Let us get them even to realise it is unfair but more importantly MIGHT be untrue.

Because I have faith in Humans

@Mcflewster To do what? We have a very bloody history, our track record does not look all that great, not all bad, but certainly a mixed bag.

I expect from humans, a mixed bag.

I HOPE for better.

@Davesnothere Not work for bettter with everyone? The choice is yours . You have said true things. Let us cheer for all the mixed ability teachers in this world.
.

@Mcflewster Hmmmm, I do not think you mean what you said, but rather mean "Improve our work relationships with coworker."
WHOM do you mean by everyone? Totaslly all inclusive of all humanity, cannibals and murderers too, a TRUE everyone?
OR
People not like myself, who do not share worldviews and beliefs?

Should I have "Faith" Humans will go back to enslaving others? (Oh wait, we never stopped did we?)

A curious term to use with humanity, faith. Do you use it as trust, or blind faith?

@Davesnothere Yes we Humanists do mean everyone. How is this for an entrance exam to the group:- Examiner Are you human? : Ans Yes : Examiner Welcome you are totally in. My origninal Humanist group which is now defunct had the strapline"Faith in Humanity". Because we cannot get evidence from everyone - we can say if you are human we will help you ... even if you are a slave. Humansim is mostly about freedom with the help of science which is why I bang on about it. Join the club? . All faith is blind BTW as it means Belief without evidence and it is a very human trait accross the whole world population.

@Mcflewster So you think human judgement as to the character of each particular human is utterly unimportant? Murderers, criminals, child slavers are ALL GOOD PEOPLE? Just let them exploit all the other people because they like that?
Don't think you really mean that do you?
Or rather just people, and as people each deserves a certain amount of respect and tolerence? Necessities ect?

"All faith is blind BTW"

No it is not, that is how you are using the term>

Faith, as a term, is often misused by people of faith. It has different definitions.
Faith–noun

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The first definition is about trust. I have faith (Complete Trust) my car will start when I get in it. I do not have this for no reason but because I know my vehicle and how I have maintained it. If it did not start my faith (Complete Trust) would be broken.

The second definition is about religion. It is often called “Blind Faith” because religious claims have never been proven, but people believe because they have been raised in the religion’s traditions or because they were convinced by argument of its truth. It is not complete trust in a thing because of the evidence supporting it.

The first definition everyone has, the second is reserved for people of a given faith or religion. The first is a claim of trust based upon evidence, the second is belief in a religion’s ideas without evidence. It is the second definition I have issues with because I am not convinced of the truth of any religion’s claims.

The fact that people constantly conflate these differing uses of the term faith causes great consternation and sometimes conflict in the world we all share.

So are you saying you have faith in all humanity? Do you post your credit cards online? Leave your car unlocked with the keys in it?

I think you are conflating Faith in Humanity with Hope in Humanity (which I share).

@Davesnothere I have accepted the definition that faith is belief without evidence. Your choice is your choice. With that definition why do you need faith when you have evidence. Hope is when you have not tried fully to get evidence. You have to explain to me why your definition is best.............. No you don't have to do anything.

@Mcflewster It is the dictionary which shows faith in multiple forms of usage, and because people hold ONLY one or the Other as valid in mind, miscommunications around that term abound.

"With that definition why do you need faith when you have evidence"
Correct, full confidence, perfect or near perfect trust. It is the evidence in the first usage which drives your trust (faith)

Blind or religious faith is the second usage in most dictionaries, not my definition, just how the word is used.

faith[ feyth ]SHOW

noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:
   faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof:
   He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
   the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
   to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief:
   the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
   Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

So for instance when a religious person is communicating to you, and they say have "Faith", they may mean blind faith or trust almost fully interchangably.

SO, let em get this right, you believe without evidence, that humans are good?
and what ignore the evidence which proves they are not always good?

@Davesnothere I get what you are trying to say but Faith as used by religionists ( and some everyday users) is OFF the scale of trust ( which does exist) . That is why we need a new word beyond trust ( for which there is often a littl evidence)- FAITH - for complete lack of evidence.

@Mcflewster Well language evolves over time, mayhap it will evolve out, but if we simply assume the other person always mean our limited (and oft ignorant as we don't know the other person) understanding. It is why for me, half of all conversations are about linguistics.
What word did you use and how are you meaning that?

I cannot reply intelligently in order for a discourse to progress if I misunderstand how you are using a term.

@Davesnothere I am not a linguist but at some stage you often have to fight to use a word differently in a way YOU want to use it e.g "Gay" .

@Mcflewster I don't see that as a fight, but an education. Most religious folks I have met (and thats a high unknown number) and held discourse with are also unaware of the differing uses of the terms.

Simply pointing out they do not use the term in the same way all the time forces them to confront an issue of conflation in themselves. For many it means realizing, and then begining to sort out all the things they think of as BOTH, into two seperate baskets. Tends to force introspection later on.

So if you think we have to fight for a different frequency of use of the term in society, so that it is not used, or is seen as socially unacceptable to use the term for less than blind faith, how would you go about that?

Don't you think it's use will evolve out as times change, like Groovy did, and Gay, and faggot before that (which I saw as more violent, and was bloody over a few times back in the 70's) The later term I did not understand was a degredation of homosexuals, hell I did not "get" that homosexual was a thing in my early teens. That term and others all meant "weak, victim", and I responded in 70's hood fashion to such terms.

I discovered there were gay people and that Homosexuality was an actual "thing" at 16, on 8th st, NYC, at a midnight showing of the RHPS. I became an ally that night and have remained one since.

@Davesnothere You are right of course and your clever thinking is good for us all.

@Mcflewster We are all learners, doers, and teachers. I live my life by Ethics tempered with Empathy, I suspect you do the same.

But they will keep churning out the same old stufff until we show them better (for all humans that is). Until we actually start there is no telling when and if any progress will be made. Please tell me if I am preaching in the replies below,

@MichaelSpinler You can make a blind man realise something. You can show compassion for the small section of society that will find the destruction of their ideal solution to life unable to be supported by the rest of society.

@Mcflewster But as Barry McGuire once sang, "There'll be no one to save,
When the world is a grave."
Most blind people will just find darker sunglasses to wear, rather than admit to being wrong.
It's small consolation to get the rare conversion, when the poor, misguided sheeple you speak of steer society, including us, right off the cliff.
Sorry, most of them are more interested in buying into TV commercials than anything we have to say.

@Storm1752 Surely in America one has to "sell' something even if no money is involved> Have you done any sales?

@Mcflewster I sold Kirby vacuum cleaners one summer. I was pretty good at it, did well.
I haven't owned a TV in years, until I bought this remote cabin and figured it's occasional company'd be nice.
THEN I decided I'd have to keep the premium channels despite the cost, because I simply cannot STAND the commercials.
Why? Because being a "neo-hippie," or just a hippie (I just like 'neo', I literally retch at the blatantly materialistic, conscienceless, amoral disregard for men's and women's higher goals, aspirations, and instinctive willingness to contribute to--and sacrifice if necessary-- for the common good.
They fill up the airwaves with appeals to the "lowest common denominator:"
nice cars,
clean floors,
bigger houses,
constant urgings to consume more,
gain higher status,
"get over" on the guy or girl next to you,
bring capitalist competition into every aspect of your life.
So I think TV commercials are an almost invisibly harmful corrosive acid splashed right in the face of people, helping MAKE them "sheeples" as they subconsciously absorb the unspoken but relentless messages:
obey
submit
consume
compete and win at any cost.
It is corporations drilling their conformist propaganda into the brains of otherwise intelligent, independent people, and slowly but surely making them slaves to the capitalist machine.
It's why I liked the movie Matrix (forget the sequels)...I think this what it was really all about.

@Storm1752 Thank you for this 'Picture' of your life I can see many infuences that are strictly American here. Can you not think of yourself as a citizen of the world even if you have not been anywhere? Can you not think of the basic Human needs? I am actually sure you can and you should try selling without money the things that you in this life have learned. I have learned from you. Thankls

@Mcflewster Yes I think of myself as a "citizen of the world;" of the universe for that matter.
Why do you ask? Is my xenophobic myopia that obvious? To what specifically are you referring?
Am I able to think of basic human needs? Are you from poor country without them? Without this information I have no context.
Though living in a "affluent" country, I am not rich.
Are you saying I can naively resent the excesses of some of my avaricious countrymen because I am swimming in an ocean of material comfort?
Please make your meaning clear. Your wording seems cryptic and ironic.

@Mcflewster Also, what do you mean, "Sell without money the things that I in this life have learned?" Quite a riddle! You mean "preach" my "gospel;" that is, convince people of the blinding truths of my lessons learned? I detect just the SLIGHTEST wisp of...sarcasm?
Nah, I doubt that. But if so, your gift for understating your gently applied reproofs is exquisite.

But I have aninterestr un Blkanced and Fair and you COULD have too.

@Mcflewster You're assuming that I do not. That is incorrect.

@KKGator appologies.Assumptions are the BANE of everyon's life. What you do not have is the will to show them how to do it (possibly)

@Mcflewster
In my personal experience, they have even less interest in engagement with skeptics and non-believers, than non-believers and skeptics have in engagement with them.
You go right ahead and make whatever judgments you wish.
I stand by my initial response. They see "us" as a threat to their revenue stream and have no interest in engagement.

@KKGator What you say is true but it should NOT put us off trying. I am not actually judging any fully serious try at debunking religion, I am trying to get a few people to have serious attempt and not be put off by anything!!!. They must do it with reason and fairness whilst trying to forget past victories by the religious.

@Mcflewster Have YOU made a "serious attempt" to engage with religionists? Are you one yourself, by any chance?
When you say you're not judging a "fully serious try at debunking religion,"
what do you mean?
Why would you judge?
Does "fully serious try" mean you think some are not really serious?
Do you think debunking religion takes serious effort, and that many attempts are not sufficiently robust?
Finally, you seem to imply the onus is on the skeptical majority to ingratiate ourselves to the minority religionists. Why? What is to be gained?
We are not apostles, commisioned to go forth and multiply our numbers.
In the Internet Age the facts are at anyone's fingertips. There are plenty of champions of any "side" imaginable. Besides, in the end, it doesn't matter.
It.Just.Doesn't.Matter.

@Mcflewster I no longer care to attempt to "bridge the gap".
I don't even like people all that much.
I especially don't like believers and I'm no longer interested in getting through to them.
They are not worth my time. I just don't care.
Please do whatever you think you need to do. Good luck.

@Storm1752 Have YOU made a "serious attempt" to engage with religionists? YES in my own way

Are you one yourself,NO

by any chance? Dont believe in luck or doing by chance

When you say you're not judging a "fully serious try at debunking religion,"
what do you mean? Have you talked about non religion f2f with a group of religionists or at a distance?

Why would you judge? We all judge all the time.
Does "fully serious try" mean you think some are not really serious? see above

Do you think debunking religion takes serious effort, Yes you have to be crafty

and that many attempts are not sufficiently robust? yes Name calling doesnt workd Did it ever?
Finally, you seem to imply the onus is on the skeptical majority to ingratiate ourselves to the minority religionists. Not intergrate just make sure reasonn, logic and evidence is there

Why? What is to be gained? Peaceful world Heaven on Earth

We are not apostles, commisioned to go forth and multiply our numbers.
Your choice

In the Internet Age the facts are at anyone's fingertips. There are plenty of champions of any "side" imaginable.
Besides, in the end, it doesn't matter.Yes See what Fake news is doing

It.Just.Doesn't.Matter. Yes it does

We will never be sheep. We got where we are under our own steam

That is only Christianity, not religion. Buddhism and Judaism don’ care if you adhere to their beliefs to name just two.

@Geoffrey51 that's where I have problems. No religion is known by me.

PREACHER "Save all these loose women"
BYSTANDER " Save one for me ,mate"

Try it with Humor?

@MichaelSpinler Points welll made.

I love the word ‘doomed’. Excellent choice.

If YOU say never it will never happen. Prediction from unqualified prophet (me)

You redeemed yourself with education. Education properly done can only be reasoned and Fair

@Mcflewster "never" as in it seems so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Slight hyperbole.

Education is the cure for religious dogma. The problem is that the dogmatic ones are blinded by their own parameters.

@Bakunin as in all education you have to prepare the learner with an appropriate preamble. It has been known for some Humanists to completely capituallte prior to having a good learning session with religious people. It is not a short process howvever.

@Geoffrey51 'doomed' sounds 'biblical'.

@Mcflewster it’s just a brilliant word, regardless of context like ‘trousers’ and ‘sausages’ it’s got a great sound.

Best use by Private Fraser in Dad’s Army!

I am sure that they want to do the best for people - excpt the evil ones and money grabbers of course.
They just got it wrong and how do we tell them or get us to treat us fairly?

@Mcflewster when i ask what you mean by "do the best for people" repeating "do the best for people" does not help me understand what that means. what do you mean by "do the best for people"? please do not just repeat what you already said. what is it that they're trying to do that you are calling "do the best"?

g

@genessa good is sometimes difficult to reconise but in time and if analysed by sufficient good people , it will show itself to be good.

@Mcflewster I give up. You are not going to answer my question. What you just said is not an answer to my question.

g

@genessa Sorry I do not always know I am doing good and I will not preach to you to tell you how to do good. My main point is that it becomes apparent with time . We in Uk have been through too many unmarried mothers and now they are realising that yoiu have to have a plan with baby coming. I have absolutely no objection to single unmarried mothers so long as they are supported somehow and do not throw their predicament on society. I am saying that good emerges over time.provided there are a few good people around who have a handle on society. Is this answer different?

@Mcflewster No, because it has nothing to do with what you mean when yluyalk about rrligioudleadets doing good things. Also I am glad YOU don't object to unwed mothers. I am not sure why whether and unwed woman had a baby or whether a woman having a baby was unwed would be your business to object to or not object to! You in the UK have been through too many unwed mothers? How have you been THROUGH them? And say, we're they all virgin births or did men have anything to do with it?

g

@genessa If religious leaders did not do some good things thay would all be in Gaol or JAIL surely. Is it possible to slow your typing down a bit ??? But don't worry I managed .

@Mcflewster how would you know how quickly or slowly i typed? geez!

no, plenty of people who do not good don't end up in jail. not doing good and doing bad are not always the same (sometimes they are). your premise makes no sense. and i STILL don't know, don't have a single example, of what you mean by their doing good.

g

@genessa "Happines . is the only good. The time to be happy is now and the way to be happy is to make others so" Ingersol . American Humanist 1876

@Mcflewster Okay. So that is not an answer either. I DO give up. Never mind.

g

@genessa Sorry not to have been of service.

True but waht about 'Alternative facts'?

@Mcflewster OK and essential if you are modern day GOP conservative.

@jlynn37 Not that we would accept them?

@Mcflewster Accept them or not they are here.

@jlynn37 They are there to be got at ? Are they not?

Why NOT try?

Obvious differences in approach,but it is best to try to adopt your enemies' tactics is it not? - if only to examine if it works for you??

@Mcflewster no! it is most certainly NOT always best to adopt your enemies' tactics. if they had good tactics, ethical tactics, they probably would be opponents, rivals, something other than enemies. whether tactics work is not always the issue. whether they are ethical may be the issue. killing someone works (say your goal is to shut them up, or stop them from bidding on something you want to win, or you're sick of looking at them, or you have a need to kill someone). that doesn't make it ethical, and that doesn't make it a tactic that should be tried to see if it works!

g

@genessa We do need all sorts of tactics but unless you try your enemies tctics you will never understand them. Some Humanists advise this. Ask for a reference.

@Allamanda

It depends on the individual's ability to think in a rational way.

Religion is like trump. Love/hate relationship. Those for him will never be dissuaded. Those against him will settle for nothing less than his blood.

It is unfortunate.

There are very few like me who do not give a shit either way (politics or religion)

@Allamanda Although I am Atheist and pretty sure of it I stated in my bio I am 99.9% sure there is no god. I'm sure but accept the fact I could be wrong.

We have little chance of getting anywhere if we start by naming what we think are faults (and they think the best of)

@Allamanda For the purpose of comaprison only - not saying they are better. I am convinced that there are fair religious people some of whom are logical and reasonable

@Allamanda

There are good people in every vocation. Not all police are crooked. Not all lawyers lie. Not all executioners are monsters.

There are good, honest, sincere people everywhere. You just have to be lucky enough to come across them.

@Allamanda I sort of expected this avalanch of negative replies , but I have tried this out in the UK . Now it is up to some one to try it in US. There are millions of interfaith organisations. We have to initiate and support through good and bad times a non belief one. Maybe it is THIS website? Agnostics are better positioned than most to seak to both sides to get things moving . The religions are way ahead of us but there is no sign of them decreasing the sheer number of religions . We would find it easier to decrease the number of non belief organisations especially if we have a merger or two successfullly accomplished . How about UK and US Humanists for a start?? Keep asking for clarification.

@K9Kohle789 "I can only go by my own life and knowledge." No offence but have you not heard of 'research' and 'empathy'?

@K9Kohle789 I am sorry that there seems to be so many differences between us. Believe me when I say that I hate religion as much as you but I trust that religion really will not be with us beyond the turn of this century. This will be acheived with research, campassion and empathy for fellow Humans who have been trapped in unreasonable ways of thinking . There is much experimentation , discusssion ( ....... the best way to learn) and trust to be done.We must not use preaching or any religious techniques but there are plenty of other techniques. However as you imply the choice is your as to whether you join in. Thanks for reading this far.

@rogueflyer You're ALMOST sure.

@rogueflyer, @Mcflewster Who is WE, white man? Sounds you are on a crusade to reconcile believers and skeptics so we all can sing 'I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke' around the campfire some day, hand in hand, as the last vestiges of the scales of discord and strife fall from distrustful eyes everywhere.
O come the day! Hallelujah!
From where did this almost religious fervor come?
It's breathtakingly inspiring!

@Storm1752 'WE 'is any reasoned and logical adult. No crusades -they blacked our (UK) name accross the world. Would not sing anything commercial at a camp fire -too much on TV. 'Last vestiges 'is possible,some time away though. Hallelujah - why should we not take that word back from the religious?? to make it mean what we want e.g "Let's celebrate" . You cannot call me religious when I am NOT - fastidious and forward thinking yes, but I have been in anti religion since I was 19 yrs and have followed many non religious groups including a Skeptics AND believers group.

@Storm1752 Yes, I reserve the right to admit that I there is one-tenth of one percent chance I could be wrong. It's part of Free Thought to admit you don't have all the answers and are willing to adjust to new information. It helps to not make you an asshole.