Humanism

[andross77]

Did not God create us as such? It is like kids who love to play in the mud. They have a chance to be clean, they are inherently clean, but they are always dirty, and giving them a bath doesn't help for much time at all.

you don't understand original sin do you?

God created us good.

When Adam sinned, we were all tainted by sin. We are no longer inherently good.

 

[andross77]

So whats the difference with you beliving this about Humanism, and me feeling this way about Christianity? I myself and many others here and IRL would put the 'G-d, miracles and supernatural' into the same 'fantasy realm of make believe' you're ascribing to Humanism, when in fact you pointed out yourself that 'Humanists believe in things you can see and touch' ie; not fantasy.

*

? You are sidestepping what i said. I said that humanism DOES call for an abandonment of faith.

This is exactly the opposite of Christianity which encourages faith.

 

[lawtonfogle]

you don't understand original sin do you?

God created us good.

When Adam sinned, we were all tainted by sin. We are no longer inherently good.

Or maybe I just reject the way you view it. Going back to a dirty kid, they are dirty till they get a bath. Once bathe, they are clean again. As to the exacts of what a bath are, we could discuss, but operating under the assumption it would be the idea of Salvation, it seems to be a view, albeit simplified, of standard Christian doctrine.

 

[lawtonfogle]

? You are sidestepping what i said. I said that humanism DOES call for an abandonment of faith.

This is exactly the opposite of Christianity which encourages faith.

It seems to call for the abandonment of faith as a motivation for action. And faith on many levels is bad. Faith someone is a generally good guy when they are actually a con artist is bad. Faith that people with birth defects are cursed and less than human is bad. It is understandable why faith, on average, is seen as bad.

 

[ragarth]

Exactly, so you shouldn't have a problem with my response. i'm just believing how i wish .

I don't see how humanism DOESN'T call for an abandonment of faith? If you truly only believe in material things that you can see and touch, therefore no God or miracles or anything supernatural, then all those that do believe in those things are living in a fantasy realm of make believe and believing false things that are unecessary and even harmful to others.

Don't you want to stop this ignorance? Or do you not care about the billions of people in the world that are believing these lies? If humanism doesn't call for a spreading of the truth that the supernatural is false, it's a pretty conceited worldview.

P.S.- to the mods: i wasn't calling this poster conceited, just the worldview. please don't warn/ban me thanks.

I don't have any problems with your response. I answered because you posed it as a question on a debate forum, and therefore it was a request for information in a forum where anything you post is potentially up for debate.

The difference between believing in something strongly but not needing to export those ideas to others, and believing in something strongly and needing to export those ideas to others is dependent upon one's opinion on the relativity of truth. We can generally agree that there is an absolute truth out there, but whether you believe in absolutism or relativity in truth for you believe that you can know that absolute truth or not. By definition, most Christians are truth absolutists, you have faith that you are absolutely right about your belief in God, because if you did not, then you have little or not faith and therefore are not acting to the standards of your religion.

Humanists on the other hand have the freedom of choosing an absolutist or relativist stance on the nature of known truth. I choose a relativistic stance which means that while I believe things with a powerful conviction, I understand that there is a potential for me to be wrong. If I see this potential, then I understand that you, as a Christian could potentially be right. Given this, I have no right to try to force you to believe differently. Viewing others through this lens, I understand the need for a diversity of ideas, because homogeny isn't necesserily right.

So, in conclusion, I believe in a truth that is different from the truth that you believe. I believe that you are wrong to believe in God, but it is your right to believe in God because I cannot claim to absolutely know what is true, I can only claim what is true for me. Further, it is your right to believe whatever you wish to believe, I have no right to try to make you believe something different, this is a human right, and something I will respect.

 

[andross77]

I don't have any problems with your response. I answered because you posed it as a question on a debate forum, and therefore it was a request for information in a forum where anything you post is potentially up for debate.

The difference between believing in something strongly but not needing to export those ideas to others, and believing in something strongly and needing to export those ideas to others is dependent upon one's opinion on the relativity of truth. We can generally agree that there is an absolute truth out there, but whether you believe in absolutism or relativity in truth for you believe that you can know that absolute truth or not. By definition, most Christians are truth absolutists, you have faith that you are absolutely right about your belief in God, because if you did not, then you have little or not faith and therefore are not acting to the standards of your religion.

Humanists on the other hand have the freedom of choosing an absolutist or relativist stance on the nature of known truth. I choose a relativistic stance which means that while I believe things with a powerful conviction, I understand that there is a potential for me to be wrong. If I see this potential, then I understand that you, as a Christian could potentially be right. Given this, I have no right to try to force you to believe differently. Viewing others through this lens, I understand the need for a diversity of ideas, because homogeny isn't necesserily right.

So, in conclusion, I believe in a truth that is different from the truth that you believe. I believe that you are wrong to believe in God, but it is your right to believe in God because I cannot claim to absolutely know what is true, I can only claim what is true for me. Further, it is your right to believe whatever you wish to believe, I have no right to try to make you believe something different, this is a human right, and something I will respect.

thanks for that. it was a very well thought out post.

 

[ragarth]

thanks for that. it was a very well thought out post.

No problem. I generally find that's the biggest difference between people who have an evangelistic world view and those who do not. It's amazing how such a small philosophic difference can cause people to hate on each other. :-(