Yes, more or less seriously, I'll change that! If you believe, that the medium and long term outlook for “society,” for “the Earth,” for world affairs---in other words, for the human race---is dismal, ominous, etc. I BELIEVE AS YOU DO, but even so, I intend to convince you the outlook is good after all!

Does it seem rational to you that the problem must have begun a few generations to a few centuries ago and it has gotten worse? Then, perhaps you think that something has happened to the human ability to think, to solve problems, to plan, to execute plans. If so, do you think that loss of ability is due to genetic or epigenetic change that is accelerating? Perhaps we are experiencing “reverse evolution” (!)

No, most of you are familiar with biology and evolution enough to know better! It has nothing to do with any biological, genetic or evolutionary change in us.

So, what is left? Isn't the only thing left what we believe? Sure it is, there is no alternative explanation. The world is divided into Muslim nations, Christian-originated nations, Marxist ones, and Hindu ones. Are they to blame? When we look back into world history, we find that we have been divided into different religions for the full extent of recorded history. So that does not seem to be the reason. Besides, the world is being run not by them but by our secular belief system. The UN, the IMF, World Bank, etc. are all secular institutions. Our governments are mostly all secular. Iran, North Korea, Gaza, and the Tribal Areas are about the only exceptions. It seems hardly reasonable to blame all our world problems on those few people in those small nations or sub-nations instead of our inability to deal with them and with the other problems!

That leaves only one thing. Our secular system is failing us. What else can possibly be the problem? . . .nothing is left. We had secularized the way the world was run, but our secular system has become steadily less and less able to unite the world and to deal with its problems.

So, since you do not and cannot believe anything is wrong with our secular beliefs, you are forced to conclude that the world outlook is good after all.

There you are, just as I said at the beginning! Feel better now?


charles
the Atheistic Science Institute - home page* *

__________________
charles
http://atheistic-science.com

You should title that the crisis of post-modernity, and may be expand on it- its very good. Personally in my view we need to bring back the influence of religion on society- as what comes in its place are infinitly more extreme idealogies- facism, communism and terrifying combinations of free market capitalism and eugenics. Or otherwise no real idealogy at all- a problem that afflict not secular political systems but secular socities- for which the UK is an examplar. But the problem is not simply one of secularisation, or rather not secularisation as we term it. Secularisation was originally the brain child of protestantism, and it is extreme protestantism that calls not just for secularisation- as puritan (if I may justly expand the term) Islam exemplifies- but demystification. They demand that there be no place for the supernatural, the fantastic or the trancendant. They are the iconoclasts, the true atheists. So it is that in religion that the rot of demystification spreads- and no part of society is unafflicted. We must therefore not just de-secularise, but re-mystify society.

Failed.
Many illogical and erroneous assumptions, unsupported, unfounded, leading nowhere.
I'd imaging that you wouldn't be interested in a line by line analysis and critique.
Sorry, i doubt that you'll 'convince' anyone to think/believe any differently with this mess...

If you 'believe' that human outlook "is dismal, ominous, etc." then you do not believe/think that it is 'good' (unless you redefine the terms used). If you cannot 'convince yourself, with your obviously impotent argument, how moronic and gullible do you assume that we are, that you would attempt to convince us with an 'argument' that cannot 'convince' even yourself?

All that I see that might be described as "dismal, ominous, etc.", is your 'logic'.

But, the illogic and sloppy thoughts are 'par for the course' amongst 'believers', which is how they can remain so.
'Belief' is in a diametrically oppositional ratio to 'critical thought'; the more of one, the less of the other.
People kill and die and commit all atrocities because of 'beliefs'. Almost all human atrocities committed against others can be traced to 'beliefs'.
The evidence is overwhelming.

So the conquistadors invaded and killed millions of natives in the name of secular economy.My ancestors searched out new worlds and conquered them in the name of secular greed.The industrial revolution that started the destruction of the new world was done in the name of some unknown secular demand..Slavery was not committed without men of gods permission..The faithful did and continue to destroy our world, it is only us secular social animals that request we remodel our view of this lost paradise.

Yeah... Probably the greatest problem in the world is what state the planet's going to be in years hence. I suppose it's just the secular who drive, who fly, who demand 365-days-a-year access to seasonal goods. This would never have happened under a theocracy. Zis vud neffher haff happunt under Nazi Germany!!!!! Good propaganda, fella! Until you think about it for a second...

You do all realise he was being sarcastic...- you know the whole are whole secular system is all-pervasive but its completly fucked but there is nothing else now so it must all be fine thing...that was obviously him presenting the secularists paradoxical and unsustainable situation. I assume that was the lol sign at the end. Or am I being the slow one here...

I agree avatar, its just that he was being more tongue-in-cheek than sarcastic.

__________________
http://www.poseidons.net/

One assumes there was a point to his sarcasm beyond 'look at me, I can be sarcastic'.

So what is the point? If an institution is not associated with a religion and it fails, we have to blame secularism. If we believe in secularism, we must believe in the institutions and thus believe them to be infallible. Thus if they fail, we cannot believe it.

Where have I heard something like this before?

So the 'joke' is that atheists are assumed to be as mindless and blind as dogmatic theists, right? And when you make a hypothetical atheist think like a theist, it just shows how funny dogmatic theist thinking is? Right?