I am perfectly happy to hold different views to yours, mralstoner.

But I would appreciate it if you didn't spend quite so much time misrepresenting my opinion.

>>Pericles, your neutrality is a facade.<<

Neutrality? I consider my position to be far from "neutral". It is definitely atheist, and positively against organized religion. What on earth is neutral about that?

>>If you don't spoon feed the folks with the values that you want propagated, well, history shows that some other fool will lead them astray.<<

Strange observation. The twentieth century is littered with nations being spoon-fed their values by their leaders. Think 1930s Germany, that hot-bed of Catholic nationalism. The citizens weren't being oppressed at the time, which could certainly excuse those living through China's Cultural revolution, or as citizens of the Soviet Empire.

Show me a leader "spoon-feeding" values, and I'll show you a despot.

>>You have a fear of value systems, cults, and leaders for some reason.<<

Remember what I said about misrepresenting my position? Sure, I detest cults, that part is accurate. But I have absolutely no problem with leaders per se, the only exception being those who "spoon-feed" me their values.

And I most certainly do not fear value systems. We all have them, some are more acceptable than others. But when I hear someone tell the world that their value system is somehow superior to others, that's when I smell a tyrant in the making.

>>You are probably the kind of person who thinks any semblance of groupthink inevitably leads to stifling repression<<

Now you are simply being fanciful. I "probably" think nothing of the kind, nor do you have any indication that I do.

But you need to make up your mind a little: which is the worse crime you perceive in me, being anti-spoon-feeding-leader or being anti-groupthink?

My simple mind tells me that they are mutually exclusive. Especially to someone who is "neutral".

>>I never said the humanist movement had to be autocratic.<<

But it needs an autocratic leader, to spoon-feed values to the folks, right?

Speaking of cults, I find humanism one of the worst.

Atheism does not scare me - one can be a decent atheist and as close to God as others who formally profess to be religious believers. In any case, the absence of belief in God does not imply the absence of God!

Humanism, on the other hand, is a form of idolatry, of worshiping man in place of God. It presumes that man has a special place and value in the universe and although it falls short of formally claiming that man is God, that's what humanism is ultimately about, attributing man and his life with the highest consideration, which should be reserved to God alone.

"the absence of belief in God does not imply the absence of God!"

The corollary of this is that belief in God does not imply the existence of God.

"The corollary of this is that belief in God does not imply the existence of God."

Thank God for this - a God that exists is actually a logical contradiction and a disgrace to His name. Lets not mix up God with the illusion of existence.

Let's not mix up Yuyutsu with the illusion of reasoned argument : )

If God is outside "existence"...perhaps we should concentrate on the concept of God. Things can exist as a concept - yes?

Haven’t had time to read the comments yet, but that at least ensures I won’t be influenced by others’ opinions…

Perhaps a nice conclusion could be something like: there is now more evidence of the fact that life emerged from chemical processes, than there is for suggesting the existence of a creator; or, there are some leaps to be made in order to “believe” in evolution, but that’s nothing compared to the leap you need to make to claim that we were all made according to the way any of the religious texts describe.

For me though, the trouble with this article is that it doesn’t quite have enough to convince a religious person that the world isn’t “natural, cold, and mechanical”. I was very interested in science in my younger years and even started my first degree in chemistry and molecular biology, but at the tender age of 18 I decided I needed more than that – ie if life is nothing but a series of chemical reactions, then yes like a theist I would say that it begs the question, what’s the point in living? So I went and found out!