Atheism necessary to be a HP?

  1. Technocrat
    Technocrat
    I don't think a person necessarily should have to be atheist in order to be a human progressive. So long as a person doesn't try to defend their religion on the basis of either moral necessity or reason, I see no problem. What causes problems is when people begin to confuse their subjective beliefs with objective reality.
  2. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    I don't think a person necessarily should have to be atheist in order to be a human progressive. So long as a person doesn't try to defend their religion on the basis of either moral necessity or reason, I see no problem.
    The problem is a that a lot of religionists do exactly the opposite of what you say - many claim that only religions grant moral authority (and the extremists say that only their religion grants moral authority!) and despite the fact that religion is supposedly taken on faith, both theologians as well as run-of-the-mill believers attempt to use reason (badly) to promote or defend their worldview.

    What causes problems is when people begin to confuse their subjective beliefs with objective reality.
    Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Religion isn't some trifling preference, like one's favourite colour or flavour of ice cream. Religious people, if they are at all serious in their belief, see the world in an entirely different light to genuine atheists and even agnostics.
  3. Technocrat
    Technocrat
    What you say is true, but I have encountered people who were both spiritual and reasonable people. They shouldn't be excluded.

    An analogy I would like to use here is drug use. It is argued that certain drugs should be illegal because they lead the user into violent or antisocial behaviors. My argument against this is that it is the violent or antisocial behavior that is the problem, not the drug itself. Obviously some are still able to use the drug and not engage in violence or antisocial behaviors. Therefore it is those behaviors which are the problem. Trying to blame religion is like trying to blame the drug.
  4. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    If such people exist, how would I know about them? I only check applicants' posts occasionally, and since taking over this group I've yet to turn down an application or kick anyone out.
  5. Technocrat
    Technocrat
    Okay, I just wasn't sure how that policy worked. It sounds reasonable to me.
  6. Killfacer
    Killfacer
    I guess it can be contradictory. I mean there's alot of religious dogma which would be against alot of the things suggested in this group. Obviously religious people are very mixed and it would be wrong to group everyone together. If a religious person believes and can take in what the more dogmatic believers can't, i see no reason why it should be a barrier.
  7. Dyslexia! Well I Never!
    Dyslexia! Well I Never!
    Technocrat: How reasonable are these spiritual and reasonable people when you use science in a way that directly challenges their beliefs?

    It's fine try to be a reasonable person but when you have an unreasonable belief you can't be entirely reasonable can you?

    Now consider your one unreasonable belief is coffee tastes better out of your favourite mug, well that's not too dangerous is it?

    Consider however if your one little slip away from reason is on the subject of intergenderal relations, the existance of a priori morality or the inherent rightness of a particular lifestyle over all others?

    Then you are impeding useful progression and should be opposed.
  8. Technocrat
    Technocrat
    Consider however if your one little slip away from reason is on the subject of intergenderal relations, the existance of a priori morality or the inherent rightness of a particular lifestyle over all others?

    Then you are impeding useful progression and should be opposed.
    I agree. An irrational belief is only a problem if it influences decision-making.
  9. NikitaUtiu
    NikitaUtiu
    I agree. An irrational belief is only a problem if it influences decision-making.
    This is a movement called religious secularism and I personally support it. Everyone should have the right to believe what they want, as long as the society as whole keeps an unbiased neutral point of view.

    Atheism is healthy as long as it is "free thought", because some atheists tend to make atheism a religion).