Basic Truths / Agreement
(Top Posts - Philosophy (General) - 080500)

Here's something most humanists should be able to agree on,
more or less ...

1) We don't *know* where we came from

Religionists admit their views are based on faith. Religionists
want to believe in something, a supposed substantial some-
thing, that simplifies and validates it for them, but in essence,
religionists and non-religionists agree, we don't *know* where
we came from. Theories on pre-history vary widely. Theories
and facts supporting various origins of the universe / life /
humanity vary widely, but no one *knows* where we came
from. The details of our past are really the only thing that's in
dispute. Some religionists strive desperately to validate their
belief system but in an honest moment, even they will admit
they don't *know* where we came from.

2) We don't *know* where we're going

Religionists *believe* they're going to a heaven or an afterlife
or a reincarnation or "something unknown" but they don't
*know* where they're going, they merely *believe* they're
going to another life with no proof whatsoever that said destiny
awaits them. They have a feeling. They have a desire. They have
a need. Many might say they have a delusion. Non-religionists
have a strong suspicion, based on the prevailing evidence, that
this is all there is but most would be more than happy if some
pleasant afterlife awaits us. In essence, religionists and non-
religionists agree, we don't *know* where we're going.

3) We don't *know* why we're here

Religionists theorize we're here to provide company for a god but
their argument falls short when it is pointed out that god doesn't
bother to communicate with them in any way, shape, or form.
Religionists argue that things taking place on earth are somehow
substantiations of their god but their arguments fall flat when it's
pointed out to them that any action they point to can easily be
explained by the laws of science.

Their prayers are premised on psychological affectations towards
goals on earth or desires to reconstruct the past or desires to
construct the future, with said goals (pertaining to the life on earth)  
easily and equally attainable through positive thinking as they are
attainable through beliefs in silent and invisible somethings. The
past is inaccessible and unchangeable via prayer, as most religion-
ists would concur.

- - -

In essence, religionists and non-religionists logically agree on the
three basic tenets in this post.

So, where does that leave us?

Since religion cannot explain 1, 2, or 3, isn't it logical and
reasonable that science and the open-minded pursuit of truth
offers the best hope of humankind for solving the questions
posed by 1, 2, and 3?

Isn't it logical and reasonable that the pursuit of the answers to
1, 2, and 3 should be primary in importance to humankind?

Isn't it logical and reasonable that religionists and non-religionists
agree that answering 1, 2, and 3 should be three of the most
important, noble, and (this is truly important to acknowledge)
*ACHIEVABLE* goals of humankind (with devoted effort,
desire, and resources)?

Please say yes.

Thanks for your consideration.