Formal Debate Peanut Gallery - Atheistic Secular Humanism...

[Syd the Human]

The new post by CallMeDavid is so poorly formatted that I'm not reading it. Paragraphs, proper use of caps... these are minimums for having your opinion read.

I understand completely. It was such a struggle (too annoying) to read I just skimmed over it. It will probably take me several times to just get through what he is trying to say. Perhaps it was intentional, I mean, you can't really criticize something fully if you don't even know what the opposite is trying to say.

 

[pgardner2358]

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point).
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

...
{ II. The Religious System
A. The Source of Religion <Hint: NOT God>
B. The World’s Religions
C. The Jewish Religion
D. Christianity, the Religion }



amessageforthehumanrace

 

[Loudmouth]

I dont think its to make it look bad. If we were doing that then we are shooting ourselves in the foot for saying that our religion is also bad by that association. I think its more to do with the acknowledgement that humans do base things on faith and it doesn't have to be about religion or have that religious tag on it.

All you have done is replace the word "religion" with "faith". The whole purpose of calling something religious or faith-based is to drag it down to the level of christianity so it can be dismissed. Have you ever seen atheists trying to make christianity look like an evidenced based moral system? Nope. What we have are christians trying to make it appear as if they have evidence, and when their ploy is exposed they try to drag down everyone else down in the faith based mud with them.

But my initial point was that people are quick to criticize religion but hesitant to admit the positives.

None of the positives requires a belief in a deity, which is the whole point of atheist secular humanism.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

The new post by CallMeDavid is so poorly formatted that I'm not reading it. Paragraphs, proper use of caps... these are minimums for having your opinion read.

If you want to develop an excuse for not reading it then you may ; but its far more likely that you've had your Faith System shook and put thru the wringer a few times that the lies of Secular Humanism have come out in the wash to your dismay .

 

[quatona]

If you want to develop an excuse for not reading it then you may ;

That´s very generous of you.

but its far more likely that you've had your Faith System shook and put thru the wringer a few times that the lies of Secular Humanism have come out in the wash to your dismay .

Oh, you are a psychic?
Personally, I have read hundreds of your posts, and it didn´t have the result you wish it had. So you feel that poor formatting will finally do the trick?

 

[Freodin]

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point).
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:...

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

I have to disagree. What you assert is neither inevitable nor ultimate... rather it is impossible.
Any being that evolved under a system like ours would always be bound by the "laws" that describe this system. These rules exclude at least omnipotence and omniscience, and render meaningless the omnipresence.

Evolution does not work in the way "Heroes" portrayed it... even if it was a funny show.

 

[stevevw]

All you have done is replace the word "religion" with "faith". The whole purpose of calling something religious or faith-based is to drag it down to the level of christianity so it can be dismissed. Have you ever seen atheists trying to make christianity look like an evidenced based moral system? Nope. What we have are christians trying to make it appear as if they have evidence, and when their ploy is exposed they try to drag down everyone else down in the faith based mud with them.

No see you are making every argument about religion against atheists or secular society. Now we cant mention that non religious people can have faith in something. Faith doesn't automatically equate to religion. You can have faith in a person or a system or organization. I think the original point was that non religious people and atheists can have faith in what they believe. Saying that there is no God demands some faith because there is no definite proof and you can prove that there is no God. There is no direct evidence so you have to rely on indirect evidence.

None of the positives requires a belief in a deity, which is the whole point of atheist secular humanism.

All humans are sinners and therefore all humans are capable of being Christlike if they are saved. Non religious people can do good as anyone can but what some surveys show is that religious people do good deeds and give of their time and money more often. This is because religion preaches and teaches to do good all the time so it becomes a way of life. So even though secular society can do good things its the actual doing that makes the difference and the surveys show that religious people do it more often. But to refine things even further a out of all the religions I believe Christians should stand out even more. Because they should have accepted Christ in their lives and be Christ like. They should be displaying the fruits of the spirit. I dont think these surveys go into that detail but because it will look at many denominations there will also be Christians among those denominations as most of those religions are Christian ones.

 

[Loudmouth]

No see you are making every argument about religion against atheists or secular society. Now we cant mention that non religious people can have faith in something. Faith doesn't automatically equate to religion. You can have faith in a person or a system or organization.

That's not the same type of faith.

Saying that there is no God demands some faith because there is no definite proof and you can prove that there is no God.

And there it is again. First, the majority of atheists do not state that God does not exist.

Second, you are trying to drag atheists down to your level by claiming that they rely on faith.

All humans are sinners and therefore all humans are capable of being Christlike if they are saved.

All that is required is for humans to want to be moral. No deities required.

 

[Loudmouth]

but its far more likely that you've had your Faith System shook and put thru the wringer a few times that the lies of Secular Humanism have come out in the wash to your dismay .

Another example of a theist trying to insult atheists by making them look like a theist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you want to develop an excuse for not reading it then you may ; but its far more likely that you've had your Faith System shook and put thru the wringer a few times that the lies of Secular Humanism have come out in the wash to your dismay .

Don't listen to these people Dave, I think you're doing a fantastic job!!

The way you've expertly ignored the main point of Froedin's post and just jumped from one baseless assertion to the next takes real skill. I wouldn't be surprised if many were persuaded with such deft argumentation. Brilliance, sir...sheer brilliance.

 

[stevevw]

That's not the same type of faith.
How do you mean. When it comes to the big questions like the origin of the universe, the origin of life atheists do have some faith involved. Scientists come up with certain explanations for these and have fixed on some more than others. So its not a case of if life came about by naturalistic methods but how. Some will go around and promote a couple of methods like its fact even though they dont have any evidence. This is the same for other theories like the multi universe and hologram theories. They are promoted to explain the finely tuned. Once again these are talked about like they are true. Some even go around the the high priests of evolution and science speaking like an evangelist on some of these theories. The other thing to consider is that many lay people look to some scientists and their literature like gods. They believe whatever they say even though they dont know if what they are saying is true or not. They just believe that just because they are scientists it must be true. So many atheists do have faith in these things as non have been verified but they believe in them as fervently as they claim people do about God.

And there it is again. First, the majority of atheists do not state that God does not exist.

Yes they do that is what atheism is all about.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second, you are trying to drag atheists down to your level by claiming that they rely on faith.

I am not trying to drag anyone down to any level like its a case of good or bad. I am saying that we can have some faith in life besides religion. Faith is not a bad thing in itself.

All that is required is for humans to want to be moral. No deities required.

Unforntunately this doesnt work. Imagine a world wiithout any faith in a God. We all can acknowledge that our sense of morals has come from at least some form of a belief in a God. It has always represented good and bad and right and wrong. But we have seen what happens when there is no beliefs and we base things on the beliefs this world has about things. Thats why we are having so many problems. The more we move away from God the more trouble we find ourselves in. We have seen that secular society version of morals becomes compromised and corrupted and then the truth get turned into a lie and all sorts of things are allowed. Thats because it becomes subjective and has to allow many different individual values which then counter and undermine each other. We end up not really having any moral and a great big mess. We need God to define what is right and what is wrong in this world.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes they do that is what atheism is all about.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you understand how 'broad' and 'narrow' work in these definitions? Broadly speaking, atheism is the lack of belief in gods. A narrower subset of atheism is the positive assertion that there are no gods.

 

[Freodin]

Unforntunately this doesnt work. Imagine a world wiithout any faith in a God. We all can acknowledge that our sense of morals has come from at least some form of a belief in a God. It has always represented good and bad and right and wrong. But we have seen what happens when there is no beliefs and we base things on the beliefs this world has about things. Thats why we are having so many problems. The more we move away from God the more trouble we find ourselves in. We have seen that secular society version of morals becomes compromised and corrupted and then the truth get turned into a lie and all sorts of things are allowed. Thats because it becomes subjective and has to allow many different individual values which then counter and undermine each other. We end up not really having any moral and a great big mess. We need God to define what is right and what is wrong in this world.

Unfortunatley, this is exactly the other way around.

Good and bad have always been concepts of human reasoning. But they can be / are difficult to discern, and even more difficult to enforce.

One way to do both is to project these concepts to an extra-human, super-human entity, who can define as well as enforce his/her/its concept of "good" and "bad".

But this only leads to a version of "might makes right".

Just consider, in the ultimate version of divine "good" and "bad", it only becomes completely enforced when all disagreeing opinions - and those who disagree! - are physically eradicated.

 

[stevevw]

Unfortunatley, this is exactly the other way around.

Good and bad have always been concepts of human reasoning. But they can be / are difficult to discern, and even more difficult to enforce.

One way to do both is to project these concepts to an extra-human, super-human entity, who can define as well as enforce his/her/its concept of "good" and "bad".

But this only leads to a version of "might makes right".

Just consider, in the ultimate version of divine "good" and "bad", it only becomes completely enforced when all disagreeing opinions - and those who disagree! - are physically eradicated.

Well all I know is our system of doing this doesn't work. The jails are getting over populated and people dont ever learn or get rehabilitated. The messages we are sending with our societies seems confusing and it is always being undermined, compromised and corrupted. We allow many different versions of what is acceptable and right and this creates division. If I as an individual think that having an affair outside marriage is wrong then this cannot be considered any grounds as a foundation for right or wrong in a pluralistic society that allows subjective morality.

So things like having affairs for example are even promoted because of this and it undermines what could be the best way we could have dealt with this. Thats basically because people dont like being told what to do and want the freedom to do whatever. I am not saying to enforce these things but to just base our values on them with promotion and eduction. At least then we have some foundation to build upon. Otherwise in the end the problems that are associated with all these things come back and destroy the fabric of our society anyway. We end up having to pay the costs and put certain measures in place. We end up having more rules and regulations in the end that really are taking away our freedoms anyway.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The next post is up in two parts; beginning here: #5

 

[stevevw]

Do you understand how 'broad' and 'narrow' work in these definitions? Broadly speaking, atheism is the lack of belief in gods. A narrower subset of atheism is the positive assertion that there are no gods.

I think so. So some believe that there are no gods. But if some believe there are no gods under atheism doesn't that allow that belief to be a part of atheism at its extremes perhaps.. Whenever I have debated athiests its always been about there is no evidence for any gods.

 

[Freodin]

Well all I know is our system of doing this doesn't work. The jails are getting over populated and people dont ever learn or get rehabilitated. The messages we are sending with our societies seems confusing and it is always being undermined, compromised and corrupted. We allow many different versions of what is acceptable and right and this creates division. If I as an individual think that having an affair outside marriage is wrong then this cannot be considered any grounds as a foundation for right or wrong in a pluralistic society that allows subjective morality.

So things like having affairs for example are even promoted because of this and it undermines what could be the best way we could have dealt with this. Thats basically because people dont like being told what to do and want the freedom to do whatever. I am not saying to enforce these things but to just base our values on them with promotion and eduction. At least then we have some foundation to build upon. Otherwise in the end the problems that are associated with all these things come back and destroy the fabric of our society anyway. We end up having to pay the costs and put certain measures in place. We end up having more rules and regulations in the end that really are taking away our freedoms anyway.

I agree that this (current, existing) system does not work, though I am quite certain that we both well have different explanations for the reasons.

Yet the problem is: the system you propose does not work either.

I'd say that this now is where the real difference between our worldviews come into play.

I assert that this system does not work, because no system "works". Every system of human society is just a constant struggle to solve the problems that were created by the solutions introduced to solve the last set of problems.
And I assert that this open, subjective, relative system that I basically promote is better suited to cope with this "fact of life" than a closed, objective and absolute one.

Contrary to what you wrote, I don't think that "in the end" it will come to what you fear: loss of freedoms and all that. It also will not lead to an utopian society "in the end".

Simply because there is no "in the end"... society is in a constant state of change.

On the other hand, a system of rigid, absolute rules will result "in the end"... not only in loss of freedom, but in loss of humanity.

The main problem with "our system" is that it is impossible to get all human beings to agree on... almost everything. The only way to achive a system where everyone agrees is to eradicate any disagreement... which means eradicate the disagreeing humans.

 

[stevevw]

I agree that this (current, existing) system does not work, though I am quite certain that we both well have different explanations for the reasons.

Yet the problem is: the system you propose does not work either.

I'd say that this now is where the real difference between our worldviews come into play.

I assert that this system does not work, because no system "works". Every system of human society is just a constant struggle to solve the problems that were created by the solutions introduced to solve the last set of problems.
And I assert that this open, subjective, relative system that I basically promote is better suited to cope with this "fact of life" than a closed, objective and absolute one.

Contrary to what you wrote, I don't think that "in the end" it will come to what you fear: loss of freedoms and all that. It also will not lead to an utopian society "in the end".

Simply because there is no "in the end"... society is in a constant state of change.

On the other hand, a system of rigid, absolute rules will result "in the end"... not only in loss of freedom, but in loss of humanity.

The main problem with "our system" is that it is impossible to get all human beings to agree on... almost everything. The only way to achieve a system where everyone agrees is to eradicate any disagreement... which means eradicate the disagreeing humans.

Well you admit that this system will never get people to agree. It never will because its designed not to. Its self destructing because its that way. By allowing many points of views because everyone has the freedom to do so will only undermine everything. It allows the evil stuff in as much as the good stuff and no one can do anything about it. Because this world view believes that no one can tell them what to do it will never allow the very thing that could make it all work. See you see God and his will as a restrictive method. Like its taking away and stopping people from having and doing things. The worlds idea of happiness and peace is based on this view of freedom and being able to do what you want.

I'm afraid that this world is heading for some bad times. It wont get any better. The world keep deluding itself that man has the answers but just like an alcoholic in denial the disease is cunning, baffling and powerful. It will keep creeping in and taking over until there is many many problems and it starts to come apart at the seams. Look at whats happening now with the broad selection of things happening. Its not just about quantity either but about the depth of destruction thats happening. The world is like a person developing insanity. It just gets more and more unstable and unable to turn things around.

But Jesus said He gives life and gives it in full abundance. He says He is the way, the truth and the life. It says know the truth and the truth will set you free. He is the prince of peace and His peace surpasses all understanding. So all the ingredients are there but we have to submit to him. Thats the big stumbling block because its like giving up something to many. But is not its actually gaining all the things we are looking for. The trouble is people look at it from the bad examples that religion has given through the past. Trying to suppress and control others and take their freedoms. But the true essence of God through Jesus is true freedom and peace.

 

[Freodin]

Well you admit that this system will never get people to agree. It never will because its designed not to. Its self destructing because its that way. By allowing many points of views because everyone has the freedom to do so will only undermine everything. It allows the evil stuff in as much as the good stuff and no one can do anything about it. Because this world view believes that no one can tell them what to do it will never allow the very thing that could make it all work. See you see God and his will as a restrictive method. Like its taking away and stopping people from having and doing things. The worlds idea of happiness and peace is based on this view of freedom and being able to do what you want.

I'm afraid that this world is heading for some bad times. It wont get any better. The world keep deluding itself that man has the answers but just like an alcoholic in denial the disease is cunning, baffling and powerful. It will keep creeping in and taking over until there is many many problems and it starts to come apart at the seams. Look at whats happening now with the broad selection of things happening. Its not just about quantity either but about the depth of destruction thats happening. The world is like a person developing insanity. It just gets more and more unstable and unable to turn things around.

But Jesus said He gives life and gives it in full abundance. He says He is the way, the truth and the life. It says know the truth and the truth will set you free. He is the prince of peace and His peace surpasses all understanding. So all the ingredients are there but we have to submit to him. Thats the big stumbling block because its like giving up something to many. But is not its actually gaining all the things we are looking for. The trouble is people look at it from the bad examples that religion has given through the past. Trying to suppress and control others and take their freedoms. But the true essence of God through Jesus is true freedom and peace.

I don't know if there is any way I can make you see my point. (Well, that is part of the problem, isn't it? )

Let's see...

I am one of those who disagree with you. I don't believe that Jesus is truth, life and way. I believe that "God and his will" are restrictive. I don't think that Jesus is offering anything, especially not "true freedom".

Perhaps I am like an alcoholic or an insane person. Perhaps I am blind or stubborn or willful.

But I have been here on this forum alone for over a decade now. I have explained my worldview, in a more or less refined form, for most of my life. I have presented my objections to Christianity and theism for years.

I have not been convinced, by arguments, prayers, miracles or divine intervention. I am still an atheist and an opponent of this moral concept that you present here. And I do not have any reasons to assume that this will change in the near or far future.

I am one of those who would interrupt your working society.

How would you propose to deal with me?

 

[stevevw]

I don't know if there is any way I can make you see my point. (Well, that is part of the problem, isn't it? )

Let's see...

I am one of those who disagree with you. I don't believe that Jesus is truth, life and way. I believe that "God and his will" are restrictive. I don't think that Jesus is offering anything, especially not "true freedom".

Perhaps I am like an alcoholic or an insane person. Perhaps I am blind or stubborn or willful.

But I have been here on this forum alone for over a decade now. I have explained my worldview, in a more or less refined form, for most of my life. I have presented my objections to Christianity and theism for years.

I have not been convinced, by arguments, prayers, miracles or divine intervention. I am still an atheist and an opponent of this moral concept that you present here. And I do not have any reasons to assume that this will change in the near or far future.

I am one of those who would interrupt your working society.

How would you propose to deal with me?

I dont think a belief in God could ever be imposed and its not meant to be that way. Though some have tried in the past I believe that was their good intention, but thats it it was mans ideas and he added in all these extra things which had taken belief beyond what it should be. They say religion and politics should never be mixed.

So it would be imposed in the first place for anyone to have to deal with you. I just think that it is best served by letting it be an example to others as it mostly is now. But not as in the institutions of the church but in the examples of Jesus as was suppose to be in the early church and is with people today who live a good Christ like life. Instead of taking religion completely out of schools and society we could be teaching it a bit more. Or at least letting people hear the gospel more without it being demonized as it is now or being places as one of many religions that are all the same.

I cant make you believe anything you dont want to. I believe there will come a time when Gods spirit will pour out on the world and there will be some great preaching and warnings coming. Like I said the world is getting crazier and somethings going to give. People are thinking more along the lines of something is going on and is going to happen with all this stuff about wars and terrorism and an uneasy feeling about things in the world. Economies are struggling and its like we are heading for some sort of flash point or crisis. The bible talks about the end times and you can tell its coming just like when the leaves fall from a tree and you know the season is changing. I just think we maybe to late and even though I believe Jesus is the answer this world is to far gone and set in their ways to stop and change anyway.