XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi   
      
   david ford wrote:   
   > nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com (Nick Keighley) wrote in message   
   news:...   
   >   
   >>"Raan"  wrote in message news:...   
   >>   
   >>>"Nick Keighley"  wrote in message   
   news:aed14a74.0408281538.2cf45017@posting.google.com...   
   >>>   
   >>>>"Raan"  wrote in message news:...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>>>Never before have our challenges been so great.  Never has your support   
   >>>>>been so important.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Secular humanism offers an alternative to dogmatism.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>the trouble is, posts like yours lead us to believe that "secular humanism"   
   >>>>*is* dogmatism.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>How do you figure that and why do I need to ask this since you could just as   
   >>>well have explained yourself.   
   >>   
   >>I suspect since you have to ask that you won't agree. Your original post   
   >>sounds like preaching. You even ask for money at the end!   
   >   
   >   
   > Religions typically need money to continue to survive.  The religion   
   > of secular humanism is no exception.   
   >   
   >   
   >>You try to conflate "science and reason" with "secularism and humanism".   
   >   
   >   
   > Like secular humanism, other religions often claim that "science" is   
   > on their side.   
   >   
      
   Sometimes they do, usually they're just happy to *claim* that the "Truth"   
   (whatever that may be) is on their side. OTOH, we've heard *claims* from   
   people who have seen Elvis lately. What might be your point, if any?   
      
      
   >   
   >>I find the statement "Much of the progress of the twentieth century can be   
   >>directly attributed to the rise of secularism and humanism" contentious.   
   >   
   >   
   > If "progress" equals "mass killing," then the statement is accurate.   
   >   
      
   Mass killings are mostly associated with *religious* adherence to dogmas   
   by those who incite the mass killings.   
      
   Apropos, David. What constitutes a "mass killing" from your point of view.   
      
   To clarify a little, *any* killing for a religious belief is an unpardonable   
   offence   
   two killings constitute a criminal, three killings make a serial killer,   
   beyond that, we're talking about mass killers. I'm excluding self protection   
   for individuals and also for nations. I'm *not* excluding killing for   
   religious beliefs.   
      
   Would you?   
      
      
   >   
   >>I'm left wondering if you had religious upbringing.   
   >   
   >   
      
   Seppo P.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)