my "philosophy" as a humanist

[no one]

Apparently, learning how not to be a gutless, spineless, yellow-bellied, coward is not on the educational agenda, is it?

[SteveII]

Do you imagine that I came to AD to discuss the tens of thousands of things we all certainly agree on?

You are mistaken about my learning. I learn in the interaction with people I disagree with by responding in a clear manner and to each development in the discussion. I research or check concepts as they come up. For example, I learned tons of things in the abortion thread about Natural Law, teleology, and moral realism. Ironically, I probably learn more in my interactions here than anyone else.

I believe you came to proselytize.  Learning, if anything seems secondary, and appears to me to be just a cover story.

Not really. I came to debate. I enjoy the challenge and process of formulating responses. It makes sense to come to a forum where most people disagree with me. Then the choice of AD added yet another layer: to participate in a manner that shows that Christianity is a rational worldview. I wouldn't characterize that as proselytizing though.

[wintersoldier1287]

Christianity is built on a flawed and contradictory thought process, as well as most religions out there. Particularly the Abrahamic faiths.
So how is that in any way a rational worldview? Just because it is your worldview, doesn't make it rational.

[SteveII]

Christianity is built on a flawed and contradictory thought process, as well as most religions out there. Particularly the Abrahamic faiths.
So how is that in any way a rational worldview? Just because it is your worldview, doesn't make it rational.

Like what for instance? And I mean specifically what "flawed and contradictory thought process".

[wintersoldier1287]

The concept of salvation from a Christian perspective. God created the devil, did he not? And if he is supposed to be omniscient and knows past, present and future, wouldn't that mean that he knew that Lucifer would rebel, and turn evil, and tempt humans to "sin"?

Why would we need salvation from sin, to be saved from hell and the devil, when God is ultimately responsible for creating this evil?
So either ultimately, God "made a mistake," or the devil just simply doesn't exist, hence the need for salvation isn't needed, rendering Christianity flawed, contradictory and useless.

[Szuchow]

A little diddy I wrote recently about some of my thoughts, while trying to put it into something somewhat cohesive I suppose lol I just thought I would share.

"Imagine a world where compassion, acceptance and tolerance were the norm, instead of hate, divisiveness and persecution.

Imagine a world where people worked together for a better existence, regardless of race, gender, beliefs or who they choose to love.

Imagine a world where people were kind to one another and treated each other with respect and love; not for any earthly or heavenly reward, but because its the right thing to do.

Imagine a world where common sense, logic and reason were practiced over superstition, dogma and ungrounded beliefs."



This is the basis of my beliefs and why I consider myself to be an atheist and secular humanist.

I can imagine it but such world is about as probable as Lenin coming back to life and building communism. Think about how terrible fascism was and yet it is coming back - ideology so thoroughly delegitimatized and so abhorrent is making a come back even in a country that was so heavily damaged by it as Poland. World as you imagine is I'm afraid nothing more than utopia.

[pattylt]

For me, the biggest flaw in Christianity is the idea that we are degenerate sinners in need of salvation. What a horrid view of humanity! Yes, we do terrible things and have many flaws but we are also intelligent, often compassionate and we tend to strive to be better.

The Christian idea that we need a savior to be better and are lost without one is reprehensible to me. Rather, I prefer working towards enhancing our empathy and fine tuning our rationality.

[Szuchow]

For me, the biggest flaw in Christianity is the idea that we are degenerate sinners in need of salvation.  What a horrid view of humanity!  Yes, we do terrible things and have many flaws but we are also intelligent, often compassionate and we tend to strive to be better.

The Christian idea that we need a savior to be better and are lost without one is reprehensible to me.  Rather, I prefer working towards enhancing our empathy and fine tuning our rationality.

Salvation and sinners is nothing more than claptrap but humans as a whole ain't great or even particularly good. Even in this day and age there are still famines, genocides and wars - if people were even half as good as they thinks themselves to be none of these things would happen.

[brewerb]

Christians will go to great lengths to be taken seriously and not seen as delusional. That's why they invented christian apologetics and epistemology.

[Minimalist]

What a horrid view of humanity!

But it has proven to be quite lucrative.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I enjoy the challenge and process of formulating responses.

Yeah? Then why do you ignore every voice you can't shout down and idea you can't refute?!?

Coward.

[Minimalist]

The term "gutless puke" springs to mind!

[mordant]

Let's face it ... religion generally (and Christianity is no exception) plays right into every human weakness and logical fallacy that's been documented.

Motivated reasoning, because people fear their mortality and would rather avoid it than accept it.

Confirmation bias, because who wouldn't want to be the creator's special pet, or to be clued in on esoteric knowledge meant for the privileged and chosen?

Agency inference, because it's a basic survival adaptation from the hunter-gatherer days. It's easy to confuse your own thoughts and emotions with the influence and promptings of gods and devils.

The more authoritarian forms of religion are happy to gaslight you with guilt and shame and break down healthy personal boundaries and rob you of agency so that you durst not question any of the above.

And most of all -- the failed epistemology of religious faith, which demands you believe everything it asserts without having to prove it. It says that anything that is, or is claimed to be, ancient, unknown, hidden or huge is automatically credible to the point that it trumps your own senses or the inputs of the natural world or humanity's increasing base of knowledge and understanding. Indeed it makes independent thinking, inquiry or skepticism a sin ("lean not on your own understanding") -- and doubt the greatest sin -- while elevating bovine acceptance of dogma as a virtue.

[Paleophyte]

Yeah, I would say so. To me, a concern for others, and treating others ethically and good would be considered "the right thing." There are many others who agree with this, including most humanists. Some people like to disagree with things, regardless of the sentiment. This is why I will not add anything else to this, as some people can't be pleased, regardless of what they believe or don't believe.

LOL. For a second I thought you wanted to discuss philosophy in a philosophy sub-forum with an OP labeled my "philosophy" as a humanist. My mistake.

And not for one instant did anybody think that of your post.

[SYZ]

Christianity is built on a flawed and contradictory thought process, as well as most religions out there. Particularly the Abrahamic faiths.
So how is that in any way a rational worldview? Just because it is your worldview, doesn't make it rational.

Like what for instance? And I mean specifically what "flawed and contradictory thought process".

I guess I'd describe as "flawed" thinking processes as having
a real-world belief that supernatural entities and paranormal
phenomena actually exist—despite there being no empirical
evidence forthcoming.

I believe the scientific theorems of gravity, electricity, and
radiation, all invisible, unobservable and with no evidence
of their existence per se.  

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the
natural world and universe that can be replicated, tested
and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method,
using accepted protocols of observation, measurement,
and evaluation of results.

   The same cannot be claimed for God or gods.

[Rhythmcs]

The flawed and contradictory thought process of vicarious redemption seems like a tough hurdle to overcome, what with it putting the christ in christianity and all. I doubt that many people demand or insist that it's rational, though. Apologetics tend to track with a religious community or individual apologists own most critical self doubts. Plenty of people go their whole lives never questoning the rationality. When they convert or deconvert they don't think they used to be loons, just wrong. A guy coming up with arguments for the fundamental rationality of belief in a god has bigger problems than whether or not his god acts out in ludicrous ways.

[Dānu]

"I killed myself to satisfy my anger at you!"

God.

[skyking]

"I killed myself to satisfy my anger at you!"

God.

We-WEESE Weginald!
< looks at list, "sir there is no Reginald">

[Cavebear]

I always have to laugh when I read that (the alleged) Jesus was a Christian. If he actually existed, he was a Jew and never thought otherwise. His followers if they actually existed, were Christian. They (or at least some later people) created the religion.

[SYZ]

Yes...

He lived, was born, lived, died, taught and as a Jew. This
is obvious to any casual reader of the gospel texts. What's
notable is not so much that he was a Jew but that the gospels
make no pretence that he wasn't.  They also make no import
that Jesus was anything other than a Jew.

[SteveII]

The concept of salvation from a Christian perspective. God created the devil, did he not? And if he is supposed to be omniscient and knows past, present and future, wouldn't that mean that he knew that Lucifer would rebel, and turn evil, and tempt humans to "sin"?

Why would we need salvation from sin, to be saved from hell and the devil, when God is ultimately responsible for creating this evil?
So either ultimately, God "made a mistake," or the devil just simply doesn't exist, hence the need for salvation isn't needed, rendering Christianity flawed, contradictory and useless.

You concept of 'evil' is off. Evil cannot be created. It is traditionally defined as anything contrary to the nature/will of God. That would put it in the category of darkness--there is no such thing as darkness, it was not created, it is the absence of light. While I am at it, I might was well define 'sin'. Sin is anything contrary to the will of God. His will emanates from his morally perfect nature--the objective grounding of what it means to be 'good'.

You are confusing a story (which is almost certainly allegorical) with a doctrine explained elsewhere. The Bible clearly blames Adam for his own sin and mankind for the condition they are in. No matter what your view on original sin is, our nature is to be selfish, we have the freewill to be such, and it will inevitably lead to sin. But you probably are more generally objecting to the fact that God created anyone knowing they would sin (for whatever reason). Two thoughts:

One, freewill is required to choose evil, but even freewill is really not something created like a universe or an animal. It is an ability that God created us with because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, LOVE, and therefore a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. If evil is defined as anything contrary to the nature/will of God, it simply does not follow that God is responsible for evil. Only moral agents are.

Two, knowing this, why did God create mankind? Because on balance it is a greater good that people live, love, enjoy life as well as be given the chance to respond to God even while knowing that most will not. This is really the issue underlying most atheist's objections and is really a claim that if God exists, he would not do that. That is not evident.

[SteveII]

For me, the biggest flaw in Christianity is the idea that we are degenerate sinners in need of salvation.  What a horrid view of humanity!  Yes, we do terrible things and have many flaws but we are also intelligent, often compassionate and we tend to strive to be better.

The Christian idea that we need a savior to be better and are lost without one is reprehensible to me.  Rather, I prefer working towards enhancing our empathy and fine tuning our rationality.

Do you think as the pinnacle of God's creation that he would characterize our position the same as you do? If God exists and God is holy, and holy means cannot be in relation to sin, then we are ALL in trouble. There is absolutely nothing we would be able to do apart from accept his gift of wiping the slate clean--a gift that clearly shows what he thinks of us. That does not seem so "reprehensible" to me.

[SteveII]

Like what for instance? And I mean specifically what "flawed and contradictory thought process".

I guess I'd describe as "flawed" thinking processes as having
a real-world belief that supernatural entities and paranormal
phenomena actually exist—despite there being no empirical
evidence forthcoming.

I believe the scientific theorems of gravity, electricity, and
radiation, all invisible, unobservable and with no evidence
of their existence per se.  

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the
natural world and universe that can be replicated, tested
and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method,
using accepted protocols of observation, measurement,
and evaluation of results.

   The same cannot be claimed for God or gods.

Why would there be empirical evidence for the supernatural? Empirical evidence is for natural things. You cut off all other (and more proper) epistemological avenues and think that you have a reliable conclusion. If you were to spell it all out, you would see the question-begging argument for Naturalism for what it is.

[SteveII]

Yes...

He lived, was born, lived, died, taught and as a Jew. This
is obvious to any casual reader of the gospel texts. What's
notable is not so much that he was a Jew but that the gospels
make no pretence that he wasn't.  They also make no import
that Jesus was anything other than a Jew.

Well...and God. That seems relevant.

[SYZ]

I guess I'd describe as "flawed" thinking processes as having
a real-world belief that supernatural entities and paranormal
phenomena actually exist—despite there being no empirical
evidence forthcoming.

I believe the scientific theorems of gravity, electricity, and
radiation, all invisible, unobservable and with no evidence
of their existence per se.  

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the
natural world and universe that can be replicated, tested
and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method,
using accepted protocols of observation, measurement,
and evaluation of results.

   The same cannot be claimed for God or gods.

Why would there be empirical evidence for the supernatural? Empirical evidence is for natural things. You cut off all other (and more proper) epistemological avenues and think that you have a reliable conclusion. If you were to spell it all out, you would see the question-begging argument for Naturalism for what it is.

Well, without any evidence for this imagined mythical
being (God) existing or for people being cured of illnesses
by invisible paranormal phenomena, you simply have no
case to defend.

And once again you make the claim that this purported
supernatural state of being is beyond the scope of scientistic
investigation.    Which is plainly silly.

So you expect we atheists to just take your word for it that
God exists?     Seriously?     Doesn't work that way.      Sorry.

At any rate, I've asked you several times here to provide us
with some viable, observable evidence that your God exists.
And you've failed several times to do so, using obfuscation.