Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

humanism

Tylered
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:58:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

Please provide evidence that God is necessary.
Please provide evidence that objective moral values require a god to exist.
Last, provide evidence for objective moral values.

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:08:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:58:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

Please provide evidence that God is necessary.
Please provide evidence that objective moral values require a god to exist.
Last, provide evidence for objective moral values.

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.

+1
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:33:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

Sounds about right...

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.

Takes the place of God? At what point did we agree God existed and then man took his place?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 10:40:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.

Although I don't consider myself a believer in humanism, I do believe my beliefs are very similar to this Western idea. However, I will tell you that my beliefs are not a 'careless outlet' to affirm the objective reality of moral values. Humans do not need a god because moral values were programmed into our DNA in the first place.

For starters, I urge that you read Mencius 3.6:
All men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others. 'The ancient kings had this commiserating mind, and they, as a matter of course, had likewise a commiserating government. When with a commiserating mind was practised a commiserating government, to rule the kingdom was as easy a matter as to make anything go round in the palm. When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child's parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing. From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration is essential to man, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, that the feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, and that the feeling of approving and disapproving is essential to man. The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence. The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness. The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety. The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge. Men have these four principles just as they have their four limbs. When men, having these four principles, yet say of themselves that they cannot develop them, they play the thief with themselves, and he who says of his prince that he cannot develop them plays the thief with his prince. Since all men have these four principles in themselves, let them know to give them all their development and completion, and the issue will be like that of fire which has begun to burn, or that of a spring which has begun to find vent. Let them have their complete development, and they will suffice to love and protect all within the four seas. Let them be denied that development, and they will not suffice for a man to serve his parents with.

If you aren't convinced, I suggest that you read the debate between Mencius and Gaozi (Mencius 11.1-4).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 12:59:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.

Urk..

So Tylered, there are two allied branches of humanism: secular and sectarian humanism. They work quite well together, in that both believe that human morality is best discovered through study, rather than revealed through prescribed doctrine.

Sectarian humanists believe that a god exists, but isn't dictating rules, or the rules are vague or incomplete; secular humanists believe that either there's no god, or god is uncertain or irrelevant, so man has to do the best job he can.

The fact that both branches of humanism work well together is evidence that nobody's trying to replace any gods... they're just rejecting and/or refining moral doctrine represented as being from gods.

To understand how profound an impact humanism has had on modern thought, you need to understand that while it began in the Renaissance as artistic and intellectual thought, it began to flourish as moral and social thought in the Enlightenment, and in fact the Protestant movement owes much of its ideas to humanism. But more pertinently, the US Bill of Rights, which inspired the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is a humanist document, in that much of the morality written there cannot be found in the scriptures of any ancient religion.

The founding fathers of the US constitution were for the most part, humanists. Some were Deists (believing in a creator but not a divine moral authority); some felt that the creator had moral authority, but had written that authority into the character of man; and some were atheists.

The separation of church and state in the US could not have occurred without humanist thought.

I hope that may help.
Tylered
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:29:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 10:40:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.

Although I don't consider myself a believer in humanism, I do believe my beliefs are very similar to this Western idea. However, I will tell you that my beliefs are not a 'careless outlet' to affirm the objective reality of moral values. Humans do not need a god because moral values were programmed into our DNA in the first place.

programmed into our DNA? Please explain how who or what did programming and what or what gives moral values especially intrinsic value. How can the universe burst forth and is responsible for moral intrinsic value?

For starters, I urge that you read Mencius 3.6:
All men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others. 'The ancient kings had this commiserating mind, and they, as a matter of course, had likewise a commiserating government. When with a commiserating mind was practised a commiserating government, to rule the kingdom was as easy a matter as to make anything go round in the palm. When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child's parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing. From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration is essential to man, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, that the feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, and that the feeling of approving and disapproving is essential to man. The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence. The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness. The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety. The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge. Men have these four principles just as they have their four limbs. When men, having these four principles, yet say of themselves that they cannot develop them, they play the thief with themselves, and he who says of his prince that he cannot develop them plays the thief with his prince. Since all men have these four principles in themselves, let them know to give them all their development and completion, and the issue will be like that of fire which has begun to burn, or that of a spring which has begun to find vent. Let them have their complete development, and they will suffice to love and protect all within the four seas. Let them be denied that development, and they will not suffice for a man to serve his parents with.

If you aren't convinced, I suggest that you read the debate between Mencius and Gaozi (Mencius 11.1-4).
Tylered
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:34:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will no problem. We will get to it. I am part of emergency management at my work and something has happened that has me working 12 to 14 hours. I will tomorrow. I look forward to discussing this with all of you.
Tylered
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 11:47:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 10:08:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:58:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

Please provide evidence that God is necessary.
Please provide evidence that objective moral values require a god to exist.
Last, provide evidence for objective moral values.
I want to make sure we are on the same page. I am saying that the EXISTENCE OF GOD IS NESSECARRY. NOT That belief in God is necessary. You can be moral and not believe in God. Are on the same page about what I was stating. If so. I will give you three premises when I have time tomorrow for sure. Just gotta make sure your not confusing the two. And when I say God, I have not asserted any religious ideal. Not saying Christian God, or Jewish God, we are just talking about GOD.
So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.

+1
Tylered
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 12:00:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:58:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

Please provide evidence that God is necessary.
Please provide evidence that objective moral values require a god to exist.
Last, provide evidence for objective moral values.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties does not exist.
Premise 2: objective moral values do exist
Premise 3: Therefore Gos does exist
I will start here for my first answer.

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 4:34:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 12:00:54 PM, Tylered wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:58:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

Please provide evidence that God is necessary.
Please provide evidence that objective moral values require a god to exist.
Last, provide evidence for objective moral values.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties does not exist.
Premise 2: objective moral values do exist
Premise 3: Therefore Gos does exist
I will start here for my first answer.

I do not agree with premise 1 or 2 (also, your P3 should say conclusion).

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Tylered
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 5:05:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 4:34:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 12:00:54 PM, Tylered wrote:
At 2/23/2015 8:58:57 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

Please provide evidence that God is necessary.
Please provide evidence that objective moral values require a god to exist.
Last, provide evidence for objective moral values.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties does not exist.
Premise 2: objective moral values do exist
Premise 3: Therefore Gos does exist
I will start here for my first answer.

I do not agree with premise 1 or 2 (also, your P3 should say conclusion).

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.

Why might I ask,that you reject my premises 1 and 2 ?Thank you for correcting my mistake :)
I was WRONG for doing such. Or was I?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 5:07:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 5:05:09 PM, Tylered wrote:
Why might I ask,that you reject my premises 1 and 2 ?Thank you for correcting my mistake :)
I was WRONG for doing such. Or was I?

Because you are making an assertion that objective morality requires a god. You did not provide any evidence for that assertion.

You also only asserted that objective morality exists, but never supported it with any form of evidence.

You need to support your premises in your argument, you cannot just assert them.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 5:31:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 5:05:09 PM, Tylered wrote:
Why might I ask,that you reject my premises 1 and 2 ?Thank you for correcting my mistake :)
I was WRONG for doing such. Or was I?

Also, here is a paper on how objective moral values can exist without a god:
http://philpapers.org...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Tylered
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 6:21:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 5:07:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 5:05:09 PM, Tylered wrote:
Why might I ask,that you reject my premises 1 and 2 ?Thank you for correcting my mistake :)
I was WRONG for doing such. Or was I?

Because you are making an assertion that objective morality requires a god. You did not provide any evidence for that assertion.

You also only asserted that objective morality exists, but never supported it with any form of evidence.

You need to support your premises in your argument, you cannot just assert them.

I need a little info as to why you reject them to give you evidence that supports it. I don't care to go into why objective moral values exist and moral platonism is not if you weren't a moral platonist. It would take more time than I have at to give you a history lesson along with it.

Plus, that is my evidence until someone has a reason to reject it. Any body can sit around cherry picking and say "that's not true, I reject that". You have to have a reason to reject it. Its unintelligible to reject something without giving reason of it. I started this topic. Your reply, questions. Then I give you evidence and say you reject them. Then think I am going to go on a goose chase trying to show you, while you sit there and sit behind you fake stance and state "I reject it". If your not going to engage, maybe this is not for you. And yes, I can assert, my premises supports itself until someone can refute them, not just reject them. The words are different.

Plus your rejection imposes an objective in itself
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 6:52:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/24/2015 6:21:52 PM, Tylered wrote:
At 2/24/2015 5:07:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/24/2015 5:05:09 PM, Tylered wrote:
Why might I ask,that you reject my premises 1 and 2 ?Thank you for correcting my mistake :)
I was WRONG for doing such. Or was I?

Because you are making an assertion that objective morality requires a god. You did not provide any evidence for that assertion.

You also only asserted that objective morality exists, but never supported it with any form of evidence.

You need to support your premises in your argument, you cannot just assert them.

I need a little info as to why you reject them to give you evidence that supports it. I don't care to go into why objective moral values exist and moral platonism is not if you weren't a moral platonist. It would take more time than I have at to give you a history lesson along with it.

Plus, that is my evidence until someone has a reason to reject it. Any body can sit around cherry picking and say "that's not true, I reject that". You have to have a reason to reject it. Its unintelligible to reject something without giving reason of it. I started this topic. Your reply, questions. Then I give you evidence and say you reject them. Then think I am going to go on a goose chase trying to show you, while you sit there and sit behind you fake stance and state "I reject it". If your not going to engage, maybe this is not for you. And yes, I can assert, my premises supports itself until someone can refute them, not just reject them. The words are different.

Plus your rejection imposes an objective in itself

You are committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
By saying you do not need to support your premises you are also making the bare assertion logical fallacy.

You presented the argument, you need to support it with evidence.

I reject the first premise because of the paper I linked.
I reject the second one because moral nihilism makes more sense.

Also, I do not have to accept the opposite to reject your premises (I do not say that objective morality does not require god, I do not have to say that objective moral values do not exist). I can choose to, but I do not have to.

Now, support your premises with evidence.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 5:02:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 12:27:17 AM, Tylered wrote:
Humanism seems to be an careless outlet for those want to want to affirm the objective reality of moral values but can't bring there selves to affirm that the existence of God is necessary (I don't mean that belief in God is necessary).

So they assert man as the measurement of all things. That man takes the place of God as the anchor of moral values, and moral values are determined by what promotes human flourishing.

What a very strange view, Tylered.

Gods are stories men tell one another, and the only way they can understand theology is through stories. Even if you think God -- the god of Abraham -- exists, almost half the human population doesn't and never has; and among those who think he does, there has never been agreement as to what he wants. Why? A profusion of stories and interpretations.

So if god-stories are supposed to produce objective morality -- by which I mean, morality any man can understand as foundational and incontrovertible -- they never have. In fact, the morality they've produced has only divided and grown more disparate over time as doctrine becomes more contested.

However, suppose we set received doctrine aside and study what men need to not be miserable. We could agree on food, shelter, health, security, dignity, respect, social participation... in fact we'd get almost universal agreement on these things.

So much so, that we could produce -- I don't know -- a Declaration of Human Rights; an international document on human morality with consensus from countries with all manner of different faiths. Or a Convention on the Rights of the Child... another secular moral document.

This is not a document any religion produced, or could have produced. It's a product of the thinking of the Enlightenment -- the beginning of secular humanistic thought.

When we rely on objective observation and compassion to inform morality, then we don't get absolute morality. We have to change our understanding as our knowledge of the facts grows. But why is that a problem and not a blessing? When we understand that thalidomide causes birth defects, we agree that it's immoral to dispense it to pregnant mothers. How is that wrong?

We now live in a less violent world than at any time when the great religions were being founded. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) Not because of some sudden accord among world religions, but because people are finding secular means to become better people.

Secular humanism isn't a weak 'me too' version of religious morality. It's an approach that has worked with all faiths and creeds and continues to work despite countless sects still squabbling over their doctrinal supremacism, each with pompous claims that their story-based morality will work universally for man 'one day'. :p

So I'm afraid I find your view counter-factual and very bizarre indeed.