How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2014, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 28-11-2014 11:14 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 09:12 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 10:45 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Speak for yourself.
YOU are the one from the WRONG side of the tracks here, ignoramus.

"We" are doing no such thing. There is not even a coherent definition of a god, much less any reason to thing your god is to be thanked. But when you pause, be sure and thank your impotent god for all the Ebola victims she killed this year, all the babies she starved, and all the 5 year olds she took away from their families with Cancer.

Being grateful for the good things in my life, includes the freedom from your cult's ignorance and idiots like you.

Please see a shrink. You need help.

God is defined as our Personal Theistic Creator. That works well.

God isn't responsible for all the things you stated and that is the most misunderstood excuse for not wanting to follow God which people make. Diseases, etc...are the result of a perfect Creation gone bad due to mankinds sin of willful rebellion and arrogance of playing god ourselves in our own lives.

I don't need help ; I need a new Battery for my RV .

No.
That's how YOU define a god.
It might work for an ignoramus such as you. In fact, it doesn't work at all.

In fact a god who "creates" is incoherent :
1. It has to CHANGE it's mind, and *decide* to create.
2. The *act* of creation proves it's not an infinite god, as the *act* places an endpoint to it's "infinite" past, and "infinite" future.

Diseases existed in nature (proven to exist in dinosaurs and many other animals), BEFORE there were human beings. So we know disease is NOT the result of sin. Explain how the mutations which produce childhood leukemia which always existed in primates, is the result of "sin and rebellion". Are you saying an innocent 3 year old, is sinful ? You're a monster, and so your god would be, if it were real. Why did your evil god let millions of innocent babies starve in the last 5 years ? Is it so weak stupid and inept, it can't even target the really guilty ?

You are a psycho. You need help badly. 1-800-GET-HELP
Tell us, did you graduate from 8th Grade ? It appears you didn't.

You haven't answered the question about at what exact improbable number, you find you must invoke a god, (re: ID).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-11-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 09:43 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  Humble Dave's come out the closet as a full grown troll now. Can we haz hammer?

If you are, please write back in a manner that represents atheists as being moral people .... as is so often asserted by Atheists but is seldom seen.

Ah, didn't I already share my moral theory with you? No? Well then here:

Moral Theology is the study of how persons live in response to what God has done for them (Mueller 221).

Morality is concerned with human conduct but goes to a deeper level of personhood, such that our conduct is a reflection of who we are, a reflection of our character (Mueller 221).

Ethics can be defined as a discussion of the formation of human conduct… How responsible human beings capable of critical judgment should live using reflection on fundamental issues in description of concrete cases (Mueller 221).

Conscience is the voice of God written in our hearts, in accordance with the second Vatican Council. Natural law is considered one of the major sources of moral theology and answers the question: how do I know what is good or evil? Christians believe that natural law has been a factor in our decisions of what is morally right and wrong, good and evil (Mueller 222 – 227).

“This people who may personally and individually be moral and good people and have no intention of conflict and harm on others often share a Christian theory called the collective guilt “social sin.” (Mueller 257). The depths that theists go to fabricate the conception of sin knows no bounds, here you can be a good person yet you still have “social sin”. John Paul II said that social sins are “collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations or blocks of nations” (Mueller 258). Social sin becomes personal sin of individuals through complicity, indifference, or reluctance of those in a position to exert influence for change who do not do so (Mueller 258).

Catholic social teaching looks to gospel teaching to form the moral foundation the Catholic approach to questions of social justice. And assist the disciple in the ongoing task of reflecting on the challenge of Jesus in the sermon on the Mount and in discerning what it means in a consumer, technological, and globalized society to be poor in spirit and to embrace a sorrowing and the lowly (Mueller 260).


Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Additional philosophies with ancient roots include those such as skepticism and virtue ethics. Greg M. Epstein states that, "much of ancient Far Eastern thought is deeply concerned with human goodness without placing much if any stock in the importance of gods or spirits. Other philosophers have proposed various ideas about how to determine right and wrong actions. An example is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: "The idea that actions can only be considered moral if they could be imitated by anyone else and produce good results."

A variety of positions are apparent regarding the relationship between religion and morality. Some believe that religion is necessary as a guide to a moral life. This idea has been with us for nearly 2,000 years. There are various thoughts regarding how this idea has arisen. For example, Greg Epstein suggests that this idea is connected to a concerted effort by theists to question nonreligious ideas: "conservative authorities have, since ancient days, had a clever counter strategy against religious skepticism—convincing people that atheism is evil, and then accusing their enemies of being atheists.

Others eschew the idea that religion is required to provide a guide to right and wrong behavior. Interestingly the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other". Some believe that religions provide poor guides to moral behavior.

Popular atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins, writing in The God Delusion, has stated that religious people have committed a wide variety of acts and held certain beliefs through history that are considered today to be morally repugnant. He has stated that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis held broadly Christian religious beliefs that inspired the Holocaust on account of antisemitic Christian doctrine, that Christians have traditionally imposed unfair restrictions on the legal and civil rights of women, and that Christians have condoned slavery of some form or description throughout most of Christianity's history. Dawkins insists that, since Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible have changed over the span of history so that what was formerly seen as permissible is now seen as impermissible, it is intellectually dishonest for them to believe theism provides an absolute moral foundation apart from secular intuition. In addition, he argued that since Christians and other religious groups do not acknowledge the binding authority of all parts of their holy texts (e.g., The books of Exodus and Leviticus state that those who work on the Sabbath and those caught performing acts of homosexuality, respectively, were to be put to death.), they are already capable of distinguishing "right" from "wrong." (Boghossian 248).

The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This is absurd as all one has to do is look at Denamrk or Sweden to see that these largely atheist areas enjoy being at the top tier of civilization. This is broken down in great detail in a book by Phil Zuckerman, "Society without god".

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans, but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy.

Works cited

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Boghossian, Peter. A Manual for Creating Atheists. Durham: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013. Print.

Zuckerman, Phil. Society without god: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Print.

-----------------------------

I also find it interesting that if the non religious are such immoral creatures, why are we represented in US prison at approx .02% of the population, while Christians are about 70%? Remember that currently non religious make up almost 30% of America now, and only 1 in 3 americans under the age of 30 believe in a god....so what was your point about morality again?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 09:45 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  Humble Dave's come out the closet as a full grown troll now. Can we haz hammer?

Nah. He's done what I asked and kept his posts contained. I don't care if he's an asshat about it, so long as he does it. Obviously there's people who still want to talk to him (he's certainly not the only one posting in this thread) and there's no reason to take that away.

Dave has plenty of rope now. If he's gonna hang, he can tie his own noose. Otherwise, let's drop the banning subject.

Dammit Weeping Y no mob justice?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
28-11-2014, 09:57 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 09:55 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:45 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Nah. He's done what I asked and kept his posts contained. I don't care if he's an asshat about it, so long as he does it. Obviously there's people who still want to talk to him (he's certainly not the only one posting in this thread) and there's no reason to take that away.

Dave has plenty of rope now. If he's gonna hang, he can tie his own noose. Otherwise, let's drop the banning subject.

Dammit Weeping Y no mob justice?

Lol Rainbowdog...you know me better than that. Wink

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
28-11-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 09:43 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  I noticed that its quite typical of Atheists to use the misappropriated term of 'Troll' whenever they get challenged and cant defend their worldview ; I also notice that when Humanists are exposed for the widespread devastation from their philosophy of sexual relativism in society , then enjoy putting a twist on it to blame the Messenger of having an unhealthy fixation on sex . The excuses that Atheists make up are indeed large in number with the motive of trying to get rid of anything that has to do with Creation, God, Jesus, Sin (especially) , eternity, and narrow correct moral living. The psychology of Atheism is very predictable and id imagine you concur with what im saying.

Im at this Forum primarily to see if Atheists can defend their worldview of Humanism , philosophy of living out moral relativism yet demanding others treat them with absolute morality , and WHY/HOW they can look around themselves and obviously see a remarkable highly complex intelligent based Reality yet want to blow it all off to accidents and complete non purpose. What do u suppose is REALLY behind this ? Ive had professed Atheists tell me that they are Atheists NOT because of a lack of evidence for a Creator yet they wont tell me WHY they are . What do u make of this charade ? Thanks.
That you're fucked in the head?

Quote: And, are you able to have a cogent dialogue without resorting to vile and foul language as if that helps you in some way justify your cause ?
Apparently not. Put some big boy panties on kid. It's just words.

Quote:
If you are, please write back in a manner that represents atheists as being moral people .... as is so often asserted by Atheists but is seldom seen.
I'm just telling you to go fuck yourself, I'm not shooting you in the name of Jesus Drinking Beverage

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 09:43 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  I also notice that when Humanists are exposed for the widespread devastation from their philosophy of sexual relativism in society , then enjoy putting a twist on it to blame the Messenger of having an unhealthy fixation on sex.

There is a fixation on sex. You really can't deny it. Sex is one of the most beautiful things that exist, and I'm tired of the negative stigma some people insist on attaching to it. It's very intimate so it can be the most awesome experience you have but also the most dangerous if abused. It can be bright, it can be dark.

However, so long as there is consent, it's none of your business who other people sleep with, nor it is your authority to judge whether it's moral or not. You are free to sleep with whoever you deem appropriate, it's your right. The same way, it's the other people's right to sleep with whoever they want. Your freedom stops when the others' starts.

(28-11-2014 09:43 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  The excuses that Atheists make up are indeed large in number with the motive of trying to get rid of anything that has to do with Creation, God, Jesus, Sin (especially) , eternity, and narrow correct moral living. The psychology of Atheism is very predictable and id imagine you concur with what im saying.

Sin is a religious only concept, unless you're using the broader sense of the term, but I doubt that's your case. There's also no such thing as psychology of Atheism. It's only the position on a single claim. Do you believe there is a psychology of not-believing-in-unicorns too? The rest, you need to ask separately.

(28-11-2014 09:43 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Im at this Forum primarily to see if Atheists can defend their worldview of Humanism , philosophy of living out moral relativism yet demanding others treat them with absolute morality , and WHY/HOW they can look around themselves and obviously see a remarkable highly complex intelligent based Reality yet want to blow it all off to accidents and complete non purpose.

If reality is complex, that proves only that... reality is complex. If you think that only something complex (i.e. God) could create a complex reality, then who created God? Be careful here, it's a trap! Tongue

(28-11-2014 09:43 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  What do u suppose is REALLY behind this?

Natural and physical laws.

(28-11-2014 09:43 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Ive had professed Atheists tell me that they are Atheists NOT because of a lack of evidence for a Creator yet they wont tell me WHY they are . What do u make of this charade ? Thanks.

It would be most appropriate of you to ask those atheists. Each atheist has a different history, different motivations, different reasonings. You can't put us all in the same pot.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 09:50 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:43 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  I noticed that its quite typical of Atheists to use the misappropriated term of 'Troll' whenever they get challenged and cant defend their worldview ; I also notice that when Humanists are exposed for the widespread devastation from their philosophy of sexual relativism in society , then enjoy putting a twist on it to blame the Messenger of having an unhealthy fixation on sex . The excuses that Atheists make up are indeed large in number with the motive of trying to get rid of anything that has to do with Creation, God, Jesus, Sin (especially) , eternity, and narrow correct moral living. The psychology of Atheism is very predictable and id imagine you concur with what im saying.

Im at this Forum primarily to see if Atheists can defend their worldview of Humanism , philosophy of living out moral relativism yet demanding others treat them with absolute morality , and WHY/HOW they can look around themselves and obviously see a remarkable highly complex intelligent based Reality yet want to blow it all off to accidents and complete non purpose. What do u suppose is REALLY behind this ? Ive had professed Atheists tell me that they are Atheists NOT because of a lack of evidence for a Creator yet they wont tell me WHY they are . What do u make of this charade ? Thanks. And, are you able to have a cogent dialogue without resorting to vile and foul language as if that helps you in some way justify your cause ? If you are, please write back in a manner that represents atheists as being moral people .... as is so often asserted by Atheists yet is seldom seen.

Oh I can defend the facts quite well actually. Your hubris view of your anthropocentric religion is amusing. Why must there be a reason for our existence? Is there a reason for 400 billion other planets that we can see via the Hubbel Telescope? Is there a reason for the existence for cancer? Is there a reason the sun bombards us with cancer causing rays? Is there a reason people strive to believe in a disproven fairy tale because they can't find the mental resilience to deal with their inevitable impending death? Is there a reason people believe an invisible super genie blew into a handful of dirt and created man? isn't it interesting how the human body has vestigial organs and bone formations that are evolutionary evidence that can be traced back to our ancestors? A charade is an assumably intelligent person believing in fiction, forgery and fantasy; the epitome of those who choose to believe in a creator...please explain.

Well yes....IT IS necessary to have an explanation for our reality. Why wouldn't it be ? If someone left you a $100 bill taped to your cars steering wheel, would that not cause some degree of inquiry as to who did it and for what reason ? Sure it would. Only when we start considering the Cosmos and the scientifically verified Fine Tuning of it for our life on earth...suddenly it doesn't matter anymore because of the implications to us.

Yes, there MUST be a reason for ANYTHING coming into existence when it didn't have to, and, it coming from nothing . And, there IS a reason for every event including all of the ones you listed . But what occurs with the Atheist is that he takes on a 'whatever' defeatist attitude concerning the Cosmos and Reality and chooses a state of willful ignorance (not stupidity) but not wanting to acquire the knowledge or reason behind things --- that is really quite pitiful . So , why do u supposed that your typical Atheist isn't really interested, doesn't have much of an inquiring Mind for the weightier issues of life, tries to blow everything off to an accidental natural event when only intelligent input can satisfy something, and essentially takes everything for granted on the grander scheme of things ? How did you personally get into this doldrum way of thinking if I may ask ? Did your Parents pass this along to you perhaps, or did you become upset with God over something dear to you, or have you succumbed to never allowing anyone to have authority with your life for instance ? Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 10:18 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 10:27 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 10:13 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  
(28-11-2014 09:50 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Oh I can defend the facts quite well actually. Your hubris view of your anthropocentric religion is amusing. Why must there be a reason for our existence? Is there a reason for 400 billion other planets that we can see via the Hubbel Telescope? Is there a reason for the existence for cancer? Is there a reason the sun bombards us with cancer causing rays? Is there a reason people strive to believe in a disproven fairy tale because they can't find the mental resilience to deal with their inevitable impending death? Is there a reason people believe an invisible super genie blew into a handful of dirt and created man? isn't it interesting how the human body has vestigial organs and bone formations that are evolutionary evidence that can be traced back to our ancestors? A charade is an assumably intelligent person believing in fiction, forgery and fantasy; the epitome of those who choose to believe in a creator...please explain.

Well yes....IT IS necessary to have an explanation for our reality. Why wouldn't it be ? If someone left you a $100 bill taped to your cars steering wheel, would that not cause some degree of inquiry as to who did it and for what reason ? Sure it would. Only when we start considering the Cosmos and the scientifically verified Fine Tuning of it for our life on earth...suddenly it doesn't matter anymore because of the implications to us.

Yes, there MUST be a reason for ANYTHING coming into existence when it didn't have to, and, it coming from nothing . And, there IS a reason for every event including all of the ones you listed . But what occurs with the Atheist is that he takes on a 'whatever' defeatist attitude concerning the Cosmos and Reality and chooses a state of willful ignorance (not stupidity) but not wanting to acquire the knowledge or reason behind things --- that is really quite pitiful . So , why do u supposed that your typical Atheist isn't really interested, doesn't have much of an inquiring Mind for the weightier issues of life, tries to blow everything off to an accidental natural event when only intelligent input can satisfy something, and essentially takes everything for granted on the grander scheme of things ? How did you personally get into this doldrum way of thinking if I may ask ? Did your Parents pass this along to you perhaps, or did you become upset with God over something dear to you, or have you succumbed to never allowing anyone to have authority with your life for instance ? Thanks.

And what if you couldn't find a rhyme nor reason to the dollar bill? Does it really NEED an explanation to why it's there, why it existence plopped itself on the windshield?

And even if there was an overarching purpose to our reality, your claim to special knowledge of this purpose bares no suitable evidence to support it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: How well can Atheistic Humanists defend their Worldview/Origins ?
(28-11-2014 10:13 AM)Im a humble little Theist Wrote:  Yes, there MUST be a reason for ANYTHING coming into existence when it didn't have to, and, it coming from nothing . And, there IS a reason for every event including all of the ones you listed . But what occurs with the Atheist is that he takes on a 'whatever' defeatist attitude concerning the Cosmos and Reality and chooses a state of willful ignorance (not stupidity) but not wanting to acquire the knowledge or reason behind things --- that is really quite pitiful . So , why do u supposed that your typical Atheist isn't really interested, doesn't have much of an inquiring Mind for the weightier issues of life, tries to blow everything off to an accidental natural event when only intelligent input can satisfy something, and essentially takes everything for granted on the grander scheme of things ? How did you personally get into this doldrum way of thinking if I may ask ? Did your Parents pass this along to you perhaps, or did you become upset with God over something dear to you, or have you succumbed to never allowing anyone to have authority with your life for instance ? Thanks.

Your childish demand for a reason does not make it necessary that there be one,
and it does not give you permission to invent one.

I'm sorry that you have not grown out of your fear of the unknown. Do you still sleep with a light on?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: