  What is the point of responding when you are being blatantly dishonest.  Was this willful dishonesty or was it out of ignorance? The latter is excusable, but the former is NOT.   



Almost daily, followers of the various gods, prostrate themselves in prayers before him to ask for all manner of favours - material and immaterial.   Now, I know what you are going to say - you are going to say that this is correpted religion and that these people have been misled to expect god to solve their problems, and that all god wants is a relationship with us.  But it is stated clearly in god's own words that he is there for us?

Does god like to sit in this heavenly thrown happily smiling over the fate of a starving, sickly babe at her mothers breast?  If you did not know, a relationship is by itself an entity that if good is beneficial to the parties in the relationship, for it solves the problem of loneliness.  Are you saying that god and religions does not want to solve the problem of loneliness for us?

Man, straighten up and be honest and begin to take responsibility for your belief rather than re-interprete, carricature, to the point of uselessness.



I shall deal with the rest later when you have address this and you begin to straighten up and present your religion as it is ordinarily understood, rather than the carricature you are wont to present.

You blame everything on religion Huxley, but religion is not the direct cause of misery.

It is just a tool. Money and power are at the roots. Religion is just a means to gain that money and power and the fundamentalists are the slaves who keep the wheels turning.

Bastage:

You blame everything on religion Huxley, but religion is not the direct cause of misery.

It is just a tool. Money and power are at the roots. Religion is just a means to gain that money and power and the fundamentalists are the slaves who keep the wheels turning.

Very true. . .

Bastage:

You blame everything on religion Huxley, but religion is not the direct cause of misery.

It is just a tool. Money and power are at the roots. Religion is just a means to gain that money and power and the fundamentalists are the slaves who keep the wheels turning.

Strange!!  Yes, strange indeed!!   Where have I implied that only religion is the cause of misery?   I am hard on religions and all forms of irrationalisms and supernaturalism.  Religion is but one form of irrationalism, as is corruption, exploitation of people, cults of personalities, unbridled quest for power, wealth and status, etc.   If you want my views about some of these, we can discuss them later elsewhere.

And I live my life by what I preach.  By some  good luck and hard work I happen to be relatively successful in my work and life.  I very much favour a simple lifestyle without questing for status, wealth beyond what I need for my family.  Am do not lead a flashy and flaboyant life although I could afford to.  I set greater store on personal mental wealth than material wealth.  I believe that if one is able and capable, one should seek a life in which they are less able to be manipulated by the few  corrupt in higher places. I happen to have reach that point in life where I can say that about myself. I believe that if more people made such unperturbedness and independence a goal in life, they would be less open to exploitation.

Of course, that would not put bread on your table if you are in real dire straits but many of our problems are the result of easily giving in to the exploitative and  corrupt who subsequently deprive our nations of the wealth that could alleviate some of these real problems.

huxley:


Have you lost you mind?  What religion does not said there are advantages to belonging to that religion?  Does it not say it will not only provide stairway to their deity and also make your life better here and now? 

Did Jesus not say these words?

1)   I will be with you always even till the end of times?

2)  Did Jesus not say, whatever you ask of me I shall provide you?

3)  Did god not promise riches on earth and in heaven for his followers?

In fact, it was this carricaturing of your own religion, blatantly refusing to acknowledge what YOUR religions says that caused me to not respond.  What is the point of responding when you are being blatantly dishonest.  Was this willful dishonesty or was it out of ignorance? The latter is excusable, but the former is NOT.   

Okay, let's start here.  The above is what you have said in response to my saying this:

What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?  Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts and that his will is the very substance of our natures.

You even made the most pertinent point bold.  Thank you! 

Now is this really the reason that you didn't respond, due to my 'dishonesty'.  I don't believe you, but I'll leave the matter of who is being dishonest because it will only detract from the main points of this thread.

Please consider these biblical statements:

1 John 2:27 and yourselves, the unction which ye have received from him abides in you, and ye have not need that any one should teach you; but as the same unction teaches you as to all things, and is true and is not a lie, and even as it has taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1 John 2:24 As for you let that which ye have heard from the beginning[b] abide in you[/b]: if what ye have heard from the beginning abides in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father

1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time: if we love one another, God abides in us, and his love is perfected in us

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words which I speak to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father who abides in me, he does the works

1 John 3:24 And he that keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him. [size=18pt]And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given to us[/size].

So if you still believe that christianity tells you to look outside of what abides within, or that I am caricaturing by asking that 'What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?  Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts' then it becomes obvious to me that the reason you understand so little of christianity is because you were never a christian and your experience of it was just superficial nonsense.  God is a very real internal experience for christians and from within we get all the instruction we need to live.

huxley:

Look the history that humanity has traversed, a history in which religion and various forms of supernaturalisms and spiritualism have defined the way in which humans have lived.  There is no gainsaying that from this history, it would appear that there is no possibility or morality and ethics without religions/spiritualism.  Time was when if you were not with the eclesiastic  you would be branded a witch/wizard, bad person and your character would be maligned by the very religious.

The religious were in charge of all aspect of life, from what type of sex was legitimate, to the food you eat, to when to work, to the type of clothes to wear, to what sort of medical attention one could receive.  If you did not toe the religious line you were branded immoral and unethical. Even though morality and ethic are/were not necessarily bounded together with religion, it paid the religious authorities handsomely to portray it as though they possess the moral and ethical high ground on all aspects of life.

This deference to religion is still prevalent in most societies today.  Whenever they is a great human issue at stake, you see they always wheel out the clerical authorties to pontificate on the matter - not that they should not have a say.  They should as members of the general public.  But why are they also treated as experts on morality and ethics.  Why is the archbishop always the first to be contacted for things like stem-cell research, capital punishments, artificial insemination, euthenasia, etc, etc, etc.   Why do we see relatively fewer professional philosopher on the public media dealing with these issues.   And why do these religious authorities always have to find an approach that they think will please their various gods.

Does this not smack of the religious claiming territory as though they have sole right to the moral and ethical space.  See how for nearly eight years, reseach in stem-cell was hampered because of religio-ethical agendas of President Bush. I think this is what Paul Kurtz is getting at.

In the minds of many people, if you are without religions, you might as well be thrown into "hell".  In fact, I have heard religious people say that if there is no god, they would go out there and kill, steal, and commit all sorts of crime and offense against the person and the state.  They take the view that without religion/god ALL things are possible.

So you are right in saying that you can be good without religion/spiritualism, but the religious leaders would not want that to be heard and known widely because it would undermine their position and authority, which position is already so threatened with the spread of general skepticism about the religious narratives.

The greater part of the above is just a mindless rant, I don't know how to address it.  I suppose you got to vent and now hopefully you've got it out of the way and we can continue to discuss.  The main thrust of this is about ETHICS, is it not?  Paul Kurtz seeking an 'ethical alternative to religion'.  Please Huxley, perhaps you are not sure what ethics is, let us look at a couple of definitions.

A few years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart asked business people, "What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following:
"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong."
"Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs."
"Being ethical is doing what the law requires."
"Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts."
"I don't know what the word means."
These replies might be typical of our own. The meaning of "ethics" is hard to pin down, and the views many people have about ethics are shaky.

. . .

Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

From here:
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.html

Also

Ethics is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality, such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what moral values people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental semantic, ontological, and epistemic nature of ethics or morality is (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology).

. . .


[edit]Socrates
Socrates was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of man. In this view, Knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary. Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within their capabilities to their pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions, are the result of ignorance. If a criminal were truly aware of the mental and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither commit nor even consider committing them. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with happiness. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good and therefore be happy.[1]

From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

So yes, religion provides ethics but so do many other things too.  I'm still trying to find a way that your rant relates to the subject of our discussion.  Many societies in history have developed ethics that have little to to with religion.  Wherever there is the idea of the right way to behave (which is everywhere ever since the dawn of man) there is ethics.  The Spartans had ethics based on their need to subjugate their neighbours and their slaves.  These had nothing to do with religion.  Everywhere people developed work ethics which had nothing to do with religion but rather the need to have a productive society.  I feel like I'm going off on a tangent trying to address your crazed ramblings.

What is Ethics?  An ethical system proposes a moral scale of values.  At the bottom end of the scale are such things as are considered Bad, undesirable and unworthwhile.  Low value.  At the top end of the scale are such things as are considered Good, desirable, and worthwhile/worthy.  High value.  In the process of being faced with choices all moral beings place the choices on the applicable Value scale and decide in favour of the choice that provides the most value.  Agreed?


But are such Value scales not merely arbitrary.  Is there really such an absolute thing as the Good?  By what Authority is any behaviour to be considered Good.  Authority is very important because without an Authoritative establishment of Good from Bad then there is no basis for our moral values.  But wait a minute?   Authoritative ultimately means that there is an Author.  Where there is Authority there is Authorship.  There is a way things are meant to be.  The intentions of the author.  This is implied by each and every Value scale that humans hold.  What is the Authority?  The Tradition of the Ancestors?  God?  What?

What are the consequences of there being no God?  Does it not take a marketplace full of idiots to deny God, to kill God even, and then not realise the enormity of the act and it's implications to the very fabric of their society.  Well, if they are not idiots then they are extremely clever at denial, cognitive dissonance itself.  Surely to them only a madman would be concerned by the implications of having done away with the God, with an Author.  Author to lend authority. 
Luckily for such Godless fellows cognitive dissonance is like child's play to them.  However it was not so for sensitive souls such as Friedrich Nietzsche.  Nietzsche was an atheist and he fully understood the cognitive dissonance that would be required to go on living as though nothing had changed.  He writes a parable about it in The Gay Science called Parable of The Mad Man.  Here he makes what is probably his most famous statement:  God is Dead!!

THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

This was in 1882.  Perhaps indeed Nietzsche came too early and his time was not yet.  The event was still on it's way and till today it is still on it's way.  It has yet to reach the ears of the likes of Huxley. 
Mind you, I'm not presenting this as an argument for the existence of God.  I presenting it as an argument for the futility of trying to establish an ethical system without a belief in an author.

Pastor AIO:

Okay, let's start here.  The above is what you have said in response to my saying this: You even made the most pertinent point bold.  Thank you!  

Now is this really the reason that you didn't respond, due to my 'dishonesty'.  I don't believe you, but I'll leave the matter of who is being dishonest because it will only detract from the main points of this thread.

Please consider these biblical statements:

1 John 2:27 and yourselves, the unction which ye have received from him abides in you, and ye have not need that any one should teach you; but as the same unction teaches you as to all things, and is true and is not a lie, and even as it has taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1 John 2:24 As for you let that which ye have heard from the beginning[b] abide in you[/b]: if what ye have heard from the beginning abides in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father

1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time: if we love one another, God abides in us, and his love is perfected in us

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words which I speak to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father who abides in me, he does the works

1 John 3:24 And he that keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him. [size=18pt]And hereby we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given to us[/size].

So if you still believe that christianity tells you to look outside of what abides within, or that I am caricaturing by asking that 'What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?  Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts' then it becomes obvious to me that the reason you understand so little of christianity is because you were never a christian and your experience of it was just superficial nonsense.  God is a very real internal experience for christians and from within we get all the instruction we need to live.

Well al you have done by quoting those passages from the bible to support the claim that god abides in you.  With due respect, that was not by point of contention, although this too can be contested by other claims from the bible.  I shall leave the issue of where God abides for another debate.

The point you were challenging was NOT where god abides, but

What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?  Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts and that his will is the very substance of our natures.

I took from the highlighted text that you meant that no religions tells its devotees to look for God to solve their problems.  That is the point I am contesting, whereabout the God abides is not the issue.  whether God abides in you or without is not my point, but whether you should turn at all to God.

If you do not understand the distinction, shout out now.

The quotes from John that you posted only address the issue of where God abides.  Now, supposing God abides in you has he promised that he would solve your problems?  I submit that he has, and that is why I posted the other bible passages where he clearly lays out such promises, which you have uniquely failed to address.  Did you address any of these:


Psalm 91:

1 ¶ He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

2. I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

5. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;

6. Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.

7. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.

8. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

9. ¶ Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;

10. There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

11. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

12. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

13. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

14. Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.

15. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.

16. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation


Have you never seen these passages from your bible were god promises really benefits to his followers:

Mark 16:

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Luke 10:

17And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
19Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
20Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

1 Peter 5:
7  Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.



Why do Christians spend a vast amount of their time making supplicatory and pertitionary prayers to their God?  Is it just to amuse God or are they NOT also asking God for favours - like financial success, safety on the roads, healing from illness, bread on the table, pregnancy, marriage, etc, etc, etc.

Are you saying that Christians who plead to God for these favours are misguided?   That is the issue I was alluding to, not WHERE God reside, although that too is a separate debate in its own right.


Now I could go without address this verse which you posted:


1 John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time: if we love one another, God abides in us, and his love is perfected in us

Are you really sure that no one has seen God?  I bet I can find bible passages that suggests the opposite.

huxley:

Well al you have done by quoting those passages from the bible to support the claim that god abides in you.  With due respect, that was not by point of contention, although this too can be contested by other claims from the bible.  I shall leave the issue of where God abides for another debate.

The point you were challenging was NOT where god abides, but

I took from the highlighted text that you meant that no religions tells its devotees to look for God to solve their problems.  That is the point I am contesting, whereabout the God abides is not the issue.  whether God abides in you or without is not my point, but whether you should turn at all to God.

Two points I want to make.
1) I was not specifically discussing christianity but in your obvious zeal to bash christianity you've made it a christianity matter. I was talking about religion and about Paul Kurtz project of finding an ethical alternative to religion.

2) You read what I said with blinkers on your eyes. I asked which religion asked it's followers to look OUTWARDLY to God to solve their problems. That is why I then furnished you with examples from 1John that for christians God is not something that is outside of us.

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to toss red herrings left right and center in the hope that it will take the focus of the idiocy of your position.

Pastor AIO:

The greater part of the above is just a mindless rant, I don't know how to address it.  I suppose you got to vent and now hopefully you've got it out of the way and we can continue to discuss.  The main thrust of this is about ETHICS, is it not?  Paul Kurtz seeking an 'ethical alternative to religion'.  Please Huxley, perhaps you are not sure what ethics is, let us look at a couple of definitions. From here:
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.html

Also
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Funnily enough, you called this post of mind a rant without address a single element of the post.

huxley link=topic=148054.msg3647915#msg3647915 date=1238101853:

Look the history that humanity has traversed, a history in which religion and various forms of supernaturalisms and spiritualism have defined the way in which humans have lived.  There is no gainsaying that from this history, it would appear that there is no possibility or morality and ethics without religions/spiritualism.  Time was when if you were not with the eclesiastic  you would be branded a witch/wizard, bad person and your character would be maligned by the very religious.

The religious were in charge of all aspect of life, from what type of sex was legitimate, to the food you eat, to when to work, to the type of clothes to wear, to what sort of medical attention one could receive.  If you did not toe the religious line you were branded immoral and unethical. Even though morality and ethic are/were not necessarily bounded together with religion, it paid the religious authorities handsomely to portray it as though they possess the moral and ethical high ground on all aspects of life.

This deference to religion is still prevalent in most societies today.  Whenever they is a great human issue at stake, you see they always wheel out the clerical authorties to pontificate on the matter - not that they should not have a say.  They should as members of the general public.  But why are they also treated as experts on morality and ethics.  Why is the archbishop always the first to be contacted for things like stem-cell research, capital punishments, artificial insemination, euthenasia, etc, etc, etc.   Why do we see relatively fewer professional philosopher on the public media dealing with these issues.   And why do these religious authorities always have to find an approach that they think will please their various gods.

Does this not smack of the religious claiming territory as though they have sole right to the moral and ethical space.  See how for nearly eight years, reseach in stem-cell was hampered because of religio-ethical agendas of President Bush. I think this is what Paul Kurtz is getting at.

In the minds of many people, if you are without religions, you might as well be thrown into "hell".  In fact, I have heard religious people say that if there is no god, they would go out there and kill, steal, and commit all sorts of crime and offense against the person and the state.  They take the view that without religion/god ALL things are possible.

So you are right in saying that you can be good without religion/spiritualism, but the religious leaders would not want that to be heard and known widely because it would undermine their position and authority, which position is already so threatened with the spread of general skepticism about the religious narratives.

What about the above is essentially untrue?    Did I claim anywhere that ethics is confined only in the religious sphere?  Please, please, please, STOP misrepresenting me.

Have the religious authorties in the past not sought to define the way one should lead their lives?  Did you address that point?

Have they not tried to decide what type of sex pleases god?  Did you address that point?

Have they not persecuted their opponents, calling them names like heretics and infidels?  Did you address that point?

Have they not tried to decide what sorts of food to eat?

Have they not told us how to raise our children?

Have they not persecuted others for holding views at odds with theirs?  Is this not true?  Did you address it.

And you have the effronterie to call the post  RANT.  Now, tell me which part of the post is untrue.

[quote author=Pastor AIO link=topic=148054.msg3650099#msg3650099 date=1238155708]
So yes, religion provides ethics but so do many other things too.  I'm still trying to find a way that your rant relates to the subject of our discussion.  Many societies in history have developed ethics that have little to to with religion.  Wherever there is the idea of the right way to behave (which is everywhere ever since the dawn of man) there is ethics.  The Spartans had ethics based on their need to subjugate their neighbours and their slaves.  These had nothing to do with religion.  Everywhere people developed work ethics which had nothing to do with religion but rather the need to have a productive society.  I feel like I'm going off on a tangent trying to address your crazed ramblings.  

The point Kurtz was making was that to the ordinary person, they wrongly believe that morals/ethic are the province of the religions, and that without religion one cannot be moral/ethical. And that the religious authorities are reluctant to disabuse their sheep about the notion that there can be morals/ethics without religion, for fear of losing face and authorities.  

I am sure if you survey the religious christian community, you would find that the vast majority would say that they get their morals/ethics from the bible.  I guess in excess of 90% would say that their bibles is the standard for moral and ethical guidance.  But is that really the case that they get their morals from the bible?  I submit NOT.

For instance, if they did some of the things that Jesus advocated they would either end up dead, fiancially bankrupt, encarcerated, etc, etc.  Why do they not follow ALL the ethicical injuctions of Jesus?

[/quote]

Please Huxley, don't get me angry. The issue is not whether or not your rant was true or untrue. The point is that your rant was Irrelevant! The interviewer say that Kurtz is seeking an ethical alternative to religion and I respond that ethics is a product of religion but not what religion is necessarily about.

Then you started to rant about religions has historically caused this ills and that ills. What did you smoke man?

A rant is a speech or text that does not present a well-researched and calm argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rant_(disambiguation)

rant   [rant] Show IPA
–verb (used without object)
1. to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave: The demagogue ranted for hours.
–verb (used with object)
2. to utter or declaim in a ranting manner.
–noun
3. ranting, extravagant, or violent declamation.
4. a ranting utterance.
Origin:
1590–1600; < D ranten (obs.) to talk foolishly

Related forms:
ranter, noun
rant⋅ing⋅ly, adverb

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rant

Part II)
At 7:20 he makes some humungous sweeping comments that convinces that not only does he know little about philosophy but he also knows even less about religion. What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems? Are we not told rather to look within and that God has written his statutes in our hearts and that his will is the very substance of our natures. I think that he is picking and choosing, like they all do, which ostensible aspects of religion he is going to pit himself against. It is a lot easier to challenge those demagogues and religiously derived ideologies that have little in fact to do with religion. All religion and philosophy that I'm aware of teach that there is an essential nature or aspect to man. And that man has deviated from this essential nature.

I took a strong view of what you wrote because you also wrote words that evoke such strong sentiments - look at what I have highlighted in red from your comments. I took a strong stand by pointing out just how religions over the years have sought to present itself as the arbiter of morals and ethics and how on the moral and ethical bandwagon, they have repressed society, persecuted their opponents, etc, etc. Why is that when one take a strong view of the violence of religion, it is called a RANT?

Now, on the substantive point about whether God solves the problems of believers, which was my main beef, you made the statement:

What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?

As I pointed out earlier, my problem is NOT where God resides as whether he has promised to help or solve the problems of his followers. To that end, I am prepared to conciliate and make the statement slightly in favour of the point you are trying to make and see if it help things. Let us change the statement to the following, which is what you favour with all the ABIDING stuff you posted earlier:

What religion tells you to look inward to God for solving your problems?

Does this suit you more? I think it does because it locates god where you argue he is.

Now, do religions NOT promote the notion that their God is there to help its followers, amongst other benefits?

My brother it is either you want to talk about Paul Kurtz - the great intellectual, or you don't want to talk about Paul Kurtz the great intellectual.

which is it?

huxley:


I took a strong view of what you wrote because you also wrote words that evoke such strong sentiments - look at what I have highlighted in red from your comments. I took a strong stand by pointing out just how religions over the years have sought to present itself as the arbiter of morals and ethics and how on the moral and ethical bandwagon, they have repressed society, persecuted their opponents, etc, etc. Why is that when one take a strong view of the violence of religion, it is called a RANT?

The words that you say have evoked such strong sentiments (highlighted in red) were that Paul Kurtz was demonstrating little knowledge of philosophy or religion. If you disagree then what you have to do is tell me how he demonstrates that he actually has this knowledge.
When you go on at length about some issue that has no bearing on the subject of discussion then I sorry to say but that is a RANT. Take a strong view about the violence of religion when we are discussing the violence of religion, by all means. Otherwise it is an aside, which is okay in small doses, but if it goes on at length then it is a RANT.

Did you check out the meaning of the word rant?

huxley:


Now, on the substantive point about whether God solves the problems of believers, which was my main beef, you made the statement:

What religion tells you to look outward to God for solving your problems?

As I pointed out earlier, my problem is NOT where God resides as whether he has promised to help or solve the problems of his followers. To that end, I am prepared to conciliate and make the statement slightly in favour of the point you are trying to make and see if it help things. Let us change the statement to the following, which is what you favour with all the ABIDING stuff you posted earlier:

What religion tells you to look inward to God for solving your problems?

Does this suit you more? I think it does because it locates god where you argue he is.

Now, do religions NOT promote the notion that their God is there to help its followers, amongst other benefits?

It does suit me a lot more and I will answer the question in the affirmative. God is a source of help and many benefits. And to contrast this with what Mr Kurtz is saying that humans (without God) can solve all their problems by themselves, I know that to be absolute kaka. Can you demonstrate or even suggest an argument as to how this will be possible?

By the way, Religion does not necessarily take man out of the center of the equation (as it were) but rather seeks to make Man whole, complete, fulfilled, ie fully man. In order for man to be fully man he must come to atonement with God. This is my religious stand, just to make this clear.

Pastor AIO:

My brother it is either you want to talk about Paul Kurtz - the great intellectual, or you don't want to talk about Paul Kurtz the great intellectual.

which is it?
The words that you say have evoked such strong sentiments (highlighted in red) were that Paul Kurtz was demonstrating little knowledge of philosophy or religion. If you disagree then what you have to do is tell me how he demonstrates that he actually has this knowledge.

Did you show how Kurtz is wrong about religion and how your are right? Have you show how you have a better understand of the philosophy of religion? I await to see that!

Pastor AIO:


When you go on at length about some issue that has no bearing on the subject of discussion then I sorry to say but that is a RANT. Take a strong view about the violence of religion when we are discussing the violence of religion, by all means. Otherwise it is an aside, which is okay in small doses, but if it goes on at length then it is a RANT.

Did you check out the meaning of the word rant?

It does suit me a lot more and I will answer the question in the affirmative. God is a source of help and many benefits. And to contrast this with what Mr Kurtz is saying that humans (without God) can solve all their problems by themselves, I know that to be absolute kaka. Can you demonstrate or even suggest an argument as to how this will be possible?

By the way, Religion does not necessarily take man out of the center of the equation (as it were) but rather seeks to make Man whole, complete, fulfilled, ie fully man. In order for man to be fully man he must come to atonement with God. This is my religious stand, just to make this clear.

How can you on one breath say the following:

God is a source of help and many benefits.

And on another breath, agree with the comments:

What religion tells you to look inward to God for solving your problems?

These two statements are contradictory. How can you hold both positions?

huxley:


How can you on one breath say the following:

And on another breath, agree with the comments:

These two statements are contradictory. How can you hold both positions?

I made a mistake. I overlooked that that was a question. I meant that religion DOES say to look within to find the God, and that Kurtz was wrong by saying that religion says look outward. I'll restate my position for clarification:

1.The Kingdom of God is Within you.

2.Knowledge of God and atonement with God is a source of Great benefits.

huxley:

Did you show how Kurtz is wrong about religion and how your are right? Have you show how you have a better understand of the philosophy of religion? I await to see that!

I believe that my first long post discussing the video already does that. He misappropriates a lot of philosophical terms, for a start.

Pastor AIO:


It does suit me a lot more and I will answer the question in the affirmative.  God is a source of help and many benefits. And to contrast this with what Mr Kurtz is saying that humans (without God) can solve all their problems by themselves, I know that to be absolute kaka.  Can you demonstrate or even suggest an argument as to how this will be possible?

By the way, Religion does not necessarily take man out of the center of the equation (as it were) but rather seeks to make Man whole, complete, fulfilled, ie fully man.  In order for man to be fully man he must come to atonement with God.  This is my religious stand, just to make this clear.  

This is a bizarre notion.  How has God helped or is helping to solves man's problem.  Some of humans biggest problems are what are generally called natural evil in philosophy, ie, these are the harm and suffers that comes to us just as the result of nature going about it business.  Thus we have earthquakes, tsumanies, volcanoes, diseases, droughts, climate change, etc, etc.  Every year, hundreds of thousands are killed or left destitute from the natural events.  Yet god sits on his thrown, folded hand and amuses himself at the suffering on his beloved creatures.

Can you name just one thing that god has done that has demonstrably  seen to help mankind? All the development that humans have achieved have been from their own sweated brows. I know christians are wont to make the argument that god gives us the knowledge to solve our problems.  Ah right.  Why is taking so long to give us the exactly correct knowledge to treat cancers, malaria, AIDS, heart diseases.  The more he delays the more his beloved children die.

This post

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-148054.32.html#msg2477582
shows why I know kurtz is wrong about philosophy.  Especially where he claims that his 'philosophy' stretches back to Athens.

Pastor AIO:

This post

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-148054.32.html#msg2477582
shows why I know kurtz is wrong about philosophy.  Especially where he claims that his 'philosophy' stretches back to Athens.  

I have read that stuff of your several time and I still could not understand what you were saying there. In fact I did ask you to define and explain what Spirituality is but I have stopped waiting, knowing how difficult this is for you.

On the issue of his philosophy dating back to Greece, I think he meant it in the sense that most of Western philosophy traces its history back to Greece. Almost everyone on philosophy would readily admit it, that the philosophical tradition of Western thought has a great deal of Greek influence. But do you think contemporary notions and concepts of philosophy would be defined in the same way that that Greeks defined them? Absolutely NOT. But the idea of inquiry learnts from the Greeks lives on in modern philosophy.

Just as modern democracy has very little in common with the democracy practiced by the Greeks, but still it is widely recognised that modern western democracy traces back to the Greeks.

huxley:

I have read that stuff of your several time and I still could not understand what you were saying there.  In fact I did ask you to define and explain what Spirituality is but I have stopped waiting, knowing how difficult this is for you.

By Spirituality I meant reality that is not based or composed of Material bodies.  ie not composed of matter and extended in space. 

I was surprised that you feigned not understanding my post.  Perhaps you are not feigning but actually did not understand so I'll try to explain what I was saying by rephrasing it.
I said:

  At 02:35 the interviewer says, "you have spent the lion share of your career, Paul, searching for ethical alternatives to religiosity".

To find an alternative to something you must first have an idea of what that thing does,  what it's function is.  Then you seek out something else that can fulfill that function equally or better.  This statement suggests that he recognises that religion does provide a useful function.  However I make the point that there is a lot more to religion than the provision of ethics. 

I say:

Spirituality is based on experience.  To say it was invented to give us ethics is like saying light was invented so that we can play darts.  Of course not.  We can see light because it exists and we have an organ with which to perceive it.  It is a happy consequence of this that we can therefore play darts.  If one now claims to be able to play darts blindfolded and then argues that subsequently there is no need for sight . . . well . . . I don't know what to say about that.  An alternative approach to ethics does not invalidate religion as neither does the ability to play darts blindfolded invalidate sight.

I've defined spirituality above.  So I'll rephrase:  Awareness of non material entities is derived from the experience of them and they are not an invention for the purpose of creating ethics.  I drew an analogy with light and playing darts.  Light is not invented so that we can play darts but rather we can play darts as a happy consequence of having light and being able to see.
Likewise religion is not invented so we can have ethics but rather we have ethics as a happy consequence of being spiritually aware.

I said:

This all rests on whether or not there is an experiential basis for spirituality.

  And that is the crux of the matter.  It is not about definitions and ontologies but rather about experience.  And if the experience is indescribable that does not invalidate it as a reality.  There are many real things that we see in everyday life that we cannot properly describe either.  We are often lost for words etc.  And such things are not even on par with spiritual things. 

Now all that wasn't even the main thrust of my criticism, but rather the misappropriation of philosophical terms. 

you asked:

Was hard to make any sense to what you were saying here.  To help me out, can you give your understanding of the following words/concept and how they relate to what you just said and to what Paul Kurtz is saying.  Please, don't beat about too much as you have done above.

1) REASON
2) INTELLIGENT
3) WISDOM
4) RATIONALISM/IRRATIONALISM
5) ILLOGICAL

 

I don't know how directly quoting Plato is beating about too much.  I'll try again, but I must quote Plato,  because he is an authority in greek philosophy.  Plato discusses cosmology in his book Timaeus, yes?  In this book he says this:

We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes (ie. the eternal) from that which is always becoming but never is (the temporal). 

In other words he is saying that there is an eternal reality and a temporal reality. The Eternal is the world of BEING.  While the Temporal world is the world of BECOMING.  There is a distinction between things Being, and remaining in their state of Being and Things BECOMING, ie in flux in a state of constant change.  Things are continually becoming.  If you cannot grasp these  concepts that you should just stop deceiving yourself and give up on philosophy altogether.

Plato then says:

The one is apprehensible by INTELLIGENCE with the aid of REASONING, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real

And there's your definition for you.  Reason and Intelligence are the faculties that we use to perceive Eternal things, while opinion and irrational sensation are what we use to perceive Temporal things. 
I agree that the use of these terms have changed over the centuries and irrational sensation is now equated with Reason but Plato would be shocked at this development.  Today, the word Sensible is now the same as intelligent.  When they say you are a sensible guy, you are being praised.  Yet originally it meant to be overly affected by the senses, to be influenced by the emotions. 

Sensibility refers to an acute perception of or responsiveness toward something, such as the emotions of another. This concept emerged in eighteenth-century Britain, and was closely associated with studies of sense perception as the means through which knowledge is gathered. It also became associated with sentimental moral philosophy.
One of the first of such texts would be John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), where he says, "I conceive that Ideas in the Understanding, are coeval with Sensation; which is such an Impression or Motion, made in some part of the Body, as makes it be taken notice of in the Understanding."[1] George Cheyne and other medical writers wrote of "The English Malady," also called "hysteria" in women or "hypochondria" in men, a condition with symptoms that closely resemble the modern diagnosis of clinical depression. Cheyne considered this malady to be the result of over-taxed nerves. At the same time, theorists asserted that individuals who had ultra-sensitive nerves would have keener senses, and thus be more aware of beauty and moral truth. Thus, while it was considered a physical and/or emotional fragility, sensibility was also widely perceived as a virtue.

From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensibility

So I hope I've answered your request to define Reason and Rationality. 

And as regards devotees looking outward to find God, I believe we've covered that extensively enough already.  All that's left is to answer the charge of caricaturing religion.  You said:

In fact, it was this carricaturing of your own religion, blatantly refusing to acknowledge what YOUR religions says that caused me to not respond.  What is the point of responding when you are being blatantly dishonest.  Was this willful dishonesty or was it out of ignorance? The latter is excusable, but the former is NOT.   

What is a caricature?

A caricature is either a portrait that exaggerates or distorts the essence of a person or thing to create an easily identifiable visual likeness, or in literature, a description of a person using exaggeration of some characteristics and oversimplification of others.[1]

  From wikipedia (don't you just love wikipedia)

Is there any portrayal, portraiture, description of anything by anyone where the person is not picking on a few salient points and using that to represent the whole things.  This is true whether rhetorically, or in literature, or in visual art.  No artist can pick up every nuance of a persons face but limits himself to a few lines that he feels captures a certain essence of the subject.  Is this not so?  Caricatures are loaded with meanings.  The meanings are those that the artist intends to portray. 
Even photography which should have the minimum of artifice becomes an artform where the artist/photography manipulates light to bring out certain characteristics that he is trying to portray. Does the photography misrepresent his subject by doing so?

So I don't know what the accusations are, especially as this thread is not about religion, but rather about the false claims of Mr. Paul Kurtz.  When you say this:

I shall deal with the rest later when you have address this and you begin to straighten up and present your religion as it is ordinarily understood, rather than the carricature you are wont to present.

. . . you are basically saying that you don't want to discuss the issue of Paul Kurtz talking kaka.  That's like me saying that I will not discuss with you until you change your name back from Huxley to T. Paine.  What has your name got to do with anything?  What has  my understanding of religion got to do with the fact that he is misappropriation philosophical jargon. 
I will not deny that religion can and has been used to manipulate people, or that religious devotees often Look for God as for something outside of themselves (either in idols or in pastors or in gurus etc), however to make the sweeping statement that this is what religion does is wrong.  There is ample evidence in every religious tradition that this is not the case.  Is it caricaturing to point out this evidence? 
[quote][/quote]

. . . So Huxley How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism? If not you, then how has Paul Kurtz done so?

Do you know what existentialism is? Just in case you don't:

Existential philosophy is characterized by what has been called the "explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude"[5] that begins with a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[6][7]

From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

huxley I have been following your critics and aguement against religion, God of the bible and his creations and am yet to know or understand what you relly believe in, please could you let me know where you stand is [color=#006600][/color]

Pastor AIO:

. . . So Huxley How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism? If not you, then how has Paul Kurtz done so?

Do you know what existentialism is? Just in case you don't:

From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

I don't understand. What does existential mean. Can you explain to me how you understand it and how it relates to your question?