What is there to fault in this?

[Zzyzx]

.
What is there to fault in this?

Secular humanism is a non-religious worldview rooted in science, naturalistic philosophy, and humanist ethics. Rather than faith, doctrine, or mysticism, secular humanists use reason, compassion, and common sense to find solutions to human problems. We promote universal values such as integrity, benevolence, fairness, and responsibility, and we believe that with good reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made toward building a better world for ourselves and future generations.

Humanist is defined as:

a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/humanist

a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially :  a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanism

A system of thought that focuses on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism

One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanist


Is there any complaint with the above?

What does religion offer that humanism does not?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.

I was more referring to the first point: I said it was unrealistic and instead of countering "No it is realistic" you effectively said "So is faith in God" which is by its nature an agreement that, noble as the aims are they ARE indeed unrealistic. Do you see what I'm saying ?

I fully agree that the stated aims of Secular Humanism ... are unrealistic (even if noble).

Which is what I said. It seems we agree at least on this one point. It's nice to find some common ground.

Being MUCH younger and apparently less cynical then Z myself, I do not at all agree that the stated aims of humanism are unattainable. And maybe fully attaining them is not even really the point. It is the process of continuously STRIVING to attain them that is important.

[Zzyzx]

.

I was more referring to the first point: I said it was unrealistic and instead of countering "No it is realistic" you effectively said "So is faith in God" which is by its nature an agreement that, noble as the aims are they ARE indeed unrealistic. Do you see what I'm saying ?

I fully agree that the stated aims of Secular Humanism ... are unrealistic (even if noble).

Which is what I said. It seems we agree at least on this one point. It's nice to find some common ground.

Excellent. Let's go on establishing common ground.

Are the stated aims of Christianity 'unrealistic (even if noble)? It seems as though Christians have some difficulty identifying, agreeing upon, or disclosing 'the stated aims' of Christianity -- let alone evaluating whether they are unrealistic.

Perhaps some ideas will come forth in http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=31929. But I somewhat doubt that will happen.

[Realworldjack]

.

I really do not know how I could state it more clearly! So then, since you seem so certain that Christianity has a "stated purpose", and that I am attempting to "avoid identifying what it actually is", then maybe you can explain to us all what it is?

So again, since you are under the impression that Christianity must, and has to have a "stated purpose"

Jack, I did NOT bring up 'goal and purpose of Christianity'. YOU did with:

If that is the stated goal of "humanism" then that is very admirable goal, but what in the world would this have to do with Christianity? It is not the stated goal, or purpose of Christianity to "find solutions to human problems.

When you introduced the idea (by reference to what it is not) it is reasonable for me to ask for clarification of what the 'goal and purpose' IS.

then why do you not dig in, to investigate this "stated purpose" to share with us all?

I have done exactly that, Jack, by ASKING those who should know about such things – Christians. I have even started a separate thread to discuss that matter. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 030#848030

I suspect (but do not claim to know) that said 'goal and objective' relates to promises and threats regarding a hypothetical 'afterlife'. We shall see.

What I recorded, is not something I simply made up on the fly, but rather has been my understanding all along.

Opinion noted. Is that widely or universally accepted within Christendom's multitude of denominations – from Eastern Orthodox, to Roman Catholicism, to Protestantism (including Mennonite, LDS, SDA, JW, etc, etc)?

Jack, I did NOT bring up 'goal and purpose of Christianity'. YOU did

I don't think so. You brought up the "stated purpose" of humanism, and went on to ask "what religion had to offer that humanism did not?" I acknowledged the "stated purpose" of humanism, and went on to say that, "this was not the "stated purpose" of Christianity." However, simply because I acknowledge that Cristianity does not have the "stated purpose" of finding solutions to "human problems" does not in any way mean that it has a "stated purpose."

I have done exactly that, Jack, by ASKING those who should know about such things – Christians. I have even started a separate thread to discuss that matter.

Nice! But, as you have pointed out, there are many Christians who disagree about these things, and it is because the Scriptures are so unclear, right? It would have nothing to do with the fact that most Christians have never really studied the Bible, to actually know what they believe, and why they believe it? And I am sure you know these things, because you surely have spent many an hour studying the Bible yourself, and you must have, in order for you to be so critical about it.

My point is, to answer the rest of your post, why not instead of asking other people, go to the Bilble yourself to discover what it has to say, about the questions you pose? If you believe it to be too much trouble, or are not interested, then why do you spend so much time, effort, and energy into debating, discussing, and criticizing, something you have no interest in?

[Plumbus Grumbo]

.

I really do not know how I could state it more clearly! So then, since you seem so certain that Christianity has a "stated purpose", and that I am attempting to "avoid identifying what it actually is", then maybe you can explain to us all what it is?

So again, since you are under the impression that Christianity must, and has to have a "stated purpose"

Jack, I did NOT bring up 'goal and purpose of Christianity'. YOU did with:

If that is the stated goal of "humanism" then that is very admirable goal, but what in the world would this have to do with Christianity? It is not the stated goal, or purpose of Christianity to "find solutions to human problems.

When you introduced the idea (by reference to what it is not) it is reasonable for me to ask for clarification of what the 'goal and purpose' IS.

then why do you not dig in, to investigate this "stated purpose" to share with us all?

I have done exactly that, Jack, by ASKING those who should know about such things – Christians. I have even started a separate thread to discuss that matter. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 030#848030

I suspect (but do not claim to know) that said 'goal and objective' relates to promises and threats regarding a hypothetical 'afterlife'. We shall see.

What I recorded, is not something I simply made up on the fly, but rather has been my understanding all along.

Opinion noted. Is that widely or universally accepted within Christendom's multitude of denominations – from Eastern Orthodox, to Roman Catholicism, to Protestantism (including Mennonite, LDS, SDA, JW, etc, etc)?

Jack, I did NOT bring up 'goal and purpose of Christianity'. YOU did

I don't think so. You brought up the "stated purpose" of humanism, and went on to ask "what religion had to offer that humanism did not?" I acknowledged the "stated purpose" of humanism, and went on to say that, "this was not the "stated purpose" of Christianity." However, simply because I acknowledge that Cristianity does not have the "stated purpose" of finding solutions to "human problems" does not in any way mean that it has a "stated purpose."

I have done exactly that, Jack, by ASKING those who should know about such things – Christians. I have even started a separate thread to discuss that matter.

Nice! But, as you have pointed out, there are many Christians who disagree about these things, and it is because the Scriptures are so unclear, right? It would have nothing to do with the fact that most Christians have never really studied the Bible, to actually know what they believe, and why they believe it? And I am sure you know these things, because you surely have spent many an hour studying the Bible yourself, and you must have, in order for you to be so critical about it.

My point is, to answer the rest of your post, why not instead of asking other people, go to the Bilble yourself to discover what it has to say, about the questions you pose? If you believe it to be too much trouble, or are not interested, then why do you spend so much time, effort, and energy into debating, discussing, and criticizing, something you have no interest in?

Why so coy? Either Christianity (according to you) has a purpose or of doesn't.
Does it?
If it does, what is it?

[bluethread]

Theism is simply the view that there is a deity or are deities, nothing else. Nothing of what you said follows from that premise.

If you'll kindly notice. I discussed religion, not theism. My claim thus holds.

My understanding is that, in it's most narrow usage, religion refers to the practices of theists. In it's broadest sense, it refers to the practices of any philosophy, which is my preferred usage. Am I incorrect in these two parameters of the term? If so, how so?

Also, you have provided no support for your implication that your contention that we live in the most peaceful time in history is due to secular humanism.

Widely known and easily verifiable facts are often not "supported" in an argument.

https://www.good.is/articles/closer-to-peace-than-ever

That only presents statistics regarding deaths since 1940. However, I was not contesting that point at the moment. My primary inquiry was regarding how you know that this is due to secular humanism. It could have more to do with technological advances in reducing collateral damage, increased surveillance, and the risk of mutually verifiable destruction.

Also, on this site, all facts require support on demand, regardless of how widely known or easily verifiable the proponent believes them to be.

The claim that any god exists is larger and less likely to be proved than the claim that human interest in humans and their welfare has done humanity good. Gods cannot be proven to exist by any method we know of. That many humans intend better for humanity is easily proven billions of times each day by the actions of humans.

Where is the support for your embedded claim that secular humanism is "problematic?"

The latter first, the question of whether secular humanism is problematic is implicit in the OP question. "Is there any complaint with the above (definition of secular humanism)?"

What you refer to is humanitarianism, not humanism. The former refers to behaviors and intents favorable to humans. The latter refers to a belief system where those things have primacy over all other considerations. That said neither of these preclude the existence of a deity. The inclusion of secular removes belief in a deity from the equation. Therefore, the larger question on this thread is "Is there any complaint with the above (definition of secular humanism)?" My point is that it is interesting that the tread appears to be dominated, not with discussions of that question, but comparative arguments regarding theistic humanism. Your assertion that humanism is better for humanity narrows the question of the OP. The OP does not ask if humanism is better for humans, it asks, "Is there any complaint with the above (definition of secular humanism)?" This is a very broad question and worthy of consideration. Yet, this thread is dominated, not with examinations of secular humanism, but with criticisms of various types of theism.

[Plumbus Grumbo]

Theism is simply the view that there is a deity or are deities, nothing else. Nothing of what you said follows from that premise.

If you'll kindly notice. I discussed religion, not theism. My claim thus holds.

My understanding is that, in it's most narrow usage, religion refers to the practices of theists. In it's broadest sense, it refers to the practices of any philosophy, which is my preferred usage. Am I incorrect in these two parameters of the term? If so, how so?

My claim referred to religion since many, many theists (such as myself) have no religious outlook. My claim had to do with dogmatic adherence to a binary heierarchy of "sheep vs goats" that is the bedrock of religious practice and thought.

Also, you have provided no support for your implication that your contention that we live in the most peaceful time in history is due to secular humanism.

Widely known and easily verifiable facts are often not "supported" in an argument.

https://www.good.is/articles/closer-to-peace-than-ever

That only presents statistics regarding deaths since 1940. However, I was not contesting that point at the moment. My primary inquiry was regarding how you know that this is due to secular humanism. It could have more to do with technological advances in reducing collateral damage, increased surveillance, and the risk of mutually verifiable destruction.

Also, on this site, all facts require support on demand, regardless of how widely known or easily verifiable the proponent believes them to be.

Preposterous. If you (or anyone) refer to the properties of gravity or the base ten system of mathematics, nobody is going to ask you to provide "support."

As to the data being the result of humanism, what else could it be, since humanity has united under no other dogmatic code of conduct or system of government?

And if that was the case (you were asking for support that humanism was responsible), a responsible poster would have been much more specific. Something like, "Yes, we are living in the most peaceful time in recorded history, but what is your evidence that this state is due to humanism?" Please learn to be more direct when asking for "support" to eliminate confusion.

The claim that any god exists is larger and less likely to be proved than the claim that human interest in humans and their welfare has done humanity good. Gods cannot be proven to exist by any method we know of. That many humans intend better for humanity is easily proven billions of times each day by the actions of humans.

Where is the support for your embedded claim that secular humanism is "problematic?"

The latter first, the question of whether secular humanism is problematic is implicit in the OP question. "Is there any complaint with the above (definition of secular humanism)?"

What you refer to is humanitarianism, not humanism. The former refers to behaviors and intents favorable to humans. The latter refers to a belief system where those things have primacy over all other considerations. That said neither of these preclude the existence of a deity. The inclusion of secular removes belief in a deity from the equation. Therefore, the larger question on this thread is "Is there any complaint with the above (definition of secular humanism)?" My point is that it is interesting that the tread appears to be dominated, not with discussions of that question, but comparative arguments regarding theistic humanism. Your assertion that humanism is better for humanity narrows the question of the OP. The OP does not ask if humanism is better for humans, it asks, "Is there any complaint with the above (definition of secular humanism)?" This is a very broad question and worthy of consideration. Yet, this thread is dominated, not with examinations of secular humanism, but with criticisms of various types of theism.

[/quote]

From this weak and reactionary summary I conclude that no evidence offered will you judge as sufficient to meet your unique requirements that seem to continually move as goalposts that suddenly appear where they were not before and had not so far been hinted at in that spot, so I leave you with your a priori assessments.

To summarize my position:
1. Humanism rests on humanitarian principles which rest on prima facie existence of humans and intrests in humanity prospering and enduring.

2. Religiosity rests on the idea that a god or gods exists which has yet to be proved or even set forth a metric upon which the idea might be falsified or definitively demonstrated.

3. Humanity, without appealing to any one religion or dogma, has become more and more and more peaceful through the centuries and decades, and we now live in the most peaceful time in history due to humans wishing to be better and cause less harm to other humans.

4. Because humanism seeks to make humanity better based on what is evident, it rests on axioms that cannot be denied whereas religions rest on axioms that have never been proven and can provide no falsifiable way of judging their degree of correctness.

[Zzyzx]

.

Jack, I did NOT bring up 'goal and purpose of Christianity'. YOU did

I don't think so. You brought up the "stated purpose" of humanism, and went on to ask "what religion had to offer that humanism did not?"

Notice that the OP asks about religion – NOT about Christianity. Where was Christianity injected and by whom? (Perhaps post #9)

I acknowledged the "stated purpose" of humanism, and went on to say that, "this was not the "stated purpose" of Christianity." However, simply because I acknowledge that Cristianity does not have the "stated purpose" of finding solutions to "human problems" does not in any way mean that it has a "stated purpose."

Okay, having opened that can of worms, WHAT, if anything, IS the 'stated purpose' of Christianity -- preferably in the thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=31929

I have done exactly that, Jack, by ASKING those who should know about such things – Christians. I have even started a separate thread to discuss that matter.

Nice! But, as you have pointed out, there are many Christians who disagree about these things, and it is because the Scriptures are so unclear, right?

Since 'there are many Christians who disagree about these things [the goal and purpose of Christianity], it would be foolish to attempt to say what it is NOT.

It would have nothing to do with the fact that most Christians have never really studied the Bible,

I do not pretend to know whether most Christians have really studied the Bible. From what I see in these debates it appears as though Christians who debate here have read / studied PARTS of the bible and seem oblivious of other parts.

to actually know what they believe, and why they believe it?

If this is to say that most Christians don't know what they believe or why they believe it, I do not disagree. Some of them seem inclined to attempt to debate here.

And I am sure you know these things, because you surely have spent many an hour studying the Bible yourself, and you must have, in order for you to be so critical about it.

Rather than 'read the Bible', I research applicable topics in the Bible.

My point is, to answer the rest of your post, why not instead of asking other people, go to the Bilble yourself to discover what it has to say, about the questions you pose?

To the best of my knowledge, the Bible does NOT state a goal and purpose of Christianity. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the Bible does not use the word Christianity (but does one time refer to Christians in Acts 11:26). Are there other instances?

If you believe it to be too much trouble, or are not interested, then why do you spend so much time, effort, and energy into debating, discussing, and criticizing, something you have no interest in?

My time, effort, and energy spent debating, discussing, and criticizing religions in general and Christianity in particular is NOT focused solely upon its literature. Instead, I challenge public claims of knowledge by those who tell or quote tales about 'gods' and promote / defend the practice of worshiping 'gods'. Worshipers / Apologists typically attempt to defend their position by citing the Bible as though it was proof of truth or by making emotional appeals.

Part of my motivation is to help demonstrate the flaws in religious propaganda or proselytizing and to help reduce its influence in modern society. I do not think that religion or mythology have a place influencing laws of a modern, educated, advanced, informed society.

[bluethread]

My claim referred to religion since many, many theists (such as myself) have no religious outlook. My claim had to do with dogmatic adherence to a binary heierarchy of "sheep vs goats" that is the bedrock of religious practice and thought.

This is a rather peculiar use of the term "religion". I have discussed the term "religion" extensively with the OP, in the past, and, if I am not mistaken, that is not how he uses the term. Since he is the one who posed the second question, I would presume what your proposed usage of the term was not the intent of the question.

Also, on this site, all facts require support on demand, regardless of how widely known or easily verifiable the proponent believes them to be.

Preposterous. If you (or anyone) refer to the properties of gravity or the base ten system of mathematics, nobody is going to ask you to provide "support."

Forum rule 5. "Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim."

As to the data being the result of humanism, what else could it be, since humanity has untied under no other dogmatic code of conduct or system of government?

Secular humanism is not a code of conduct, dogmatic or otherwise, or system of government. It is a philosophy. That philosophy has been used in developing moral codes and systems of government, but rarely, if ever, to the exclusion of all others, i.e. rationalism, pragmatism, elitism. etc. Also, each of these can be theistic or secular. In addition, many other factors effect human behavior, i.e. technology, population density and dispersion, access to natural resources, border security, personal self interest, etc.

And if that was the case (you were asking for support that humanism was responsible), a responsible poster would have been much more specific. Something like, "Yes, we are living in the most peaceful time in recorded history, but what is your evidence that this state is due to humanism?" Please learn to be more direct when asking for "support" to eliminate confusion.

I am sorry you were confused. However, communication is a two way street. As Blastcat says, you are free to ask questions, if something is not communicated to your satisfaction.

The latter first, the question of whether secular humanism is problematic is implicit in the OP question. "Is there any complaint with the above (definition of secular humanism)?"

What you refer to is humanitarianism, not humanism. The former refers to behaviors and intents favorable to humans. The latter refers to a belief system where those things have primacy over all other considerations. That said neither of these preclude the existence of a deity. The inclusion of secular removes belief in a deity from the equation. Therefore, the larger question on this thread is "Is there any complaint with the above (definition of secular humanism)?" My point is that it is interesting that the tread appears to be dominated, not with discussions of that question, but comparative arguments regarding theistic humanism. Your assertion that humanism is better for humanity narrows the question of the OP. The OP does not ask if humanism is better for humans, it asks, "Is there any complaint with the above (definition of secular humanism)?" This is a very broad question and worthy of consideration. Yet, this thread is dominated, not with examinations of secular humanism, but with criticisms of various types of theism.

From this weak and reactionary summary I conclude that no evidence offered will you judge as sufficient to meet your unique requirements that seem to continually move as goalposts that suddenly appear where they were not before and had not so far been hinted at in that spot, so I leave you with your a priori assessments.

I do not see where pointing out what the OP question is and that it is not being addressed is weak and reactionary. Also, my assessment of the OP is not a priori. I quoted it, included the relevant context and concluded by asking why it is not being addressed.

To summarize my position:
1. Humanism rests on humanitarian principles which rest on prima facie existence of humans and interests in humanity prospering and enduring.

Ok, so far there is no reason to resume that those principles are either theistic or nontheistic in origin.

2. Religiosity rests on the idea that a god or gods exists which has yet to be prove or even set forth a metric upon which the idea might be falsified or definitively demonstrated.

Interesting term and definition. However, I do not see where it is a necessary concept in evaluating the tenets of secular humanism.

3. Humanity, without appealing to any one religion or dogma, has become more and more and more peaceful through the centuries and decades, and we now live in the most peaceful time in history due to humans wishing to be better and cause less harm to other humans.

This causation has not been proven, in this discussion, so far. As stated above, there are other factors that are at play.

4. Because humanism seeks to make humanity better based on what is evident, it rests on axioms that cannot be denied whereas religions rest on axioms that have never been proven and can provide no falsifiable way of judging their degree of correctness

.

I am not sure how the attributes of "religions" "axioms" are relevant to a discussion of humanism, unless one is discussing "religious" humanism. Maybe we should set aside your a priori assertion that humanist axioms can not be denied, set aside your reactionary references to theism and actually examine those axioms to see if that is the case. Please, present these undeniable axioms, so we can evaluate them and see how they would invariably result in a more peaceful world, without regard for other factors.

Note: The request for verification is not meant as an obfuscating debate tactic, but an attempt to ascertain the validity of your a priori assertion regarding humanism being the proximate cause of increased world pacification.

[Zzyzx]

.

Also, on this site, all facts require support on demand, regardless of how widely known or easily verifiable the proponent believes them to be.

Preposterous. If you (or anyone) refer to the properties of gravity or the base ten system of mathematics, nobody is going to ask you to provide "support."

Forum rule 5. "Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim."

Moderator Clarification

In reasoned and honorable debate one does not ask for verification as an obfuscating debate tactic.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 27 by Zzyzx]

Notice that the OP asks about religion – NOT about Christianity. Where was Christianity injected and by whom? (Perhaps post #9)

I have stated in the past, "that I do not consider Christianity to be a religion." So then, are you suggesting that you did not have Christianity in mind when you used the term, "religion?" I was certain that you were in fact, including Christianity, and since I can only speak for Christianity, and it would be unfair for me to attempt to speak for religion, is the reason I singled out Christianity, to ensure that I was only speaking for Christianity. If you did not have in mind Christianity with the term religion, then I apologize. But when you now say,

Notice that the OP asks about religion – NOT about Christianity.

This certainly means you are separating the two. So I guess my question now is, I understand why I separate the two, could you explain why you have now separated Christianity from religion?

Okay, having opened that can of worms, WHAT, if anything, IS the 'stated purpose' of Christianity

I have already given an answer to this question. However below you say,

To the best of my knowledge, the Bible does NOT state a goal and purpose of Christianity.

So it seems as if, you have answered your own question, so where did you get this information? In other words, did you receive it by studying the Bible, or is this something you were told by another?

Since 'there are many Christians who disagree about these things [the goal and purpose of Christianity], it would be foolish to attempt to say what it is NOT.

I did not ask you to say, "what it is NOT." Rather, I asked if it is your position, that the reason so many Christians disagree is because the Scripture is so unclear? Surely you have intently studied the Scripture, to have an opinion concerning this, because how in the world could one be so critical of something they have not intently studied?

I do not pretend to know whether most Christians have really studied the Bible. From what I see in these debates it appears as though Christians who debate here have read / studied PARTS of the bible and seem oblivious of other parts.

I will not disagree here, but if this is the case, then why would you take mine, or any other Christians word for what the Bible actually teaches, instead of investigating yourself? You see, if you were to actually do this, you could actually debate Christians using their own literature. We will talk more on this below.

If this is to say that most Christians don't know what they believe or why they believe it, I do not disagree. Some of them seem inclined to attempt to debate here.

AGREED!

Rather than 'read the Bible', I research applicable topics in the Bible.

Whatever that means? But it certainly sounds a lot like, the many Christians, that we have just discussed above. Know just enough to cause more harm, than good.

In fact, if I am not mistaken, the Bible does not use the word Christianity (but does one time refer to Christians in Acts 11:26). Are there other instances?

That is a great point "Zzyzx" and one I started to bring up myself, in an earlier post. It might be worth discussing.

My time, effort, and energy spent debating, discussing, and criticizing religions in general and Christianity in particular is NOT focused solely upon its literature.

Okay, but here's the thing. We have already seemed to have agreed that many Christians cannot even explain what the Bible actually has to say about many things. We seem to agree that many simply go on what they have been told, without verifying if what they claim to believe is actually taught in the Bible. Therefore, what you hear, see, and experience from many Christians, more than likely is in error according to the Scriptures they claim to follow.

So then, if you would actually read the material yourself, you may be able to debate them, using their own literature.

You see, I do not mind, but I am not really interested in debating those who may adhere to a particular religion. However, if I were interested in such a thing, I would not simply take the word of one adherent, as opposed to another who may be in disagreement. Rather, if I were as interested as you seem to be, I would go right to their text, in an attempt to determine, which, or if either side was correct.

At this point, I would be equipped to actually have a profitable debate, and may discover, the religion does not teach what many adherents claimed and believed that it taught.

As an example, I certainly do not agree with those who acted out the events on 9-11. However, before I would blame the religion those folks adhered too, I would actually attempt to determine if this is what the religion actually taught. If it did not in fact teach such a thing, then I would certainly not blame the religion.

In the same way, you may be criticizing Christianity, based on the behavior, and attitude of it's adherents, when Christianity may in fact, condemn, such behavior.

Instead, I challenge public claims of knowledge by those who tell or quote tales about 'gods' and promote / defend the practice of worshiping 'gods'.

Right! But again, the claims many of them make, may have nothing to do with the actual religion they claim to follow. As I said, would it be fair for me to blame Islam, and all those who follow it's teaching, simply because of the events of 9-11, before verifying if this is what the religion actually teaches? In the same way, is it fair to allow those on the far right of Christianity, who are looking to impose their beliefs on others through legislation, to define what Christianity is, without determining if the Bible condemns their behavior?

If you say, "anyone is allowed to claim to be a Christian, and behave as they wish, and it is not up to you to determine these things", then you are really part of the problem! Just as I would be part of the problem if I were to simply blame, Islam, and all Muslims for what happened on 9-11 without, or before verifying if it is indeed to blame.

Once you were to actually dig in to study these things, you may in fact become convinced that I am in error, and those on the far right of Christianity are actually following the correct teaching, and at this point, you, and I may be able to have a profitable debate concerning the matter. However, if you continue to allow those on both sides to say whatever they wish, and to continue to claim to be part of the Christian faith, then as I said, "you actually become part of the problem."

In other words, you may in fact find out, you have no problem at all with what is taught by Christianity, even if you do not care to be a part of it. You also may find out that all of those in the "Bible belt" that you disdain so much, do not in fact represent the teachings found in the Bible. Or, you can continue to allow anyone to claim, and behave in any way they wish, and continue to claim the name of Christianity, continuing to be part of the problem.

Worshipers / Apologists typically attempt to defend their position by citing the Bible as though it was proof of truth or by making emotional appeals.

Great point "Zzyzx", and I agree, especially when you talk about the "emotional appeals!" So then, this should be an easy task for you, why don't you do a little research to determine if any of the Apostles made "emotional appeals, or if they taught that it was a good thing to do so?

Go ahead! Find one instance in which these men attempted to appeal to the emotions of those they were speaking too! I think what you will find is, their appeal was not to the emotions, but rather their appeal was to at least what they claimed to be historical events!

There is a tremendous difference! Even if the historical events they were appealing too, were false! You see, their appeal were to things such as the, empty tomb, (which surely must have been empty), the Crucifixion, the miracles, etc., and Peter even appealed to the knowledge of those he was speaking too. In other words, Peter claimed to his audience, "Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know."

So as you can see, these men appealed to historical events, and also to the knowledge of the events, of the ones he was addressing.

So then, if these men did not appeal to the emotions, and it is not called for in the Bible, then where do you think Christians today, got the idea? You see, this is one of the many things I am speaking of. You experience Christians doing such things, and you blame, attack, criticize, and attempt to "reduce its influence in modern society", not knowing if what they are doing, is actually Biblical. If you were actually aware of what is Biblical, you just might be glad to see it's influence, even if you did not care to become part of it.

I do not think that religion or mythology have a place influencing laws of a modern, educated, advanced, informed society.

Here is another great example! I could not agree with you more, but more importantly, the Bible agrees with you as well! In fact, if you are interested, (and you should be since you are so critical of Christianity) it might be a good idea to get a copy of the book entitled, "Beyond Culture Wars", by Michael Horton. In this book, Horton explains how Christians attempting to influence society, through legislation, have left behind the true mission of the Church. Here is a quote from one of the reviews,

Instead of trying to reform the world, the author suggests that the church reform itself. He offers practical ways to help us redirect our focus to the true work of the kingdom

The whole point here is, you criticize, attack, and blame, Christianity, for the actions of those who claim to be adherents, without understanding if they are in fact, practicing what is actually taught in the Bible.

As I have said, "I am not at all interested in what any of the religions of the world teach." With this being the case, you will not hear me, criticize, attack, or blame, the religions of the world for what their adherents practice, until, or unless, I am thoroughly equipped to do so. So, I am not, attempting to "demonstrate the flaws in religious propaganda."

I will agree, that there are many Christians who, attempt to "proselytize", and enforce their beliefs upon others through legislation, which I am absolutely against! So, I am not attempting to proselytize.

Therefore, leaving out all the religions of the world, including Christianity, and all those who practice said, religions..... simply between you and I? Which of us is attempting to point out "flaws in other's beliefs?" Which of us, is attempting to "proselytize?" Which of us is it, that want our ideas and beliefs to "influence the laws of modern society?"

Part of my motivation is to help demonstrate the flaws in religious propaganda or proselytizing and to help reduce its influence in modern society. I do not think that religion or mythology have a place influencing laws of a modern, educated, advanced, informed society.