That does not follow.
Remember that if there are ten, or a thousand, or even an infinite number of wrong answers to a question, that does not even begin to suggest that there's no right answer. So the mere "fact" that many cultures exist does not suggest that they're all good or right, or that none is better than another, or that one is not uniquely right. So Cultural Relativism isn't warranted by that observation.
And that's just a basic logical truism.
There's no logical requirement that a true believe has to be "shared across all religions." That wouldn't imply it was right, even if it happened....one particular religion could hold some belief about what is 'true' or 'correct' behaviors' that are shared across all religions...
Remember that at one time in history, 100% of the living people thought the world was flat. Did that imply they were right? Of course not.
They often think that the SAME GOD exists in all religions equally but that God is communicating the relevant moral material THROUGH different cultures without concern for literal interpretation.
Well, I think we can see that that's obviously untrue. The "gods" of different religions have wildly different characteristics ascribed to them -- in fact, often opposite characteristics. For example, some religions believe in one God, and others in many. Some believe in impersonal gods, and some in a personal one. Some believe the gods even have human character failings, and others say God is transcendent of all that...and so on.
Logically, there's zero chance they're all the same "god." So people who say such things as that are simply wrong. If they did any investigation at all, they'd realize that had to be so. But usually, such folks, as I've found, have no real depth of knowledge about any religion, save perhaps the one into which they were raised. They want to avoid the question, really: they want it all not to matter, and not to make them think to hard. So they blithely assume their conclusion, without investigation. But looking at the particulars destroys that illusion immediately, so they have to avoid looking very hard.
But would you think it wise to permit a government specific power of theocratic lawmaking?
No. I believe in religious toleration -- but not because everybody's equally right, but rather because I believe in the sanctity of personal conscience. Every person has the right to be wrong. They also have the right to live or die by their personal obedience to the truth. So I would never, under any circumstances, want that taken away from them.
However, not all religions are like that.
It doesn't matter. Society will always have both the variable religions and some minority of non-religious people with various different percentages of popularity to each.
Well, it's not a popularity contest, after all. It's about the truth. Truth isn't a function of the number of people who believe a thing, because the masses, just like the individual, are capable of being wrong. So it's true that only around 4% of the people are Atheists, but that in itself doesn't make Atheism wrong. However, it also doesn't make it right. Numbers just aren't relevant, either way.
It's not, though. Its basic method was discovered by a Theist (Francis Bacon), and on Theistic assumptions. The reason that Bacon knew the scientific method would work is that he believed God was rational, and would order reality in rationally comprehensible ways. So he premised the scientific method on that.I can say that science is itself a 'secular' institution
If you ever wondered why science was never discovered in polytheistic cultures, even though the number and cleverness of such people was very high, this is why. You don't look for systematic consistency in a polytheistic culture: their gods are idiosyncratic, and you can't predict what they will do, not by any method, so you can't predict reality, and cannot test it.
This is the idea that died in the 1960s.We are in an era of science and tech that cannot continue to hold meaning for religious truth...
I'm sorry... I can't figure out how that answer corresponds to the question.I'm aware of the varying definitions.you wrote:Actually agnostic means "not-knowing." The "a-" is the Greek particle of negation. It's a confession of ignorance, not a claim to know something. A "Gnostic" does claim to know something, but he's a very different fish, and is religious.I wrote:I used to call myself Agnostic Atheist. I'm now DO claim a positive rational disapproval of religion for logical reasons. (Gnostic == knowing)
But if you do claim to have "a positive, rational disapproval...for logical reasons," then I have no doubt you'll be able to justify that with evidence.
So now it's fair for me to ask, what's your "positive, rational, logical" evidence for the non-existence of God?
Sorry to contradict, but that's just not true. I have expert knowledge in this area. The Gnostics were a religion, one that only faded in the 17th Century, and has been recently revived in various religious and technical "gnosticisms" like Extropianism. But every form of it is intensely religious, being premised on esoteric "knowledge" of some kind, not on cold facts.Note that you just erred in assuming the word, "gnostic" is uniquely definitive of only the religious "Gnostics" of the mystic origins. These were the original forms of 'secular' religions that trusted stories as hiding interesting truths within the context of them.
These are two distinct ideologies, not one with two names. Theists believe in a personal God, and Deists believe in an absentee one.Note too that "theist" and its alternative spelling, "deist",...
You are begging a unique relationship of one being 'good' as OWNED by their God. [/quote]You don't have to be. To see this, a person would just have to be honest.But I am NOT religious.
When things are not the same, an honest person wants to recognize it. That doesn't mean that he has to believe in any of them...he just has to know the difference between them, and recognize it. That's all.
No, I'm not talking about that. I'm saying something very simple: when two things are different, it's honest to acknowledge that -- no matter what those two things are. That's all.
Evolution does not have a "meaning." If true, it's a mere fact about the world, with no value judgment attached. It also indicates that there is no "meaning" to life. Life just exists, for the Evolutionist: it is neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong.As a non-religious person knowing of what evolution means,...
These assignments are what initiates a 'moral' sense and is also relative to your environmental experience.
If that were true, all morality would be the same, and all of it would be the same as that which conduces to survival. But look at the particulars of different moralities, and you'll see that neither is true.
But illusions are not evolutionarily adaptive. Realism is. So the existence of these illusions is puzzling to the Evolutionist: we ought to all be realists, if we are responding to a survival instinct....our illusion of value comes first from one's own interpretation of values that favor them.
A person who sees dragons where there are none has a disadvantage relative to somebody who sees things as they are. A person who trusts that fairies will make him fly has a survival disadvantage relative to somebody who understands gravity. So there's no Evolutionary explanation that allows for illusions to be adaptive.
Darwin was quite clear that in order to survive, a mutation has to be adaptive for survival, and immediately so. If it's not, it cannot be "naturally selected." Indeed, the Evolutionary process is blind to such a thing.
Government laws are what 'rule' morality.[/quote]Not in a secular world. In a secular world, there are no criteria for "good" or "bad." There's only what IS.No, the acts of people consolidated under ANY belief CAN be 'good' or 'bad'.
If so, then an evil government can do what it wants to us...and we have no grounds for objection. Would you be content to accept that outcome?
YOUR Christianity...[/quote]Not quite. Christianity was a persecuted group in the Roman Empire. The merely-nominal conversion of Constantine (312 AD) later changed this, but not for a very long while after Christ....about three centuries, in fact.I don't support his many views but also know that Christianity originated as its own original 'communistic' system in its origins as adapted by the Romans.
Bear in mind that we're are not talking about my Christianity, nor any Christianity, really. Constantine was a pagan syncretist, and a founder of the Roman Catholic organization. He was not a real Christian, and said so himself.
I know what books you've been reading now, or at least what the people you've been listening to have been reading. This is the old, Gnostic misrepresentation of Christian history, with one monolithic religious entity (usually the Catholics) pegged as the totality of "Christianity."Christianity was sold on borrowing the advantages of Judaism when Jews were NOT welcomed as they represented to mean "terrorist" to the Romans due to the contemporary problems in the Middle East at that time. The stories of this "Jesus" was more of a collection of other peoples', like [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba]Simon bar Kokhba[/i] among others of the prior source of Judaism, the Egyptian beliefs.
I wouldn't agree with any of that. Neither would a deeper investigation of history, actually.
Sure it is. It's an arbitrary faith position with regard to God. That makes it fit the core definition. But we can disagree about that equitably."Atheism" is NOT a religion.
I would say it simply originates from human hubris. It needs no more basis to get it going than that.I also already pointed out that religion originates FROM the secular reality. They have to come from somewhere.
I have said already that I am non-political, and do not believe that anybody's religion has legitimacy to deprive people of freedom of conscience. So this is not even a case you have to make to me.Can you not see how religion in constitutional or lawmaking purposes is dangerous regardless of the intentions of those who do good by religion?
However, you could make it to the Catholics or the Muslims, if you wanted. They both believe in religious control of political structures. I believe in political neutrality in regard to religion, so as to allow conscience to be free.