Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I don't believe in Atheism....

GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 5:50:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The apex of Christianity is God. The apex of Atheism is mankind.

I don't have faith in mankind. I think it can be proved, without much effort, that mankind fullfils the requirement for "evil". It seems illogical to place my faith in something evil, especially a tangible, physical evil.

I therefor suggest that the 3rd article of the Humanist manifesto III (ethics) is not worthy of my faith. After all, I cannot place my faith in the people who wrote it. They are evil and thus, their motives cannot be good.

I henceforth offer the problem of evil in a Humanist frame of reference.
"If man is the designer of Good and Evil, how do you explain the indifference, inaction, provocation and general suffering in this world?"

Note: This does not suggest that humanity is capable of stoping evil, but it is suggesting that the Champions of Humanism (E.U., United Nations, United States, United Kingdom etc.,) are not enforcing the moral value system to a maximally effective degree. (i.e....so much more could be done).

This proves problematic in light of Humanist Manifesto III, article 3:"Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility."

If you deny the humanist nature of the above mentioned orginizations, consider the source:"Not too long ago, I had a brief exchange with a high-ranking United Nations official in New York. I noted the similarity between humanist worldviews and those held within the UN, as expressed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others.
"Of course," he replied. "We are all humanists here."" (Humanism and the UN: A Shared Future?, Carl Coon, 2003)


You can view a debate on this topic here:http://www.debate.org...
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 5:59:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 5:54:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Humanism =/= Atheism

derp.

Secular Humanist = Atheist.

Article 1 of humanist manifesto:"
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."

DEEEEERRRRRP!!!
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:04:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 5:54:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Humanism =/= Atheism

derp.

"As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival." - Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson (1973)
Humanist Manifesto II

Humanism = Atheism for the past 40 years.
DEEEEE.....EEEEEE.....EEEEERRRRRR.....PPPPPPPP!
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:09:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know you're not that stupid. Atheism is not a religion, ideology, belief system, or philosophy. If a belief system like Buddhism or a philosophy like Humanism incorporates a lack of belief or a positive disbelief into their tenets, that does not makes atheism Buddhism or Humanism. Ya dig?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:18:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 6:09:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I know you're not that stupid. Atheism is not a religion, ideology, belief system, or philosophy. If a belief system like Buddhism or a philosophy like Humanism incorporates a lack of belief or a positive disbelief into their tenets, that does not makes atheism Buddhism or Humanism. Ya dig?

a-the-ism; [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Source argument:Are Secular Humanists Atheists?
Secular humanists are generally nontheists. They typically describe themselves as nonreligious. They hail from widely divergent philosophical and religious backgrounds.
"Thus, secular humanists do not rely upon gods or other supernatural forces to solve their problems or provide guidance for their conduct. They rely instead upon the application of reason, the lessons of history, and personal experience to form an ethical/moral foundation and to create meaning in life. Secular humanists look to the methodology of science as the most reliable source of information about what is factual or true about the universe we all share, acknowledging that new discoveries will always alter and expand our understanding of it and perhaps change our approach to ethical issues as well. In any case their cosmic outlook draws primarily from human experiences and scientific knowledge."

-Council for Secular Humanism -

You need to be smarter than this yourself. Are you saying Secular Humanists are not atheists?

sec-u-lar; Show Spelled[sek-yuh-ler]
adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.

hu-man-ism; Show Spelled[hyoo-muh-niz-uhm or, often, yoo-]
noun
1. any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
2. devotion to or study of the humanities.
3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the studies, principles, or culture of the humanists.
4. Philosophy . a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.

Conclusion: In order to be an atheist, one must deny a supernature. Therefor all secular humanists are atheists, although not all atheists are secular humanists.....ya dig?
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:20:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 6:09:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I know you're not that stupid. Atheism is not a religion, ideology, belief system, or philosophy. If a belief system like Buddhism or a philosophy like Humanism incorporates a lack of belief or a positive disbelief into their tenets, that does not makes atheism Buddhism or Humanism. Ya dig?

Let me ask you a question.

What is your life philosophy? What existing doctrine most closely resembles your ethics?
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:32:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Are you saying Secular Humanists are not atheists?"
No, all secular humanists are non-theists because they incorporate that stance into their philosophy. It is a requisite characteristic for a secular humanist to be irreligious, but it is not a requisite characteristic for the irreligious to be secular humanist, as that is an external philosophy. We don't have to accept it the same way we do not have to accept Kantian Ethics or Objectivism. The philosophies are compatible with atheism, but simply being an atheist does not make someone believe in a particular philosophy. Gettin' it?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:45:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 6:09:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I know you're not that stupid. Atheism is not a religion, ideology, belief system, or philosophy. If a belief system like Buddhism or a philosophy like Humanism incorporates a lack of belief or a positive disbelief into their tenets, that does not makes atheism Buddhism or Humanism. Ya dig?

What qualifies as a belief system?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:53:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 6:20:19 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:

What is your life philosophy? What existing doctrine most closely resembles your ethics?

A combination of basic ethical principles from universalization to the golden rule.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:54:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 6:45:23 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/27/2012 6:09:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I know you're not that stupid. Atheism is not a religion, ideology, belief system, or philosophy. If a belief system like Buddhism or a philosophy like Humanism incorporates a lack of belief or a positive disbelief into their tenets, that does not makes atheism Buddhism or Humanism. Ya dig?

What qualifies as a belief system?

A set of mutually supportive beliefs, tenets, etc.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 6:59:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 6:32:08 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
"Are you saying Secular Humanists are not atheists?"
No, all secular humanists are non-theists because they incorporate that stance into their philosophy. It is a requisite characteristic for a secular humanist to be irreligious, but it is not a requisite characteristic for the irreligious to be secular humanist, as that is an external philosophy. We don't have to accept it the same way we do not have to accept Kantian Ethics or Objectivism. The philosophies are compatible with atheism, but simply being an atheist does not make someone believe in a particular philosophy. Gettin' it?

That's escapist reasoning and does not function to answer the dilema.
Your argument presented the idea that secular humanism is not synonimous with Atheism.

The Thesaurus names Secularism as a Synonym to Atheism. They function interchangably.

You claim Atheism =/= Secular Humanism

Yet Secular = Atheism
Humanism = Man centered Nontheism
Then Atheism = Secular Humanism (Atheistic Human Centered Nontheism)

Got it...thanks for clarifying.

To prove this, simply answer my question. What is your moral value? What does it most closely resemble?
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 7:13:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 6:53:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/27/2012 6:20:19 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:

What is your life philosophy? What existing doctrine most closely resembles your ethics?

A combination of basic ethical principles from universalization to the golden rule.

(Positive form of Golden Rule): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
(Negative form of Golden Rule): One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.

Universalization: An expressive ethical ideal rooted in the belief that everyone shares a commonality in their experience of morality and suffering. Psychotherapy employs this premise in the theraputic format of "You are not alone in your condition." The moral guidline of this premise is the shared ethical and moral value of every human being who experiences the condition of being human.

Note: This is not a moral value. It's a mechanism for relating to the human condition. It does not guide an individual to reason in ethics. It simply seeks to explain that a condition exists. Example:" I am sad that my Grandfather passed away." Universalistic respone:" I have lost my grandfather also. It will get better with time."Therefor, your moral code is this:

I treat others how I want to be treated. I recognize my own need to exist without feeling wounded, attacked or threatened. Therefore I extend the same courtesy to my fellow human, who shares in my condition.

The 5th Article of the Humanist Manifesto II:
"The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased."

You are a secular humanist.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 7:15:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 6:54:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/27/2012 6:45:23 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/27/2012 6:09:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I know you're not that stupid. Atheism is not a religion, ideology, belief system, or philosophy. If a belief system like Buddhism or a philosophy like Humanism incorporates a lack of belief or a positive disbelief into their tenets, that does not makes atheism Buddhism or Humanism. Ya dig?

What qualifies as a belief system?

A set of mutually supportive beliefs, tenets, etc.

What do you mean by "mutually supportive"?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 8:26:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 5:59:14 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
You don't have to be religious or believe in the supernatural, to believe in God. I'm a pantheist and pantheism is the belief, that, God and nature are one and the same.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 8:33:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 6:59:00 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 9/27/2012 6:32:08 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
"Are you saying Secular Humanists are not atheists?"
No, all secular humanists are non-theists because they incorporate that stance into their philosophy. It is a requisite characteristic for a secular humanist to be irreligious, but it is not a requisite characteristic for the irreligious to be secular humanist, as that is an external philosophy. We don't have to accept it the same way we do not have to accept Kantian Ethics or Objectivism. The philosophies are compatible with atheism, but simply being an atheist does not make someone believe in a particular philosophy. Gettin' it?

That's escapist reasoning and does not function to answer the dilema.
Your argument presented the idea that secular humanism is not synonimous with Atheism.

The Thesaurus names Secularism as a Synonym to Atheism. They function interchangably.

You claim Atheism =/= Secular Humanism

Yet Secular = Atheism
Humanism = Man centered Nontheism
Then Atheism = Secular Humanism (Atheistic Human Centered Nontheism)

Got it...thanks for clarifying.


To prove this, simply answer my question. What is your moral value? What does it most closely resemble?

In no way is secularism and atheism interchangeable. Secularism is a political point of view, emphasising the importance of separation of church and state, while atheism is a denial of god/s. It's basically the difference between a political and a philosophical/theological point of view. One could very easily be a secularist and a theist. In fact, of the religious people in Britain, most tend to be both.

A humanist is little less clear, but it's probably fair to describe it as nontheistic position which advocates moral values, and the centrality of humanity in regards to these values. As has been said, while one may have to be an atheist/agnostic to be a humanist, non-theists need not be humanists.I'm not sure Sartre, Nietzsche or others could be described as humanists, for example.

As for your problem of evil, I'm not sure this even registers remotely as a problem. For one, humanists make a tiny minority of people. In the UK, for example, there are only thousands of humanists (12,000 approx, IIRC). I'm also puzzled why the US should be seen as humanist. How many people in power have espoused humanism? Last time I checked, Obama, Bush I & II, Clinton and so on were all Christians. Also, treating humanists as some homogeneous group is problematic. Humanists will come at issues from the points of view of conflicting values (political ideologies, for example), not to mention the fallibility of human nature and human reasoning (which even humanists like Andrew Copson readily acknowledge).
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 9:13:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 7:15:26 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/27/2012 6:54:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/27/2012 6:45:23 AM, jharry wrote:
At 9/27/2012 6:09:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I know you're not that stupid. Atheism is not a religion, ideology, belief system, or philosophy. If a belief system like Buddhism or a philosophy like Humanism incorporates a lack of belief or a positive disbelief into their tenets, that does not makes atheism Buddhism or Humanism. Ya dig?

What qualifies as a belief system?

A set of mutually supportive beliefs, tenets, etc.

What do you mean by "mutually supportive"?

I googled that phrase but all I came up with was "mutual support" and it dealt with the military and an enemy. I doubt that is what you are saying.

Please give an example or simply define what you mean. Thanks.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 10:00:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 5:50:55 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
I henceforth offer the problem of evil in a Humanist frame of reference.
"If man is the designer of Good and Evil, how do you explain the indifference, inaction, provocation and general suffering in this world?"

Obviously, man is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The PoE is only a problem for those who are tri-omni.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 10:15:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 5:50:55 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
The apex of Christianity is God. The apex of Atheism is mankind.:

According to who? Atheism =/= humanism. It would be well with you to not confuse the two. All Floridians are Americans, but not all Americans are Floridians. Same thing with atheism/humanism.

But good for you. You don't believe in man but you believe in invisible sky daddy's. Congratulations.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 11:25:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 10:00:18 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 9/27/2012 5:50:55 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
I henceforth offer the problem of evil in a Humanist frame of reference.
"If man is the designer of Good and Evil, how do you explain the indifference, inaction, provocation and general suffering in this world?"

Obviously, man is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The PoE is only a problem for those who are tri-omni.

Wiploc, Assume:
1.> You are made absolute ruler of the world.
2.> You make a moral law:"Share resources, so none shall go hungry."
3.> America, the E.U., the U.N. and a few other moderately wealthy nations gather resources and begin to distribute food to the hungry.
4.> After an audit, you find out that these nations have a vast abundance of extra food, yet they only share a fraction. The remnant is either consumed in excess or thrown away.
5.> The problem of hunger is still pervasive, yet these nations all consider themselves moral for participating in your moral law.
6.> You confront the nations about their glutony and wasteful infractions and they asnwer with:" We give plenty. Why not direct your anger at nations who gave less than us? Surely they are the problem."

You know the problem of hunger is not based on resource availability and logistics. It's very clear that these nations could have given drastically more, yet they chose to minimally participate, enjoying the luxury of an abundance of food.

How do you explain the innaction, indifference to suffering and the half-measures to make a difference? When you explain these problems, you must maintain that your method is the best moral solution.

In essence, if secular humanism...or atheism...or any non-theistic, man-centered philosophy...if these philosophies reject the moral code of scripture, how can they justifiy their own moral code?

How can you point at a Christian and scream:" Your Bible condones infanticide, slavery and oppression!"....and then turn around to abort your children, buy electronics from child-slave labor factories in Thailand and allow 180,000 people to die in Rwanda without even picking up a pen to write your congressman? Follow that up by eating a bacon-cheeseburger while watching images of starvation and war on the 6:00 O'clock news....and then point your finger at the thousands of Christian missionaries who run into the conflict and die..literally, to easy the suffering of the oppressed. You'll suck down 3 sandwhiches from Chik-fil-A and then call them oppressive for answering a question you already knew the answer too.

So, explain the problem of evil, while maintaining your own moral authority. Why should I stop believing in my God and start seeing things your way?
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 3:59:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 5:50:55 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
The apex of Christianity is God. The apex of Atheism is mankind.

Says who? Nature itself, if anything, is the best candidate for the apex of Atheism in my opinion. Mankind could just be only one bolt in the truck playing its role.

I don't have faith in mankind. I think it can be proved, without much effort, that mankind fullfils the requirement for "evil". It seems illogical to place my faith in something evil, especially a tangible, physical evil.

If mankind is "evil" because we do evil, then why aren't we considered "good" also because we do good? You cannot just group humanity as a whole under one tree like that. There are people who give to charity and help old ladies across the street, and there are some people who cut up little girls after molesting them.


I therefor suggest that the 3rd article of the Humanist manifesto III (ethics) is not worthy of my faith. After all, I cannot place my faith in the people who wrote it. They are evil and thus, their motives cannot be good.

I already poked a whole in your reasoning, you cannot group mankind as a whole under one moral umbrella. Thus, you have nothing to back up the assertion that the people in question were "evil". Also, you haven't even demonstrated that you can objectively speak on morality, like you can on the chemical composition of water for example.


I henceforth offer the problem of evil in a Humanist frame of reference.
"If man is the designer of Good and Evil, how do you explain the indifference, inaction, provocation and general suffering in this world?"

Note: This does not suggest that humanity is capable of stoping evil, but it is suggesting that the Champions of Humanism (E.U., United Nations, United States, United Kingdom etc.,) are not enforcing the moral value system to a maximally effective degree. (i.e....so much more could be done).

This proves problematic in light of Humanist Manifesto III, article 3:"Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility."

If you deny the humanist nature of the above mentioned orginizations, consider the source:"Not too long ago, I had a brief exchange with a high-ranking United Nations official in New York. I noted the similarity between humanist worldviews and those held within the UN, as expressed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others.
"Of course," he replied. "We are all humanists here."" (Humanism and the UN: A Shared Future?, Carl Coon, 2003)


You can view a debate on this topic here:http://www.debate.org...

Ok....lol
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 4:44:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can prove that humans are "evil?"

Wow.... this has got to be good. Go ahead.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 8:05:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 11:25:08 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 9/27/2012 10:00:18 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 9/27/2012 5:50:55 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
I henceforth offer the problem of evil in a Humanist frame of reference.
"If man is the designer of Good and Evil, how do you explain the indifference, inaction, provocation and general suffering in this world?"

Obviously, man is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The PoE is only a problem for those who are tri-omni.

So, explain the problem of evil, while maintaining your own moral authority.

I have moral authority?

But I'm happy to explain the problem of evil:

Contradictions can't happen. You can't have a square circle because squares have corners and circles don't. That's a contradiction, see. Impossible. Can't happen. Anyone who believes in a square circle is wrong.

And anyone who believes in married bachelors is wrong. Bachelors are unmarried by definition. Anyone married would not be a bachelor. Any bachelor would not be married. No bachelors are married. Anyone who believes in married bachelors is incontestably wrong.

It's the same with people who believe in a tri-omni god who coexists with evil. If he were strong enough to prevent evil, knew enough to prevent evil, and sufficiently desired to prevent evil, then there would be no evil.

Why should I stop believing in my God and start seeing things your way?

If your god is strong enough and knows enough to prevent evil, and is totally desirous of preventing evil, and if he also coexists with evil, then he is a logical contradiction like a square circle. You can believe in such a god if you want to, even as you can believe in a square circle if you want to. But it's nothing to be proud of.

How can you point at a Christian and scream:" Your Bible condones infanticide, slavery and oppression!"

Why would I do that? Of course, there are contexts in which the information would be appropriate, even if the pointing and screaming wasn't. For instance, if you claim that the morality of the bible is perfect, then I get to point out that it obviously isn't. You can't get around that. You've got the genocides, the bears eating the little children, the concept of sin, Hellfire. There is every appearance that the morality of the bible is grossly flawed.

If you believe that biblical morality is perfect, then you are obviously wrong.

....and then turn around to abort your children,

Aborted children are like square circles. Children are already born. Abortions don't happen to something that is already born.

But, semantics aside, I see nothing wrong with abortion. I think abortions are good, and lots of people ought to have them.

But if we set the abortion issue aside, and the Chick-fil-A thing (don't much care for the taste of Chick-fil-A), then the rest of your examples may have merit:

buy electronics from child-slave labor factories in Thailand and allow 180,000 people to die in Rwanda without even picking up a pen to write your congressman? Follow that up by eating a bacon-cheeseburger while watching images of starvation and war on the 6:00 O'clock news....and then point your finger at the thousands of Christian missionaries who run into the conflict and die..literally, to easy the suffering of the oppressed.

Touche! You've done it! You've proven that I am not perfect!

So why don't examples of Jehovah's immorality prove that he also is not perfect?

In essence, if secular humanism...or atheism...or any non-theistic, man-centered philosophy...if these philosophies reject the moral code of scripture, how can they justifiy their own moral code?

Well you certainly can't be moral if you don't reject the moral code of the scripture. No decent person can countenance eternal Hellfire as a punishment for anything.

Short answer: we can justify our moral codes at least as well as you do.

Take note of the fact that you haven't made an argument, and I'm not able to respond to an argument you haven't made. Instead of making an argument, you asked a question. Usually that means you don't have a strong enough case that you can actually state your case, so you end with a question in the hope that I'll imagine a case for you. But I gave you some straightforward responses anyway. If you find them insufficient, if I guessed wrong about whatever you were hinting at, feel free to try again. But this time, actually state your case. If you want to show me how you "justify" your morality, and challenge me to do as well, then go ahead. And please articulate what you mean by "justify."

How do you explain the innaction, indifference to suffering and the half-measures to make a difference?

I'm not omnipotent. I'm not omniscient. Neither am I omnibenevolent.

When you explain these problems, you must maintain that your method is the best moral solution.

Why should I maintain that? I don't understand morality. You are the one claiming to have the perfect morality. You should explain how you square that claim with the patent immoralities of the bible.

If you have a spoiled fruit, I can say, "That fruit is spoiled." I don't have to own the world's freshest fruit before I can point out that yours is rotten. Biblical morality is obviously rotten.

You know the problem of hunger is not based on resource availability and logistics. It's very clear that these nations could have given drastically more, yet they chose to minimally participate, enjoying the luxury of an abundance of food.

If you are trying to prove that these nations are not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, congratulations! You proved it. However, you also proved that nobody else is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent either---including Jehovah.

If this universe contained anyone---including gods---who was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then there would be no evil.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 9:19:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 3:59:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/27/2012 5:50:55 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
The apex of Christianity is God. The apex of Atheism is mankind.

Says who? Nature itself, if anything, is the best candidate for the apex of Atheism in my opinion. Mankind could just be only one bolt in the truck playing its role.

Ok, that's a perfectly reasonable premise also. Granted.


I don't have faith in mankind. I think it can be proved, without much effort, that mankind fullfils the requirement for "evil". It seems illogical to place my faith in something evil, especially a tangible, physical evil.

If mankind is "evil" because we do evil, then why aren't we considered "good" also because we do good? You cannot just group humanity as a whole under one tree like that. There are people who give to charity and help old ladies across the street, and there are some people who cut up little girls after molesting them.

In order for humanity to be good, it cannot be evil on any level. Yet evil can emulate good for all practical purposes. They are not mutually exclusive.

In the same way that an honest person cannot lie. Yet a liar can tell one lie and a thousand truths and still be a liar. It's not backwards compatible.

Could you acknowledge such a premise or would you argue against it?



I therefor suggest that the 3rd article of the Humanist manifesto III (ethics) is not worthy of my faith. After all, I cannot place my faith in the people who wrote it. They are evil and thus, their motives cannot be good.

I already poked a whole in your reasoning, you cannot group mankind as a whole under one moral umbrella. Thus, you have nothing to back up the assertion that the people in question were "evil". Also, you haven't even demonstrated that you can objectively speak on morality, like you can on the chemical composition of water for example.

I haven't spoken objectively on morality? I gave very robust arguments. Nontheism seeks to author morality yet it fails to meet it's own guidelines. What shall we say about half-measures, indifference and innaction? It's a very objective premise.



I henceforth offer the problem of evil in a Humanist frame of reference.
"If man is the designer of Good and Evil, how do you explain the indifference, inaction, provocation and general suffering in this world?"

Note: This does not suggest that humanity is capable of stoping evil, but it is suggesting that the Champions of Humanism (E.U., United Nations, United States, United Kingdom etc.,) are not enforcing the moral value system to a maximally effective degree. (i.e....so much more could be done).

This proves problematic in light of Humanist Manifesto III, article 3:"Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility."

If you deny the humanist nature of the above mentioned orginizations, consider the source:"Not too long ago, I had a brief exchange with a high-ranking United Nations official in New York. I noted the similarity between humanist worldviews and those held within the UN, as expressed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others.
"Of course," he replied. "We are all humanists here."" (Humanism and the UN: A Shared Future?, Carl Coon, 2003)


You can view a debate on this topic here:http://www.debate.org...

Ok....lol
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 9:26:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 4:44:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You can prove that humans are "evil?"

Wow.... this has got to be good. Go ahead.

Holocaust, Rwanda, Japanese relocation camps, genocide of natives, Vietnam, Police brutality, political corruption, market manipulation, pharmaceutical fraud, the police log in your hometown newspaper....not very hard to prove.

Now, you may not prescribe to absolute moral evils, but when a 32 year old man lights up a class of kindergarten kids with an AK47, I'm sure you'd stop to say:"That was evil."

Now you may want to go into some logical regression and claim:" One act of evil does not describe humanity as a whole", to which I invoke UN inaction in the genocide in Rwanda, the indifference of Germans to the slaughter in their back yard, the human concept of racial evolutionary disadvantages of minorities as recently as 30 years ago. That's a "mankind" problem, not a single act of evil.

I can go on. It's not that hard.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 9:30:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wiploc is correct to point out that the lack of moral purity of secular humanists does not mean that secular humanism is itself worthless. Rather, secular humanism should not be judged on how well it is implemented, but on its innate qualities, just like any other ethical system.

As far as ethical and moral... those are relative things. There's no such thing as pure amorality in the real world, and there is no perfect paragon of virtue.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 9:43:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Really, what this boils down to is this:
If I claim the moral code of scripture, then you would call me myopic, delusional, stupid....etc....
Yet when we challenge you on your moral code, we get some escape act where bad things happen but no one in particular is to blame. So it's not really your problem to deal with.

I find that irresponsible and lazy. Anyone who goes out of his way to challenge my moral ground better have the conviction to follow his own moral compass. So if you attribute a general value to every human being, then you better go out of your way to help as many suffering humans as you can.

I value eternal security and I believe it's a moral responsibility of mine to share my understanding of scripture. Not because I enjoy the conflict that inevitably occurs, but because I may just reach someone. Shouldn't non-theists pursue their morals with similar conviction? Otherwise...why even challenge my worldview, if you're so luke-warm about your own?

How many of you chose atheism because it's easy and comfortable?...because you sure can't claim to know that God doesn't exist.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 11:39:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 9:43:42 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Really, what this boils down to is this:
If I claim the moral code of scripture, then you would call me myopic, delusional, stupid....etc....

Yes, biblical morality is really really bad.

Yet when we challenge you on your moral code, we get some escape act where bad things happen but no one in particular is to blame. So it's not really your problem to deal with.

I don't know where this is coming from.

I find that irresponsible and lazy.

Ah, insults. Always a good move in a philosophical discussion.

Anyone who goes out of his way to challenge my moral ground better have the conviction to follow his own moral compass.

My moral compass may be dinged up and rusty, but I do try to follow it, and it clearly works better than biblical morality.

I certainly wouldn't want you to follow your overtly horrible moral compass, so I don't know why you'd want me to follow mine, unless you recognize that mine has some virtue.

So if you attribute a general value to every human being, then you better go out of your way to help as many suffering humans as you can.

A little bit out of my way, yes.

I value eternal security and I believe it's a moral responsibility of mine to share my understanding of scripture. Not because I enjoy the conflict that inevitably occurs, but because I may just reach someone. Shouldn't non-theists pursue their morals with similar conviction?

I have the conviction to point out that your morality is messed up.

And I have enough conviction to rouse myself to point out that you aren't answering the attacks directly. You don't say, "Actually, genocide and Hellfire are pretty cool." Rather, you change the topic to personal attacks on people you haven't been able to persuade. Always a good move in a philosophical discussion.

Otherwise...why even challenge my worldview, if you're so luke-warm about your own?

You talking to me?

Let's have an analogy then: Suppose we want to get to New York City, and you claim that best way to get there, the perfect way, is to drive south past Mexico city, and then turn left at the French Riviera. I don't need to know every detail of the actual route to know that your way is ignorant, unworkable, and perverse. Is that luke-warm enough for you?

How many of you chose atheism because it's easy and comfortable?...

None, I think. I think that's just more Christian slander and lies---sorry if that's too luke-warm for you---which doesn't speak well of Christian morality.

because you sure can't claim to know that God doesn't exist.

The PoE proves that the standard Christian god does not exist. Many other gods could conceivably exist, but most of those are either irrelevant or vanishingly unlikely. And the fact that Christians don't have any workable arguments in support of believing in god, well, that couldn't be more obvious.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:31:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 11:39:25 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 9/27/2012 9:43:42 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Really, what this boils down to is this:
If I claim the moral code of scripture, then you would call me myopic, delusional, stupid....etc....

Yes, biblical morality is really really bad.

Wiploc, provide some examples of bad morals from scripture. Provide a verse and an objection.


Yet when we challenge you on your moral code, we get some escape act where bad things happen but no one in particular is to blame. So it's not really your problem to deal with.

I don't know where this is coming from.

This forum is one example. "My compass is rusty but I try to follow it." Yikes, now you're a victim of a rusty compass. How could I ever hold you responsible?

I find that irresponsible and lazy.

Ah, insults. Always a good move in a philosophical discussion.

Ah, deflection. Always a quick way to avoid responsibility.

Anyone who goes out of his way to challenge my moral ground better have the conviction to follow his own moral compass.

My moral compass may be dinged up and rusty, but I do try to follow it, and it clearly works better than biblical morality.

Clearly? Prove it. Should be easy, since it's clear. Considering that you previously called abortion good, wishing more people would have them, I'd call that murky. Even non-theist don't universally buy the "it's not a human until I say so" argument.


I certainly wouldn't want you to follow your overtly horrible moral compass, so I don't know why you'd want me to follow mine, unless you recognize that mine has some virtue.

Uhm...you don't want me to follow my moral compass, nor your own? Can you explain how this isn't an attempt to wash your hands of moral responsibility?





So if you attribute a general value to every human being, then you better go out of your way to help as many suffering humans as you can.

A little bit out of my way, yes.
Unless you only grant a "little bit of value", you're guilty of innaction, half-measures and indifference. You condemn yourself.
How much do you value your fellow human?
Put a price tag on it.
For Christianity, the fellow human is priceless. How about you?

I value eternal security and I believe it's a moral responsibility of mine to share my understanding of scripture. Not because I enjoy the conflict that inevitably occurs, but because I may just reach someone. Shouldn't non-theists pursue their morals with similar conviction?

I have the conviction to point out that your morality is messed up.
That's not conviction. That's criticism. If you felt convicted to correct me, you'd do more than just talk about how much the Bible bothers you. Inaction, indifference and half-measures.

And I have enough conviction to rouse myself to point out that you aren't answering the attacks directly. You don't say, "Actually, genocide and Hellfire are pretty cool." Rather, you change the topic to personal attacks on people you haven't been able to persuade. Always a good move in a philosophical discussion.
Show me where personal attacks where used in lieu of direct answers. Quote me in context.

Otherwise...why even challenge my worldview, if you're so luke-warm about your own?

You talking to me?
Yep!

Let's have an analogy then: Suppose we want to get to New York City, and you claim that best way to get there, the perfect way, is to drive south past Mexico city, and then turn left at the French Riviera. I don't need to know every detail of the actual route to know that your way is ignorant, unworkable, and perverse. Is that luke-warm enough for you?
This argument assumes that I don't know the direction to New York. From the start, your argument assumes that I'm wrong and you're right. It also assumes that we're trying to travel to the same place, which we're not. My moral compass terminates on a specific goal. Your moral compass is relative. Your north-pole changes constantly.
Hope I didn't hijack your analogy.


How many of you chose atheism because it's easy and comfortable?...

None, I think. I think that's just more Christian slander and lies---sorry if that's too luke-warm for you---which doesn't speak well of Christian morality.

How is it slander? Are you trying to establish the premise that non-theism is inherintly more disciplined and self-sacrificing than Christianity? (I'm not saying that this is a measurement for moral content, but I am wondering if you really believe you have it harder than me because of your worldview.)

because you sure can't claim to know that God doesn't exist.

The PoE proves that the standard Christian god does not exist. Many other gods could conceivably exist, but most of those are either irrelevant or vanishingly unlikely. And the fact that Christians don't have any workable arguments in support of believing in god, well, that couldn't be more obvious.

Don't take this as an insult, but every serious theologian is rolling their eyes at this statement. The POE is only true if God's intent is to serve your idea of peace and virtue. From my study of the scripture, I've been convinced that God seeks our worship. Now, if God is real...there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's God!...not your equal. The dilema is faith, not intention. The POE is not a problem at all, in light of scripture.

So many atheist ask:" If God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, why do bad things happen to good people?"

I'm paraphrasing, but here is a thought:
That question shows that you don't understand the problem. You should be asking:" If Gods knows what I did and what I thought yesterday, how come he didn't kill me in my sleep last night?"

Until you ask the question that way, you assume the problem is "out there". You seperate yourself from the issue of evil. You cannot do that, if God created the moral law.
In your version of the POE, you already assume God is wrong, just like you assume that I don't know where New York is. It's a myopic reduction of the argument.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:36:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 9:19:06 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 9/27/2012 3:59:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/27/2012 5:50:55 AM, GenesisCreation wrote:
The apex of Christianity is God. The apex of Atheism is mankind.

Says who? Nature itself, if anything, is the best candidate for the apex of Atheism in my opinion. Mankind could just be only one bolt in the truck playing its role.

Ok, that's a perfectly reasonable premise also. Granted.


I don't have faith in mankind. I think it can be proved, without much effort, that mankind fullfils the requirement for "evil". It seems illogical to place my faith in something evil, especially a tangible, physical evil.

If mankind is "evil" because we do evil, then why aren't we considered "good" also because we do good? You cannot just group humanity as a whole under one tree like that. There are people who give to charity and help old ladies across the street, and there are some people who cut up little girls after molesting them.

In order for humanity to be good, it cannot be evil on any level.

Says who? I could just flip that, and say that in order for humanity to be evil, it cannot be good on any level.

Yet evil can emulate good for all practical purposes. They are not mutually exclusive.

In the same way that an honest person cannot lie.

Once more, I could just flip that and say that a liar cannot be honest if we follow your flawed logic.

Yet a liar can tell one lie and a thousand truths and still be a liar. It's not backwards compatible.

Could you acknowledge such a premise or would you argue against it?

I'm saying that your argument doesn't work, because it can be flipped against you.



I therefor suggest that the 3rd article of the Humanist manifesto III (ethics) is not worthy of my faith. After all, I cannot place my faith in the people who wrote it. They are evil and thus, their motives cannot be good.

I already poked a whole in your reasoning, you cannot group mankind as a whole under one moral umbrella. Thus, you have nothing to back up the assertion that the people in question were "evil". Also, you haven't even demonstrated that you can objectively speak on morality, like you can on the chemical composition of water for example.

I haven't spoken objectively on morality? I gave very robust arguments. Nontheism seeks to author morality yet it fails to meet it's own guidelines. What shall we say about half-measures, indifference and innaction? It's a very objective premise.

You still haven't supported that morality is objective, you just asserted it.




I henceforth offer the problem of evil in a Humanist frame of reference.
"If man is the designer of Good and Evil, how do you explain the indifference, inaction, provocation and general suffering in this world?"

Note: This does not suggest that humanity is capable of stoping evil, but it is suggesting that the Champions of Humanism (E.U., United Nations, United States, United Kingdom etc.,) are not enforcing the moral value system to a maximally effective degree. (i.e....so much more could be done).

This proves problematic in light of Humanist Manifesto III, article 3:"Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility."

If you deny the humanist nature of the above mentioned orginizations, consider the source:"Not too long ago, I had a brief exchange with a high-ranking United Nations official in New York. I noted the similarity between humanist worldviews and those held within the UN, as expressed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others.
"Of course," he replied. "We are all humanists here."" (Humanism and the UN: A Shared Future?, Carl Coon, 2003)


You can view a debate on this topic here:http://www.debate.org...

Ok....lol