my "philosophy" as a humanist

[SYZ]

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.

This veritable word salad is ultimately without any meaning.
Says a lot without saying  anything LOL.

This is a classic non sequitur...

"Do you think as the pinnacle of God's creation that he
would characterize our position the same as you do?"

It presupposes that your God exists, and then uses that
existence in and of itself to characterise a non-beliver's
state of being.

[pattylt]

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.

This veritable word salad is ultimately without any meaning.
Says a lot without saying  anything LOL.

This is a classic non sequitur...

"Do you think as the pinnacle of God's creation that he
would characterize our position the same as you do?"

It presupposes that your God exists, and then uses that
existence in and of itself to characterise a non-beliver's
state of being.

First, I don’t think we’re the pinnacle of anyone’s creation.  We may be more intelligent but we have lots of areas where we fall short compared to the rest of the animal world.

Another issue is why theists like Steve only seen to come to atheist fora but not engage with fundamentalist sights where he would have to defend Genesis as being allegorical? There’s a place he might actually do some good, getting rid of the anti science notions of 6 day creation, wolrld wide floods and Eve eating an apple.  Does he think fundamentalists benefit society or hold it back.

Is there some rule that you should never conflict with your own?

[mordant]

Another issue is why theists like Steve only seen to come to atheist fora but not engage with fundamentalist sights where he would have to defend Genesis as being allegorical? There’s a place he might actually do some good, getting rid of the anti science notions of 6 day creation, wolrld wide floods and Eve eating an apple.  Does he think fundamentalists benefit society or hold it back.

Is there some rule that you should never conflict with your own?

He has said he likes to come here to sharpen his arguments with people who utterly disagree with him, or words to that effect. I think he flatters himself that he's sharpening anything, though. Ultimately he has no new arguments, much less convincing ones.

[airportkid]

... Ultimately he has no new arguments ...

That's the crux.  He thinks changing an adjective from "quickly" to "expeditiously" makes a new argument.  The supply of adjectives is inexhaustible, so he'll never stop, nor ever think he has reason to stop.  Its interesting to see that he's blind to the fact that the cut and color of a dress is immaterial to the actual body he also cannot see (or refuses to see).

[brewerb]

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.

Like the dwindling of the number of christians in the US according to PEW research? I'd consider their conclusions reliable.

Steve, if your religion is 'all that and a bag of chips' then what's the problem?

[Dānu]

Another issue is why theists like Steve only seen to come to atheist fora but not engage with fundamentalist sights where he would have to defend Genesis as being allegorical? There’s a place he might actually do some good, getting rid of the anti science notions of 6 day creation, wolrld wide floods and Eve eating an apple.  Does he think fundamentalists benefit society or hold it back.

Is there some rule that you should never conflict with your own?

He has said he likes to come here to sharpen his arguments with people who utterly disagree with him, or words to that effect. I think he flatters himself that he's sharpening anything, though. Ultimately he has no new arguments, much less convincing ones.

It may not matter. The path preceding him is littered with so much pious fraud that bad faith seems a reasonable assumption.

[Rhythmcs]

You concept of 'evil' is off. Evil cannot be created. It is traditionally defined as anything contrary to the nature/will of God. 

Like kissing boys and cussing.  It's a very serious moral position to take, for a very serious moral god.

[pattylt]

You concept of 'evil' is off. Evil cannot be created. It is traditionally defined as anything contrary to the nature/will of God. 

Like kissing boys and cussing.  It's a very serious moral position to take, for a very serious moral god.

There is none beside me.
I am the Lord, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the Lord do all these things

Ooops!

[Paleophyte]

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.

If the supernatural doesn't interact with the natural world then it's inconsequential. It's the daydream of something that might be, somewhere, in some distant universe that will never have any effect on you whatsoever.

On the flip side, if it does interact with the natural world then it's detectable. The measurements might be incomprehensible, but we'd at least detect something. I may not be able to explain a burning bush that isn't consumed by the fire, but noticing that one exists is Bronze Age level "Hey, that looks damned odd!" basic observation.

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'.

So with no evidence for god, there's less than no evidence for sin, and even less than that for any moral system based on it. Remind me which side of this discussion you're on again.

[Cavebear]

Another issue is why theists like Steve only seen to come to atheist fora but not engage with fundamentalist sights where he would have to defend Genesis as being allegorical? There’s a place he might actually do some good, getting rid of the anti science notions of 6 day creation, wolrld wide floods and Eve eating an apple.  Does he think fundamentalists benefit society or hold it back.

Is there some rule that you should never conflict with your own?

He has said he likes to come here to sharpen his arguments with people who utterly disagree with him, or words to that effect. I think he flatters himself that he's sharpening anything, though. Ultimately he has no new arguments, much less convincing ones.

Most theists come here thinking they are going to convince we atheists with biblical or other religion's texts. That never works as their assumption that there is a deity is never demonstrated by any actual facts. And some come here to (as you suggested) "sharpen arguments". Yeah, right. They are like someone pounding on a knife blade with a hammer, hoping to get better cutting.

I don't think theists understand the error of circular reasoning. They (christians at least) want to prove the bible is true by quoting it. That's like proving that there are Hobbits because there is a book featuring them. The bible was written by humans, and mostly generations after the supposed events. Yet they act as if it was written in real time by the attributed individuals like current news reports.

I don't understand how theists think, and I never will.

I've suggested this in the past, but it bears repeating. All a deity has to do is put flaming letters in the sky saying "I am your God and Creator and you are my creation". And walking around on Earth 50' high and moving mountains and rivers around would be pretty convincing too. It would be so easy. I would have to accept that.

But it will never happen, because there are no deities...

[Rhythmcs]

Na. A god could do all of that and it would just be the same comparison of principles it was before. The mere existence of the christer god is the least of it's issues....and that's saying something.

That's the thing, a real god with a shitlist and a hypothetical god with a shitlist are on the same moral footing. Existence is a sideshow.

[Szuchow]

Like kissing boys and cussing.  It's a very serious moral position to take, for a very serious moral god.

There is none beside me.
I am the Lord, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the Lord do all these things

Ooops!

So our resident troll either lies or don't even know his bible. What a surprise.

[SteveII]

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.

I have no interest in convincing you of anything and don't care what you find compelling or not. But to say there is no evidence or no reasons to believe is ignorant and repeating such a thing makes you sound stupid. See here for details previously outlined.

[SteveII]

Another issue is why theists like Steve only seen to come to atheist fora but not engage with fundamentalist sights where he would have to defend Genesis as being allegorical? There’s a place he might actually do some good, getting rid of the anti science notions of 6 day creation, wolrld wide floods and Eve eating an apple.  Does he think fundamentalists benefit society or hold it back.

Is there some rule that you should never conflict with your own?

He has said he likes to come here to sharpen his arguments with people who utterly disagree with him, or words to that effect. I think he flatters himself that he's sharpening anything, though. Ultimately he has no new arguments, much less convincing ones.

New arguments? That depends on what you are talking about. For God? No. Perhaps you confuse my attempts to correct misconceptions or simplistic assumptions about Christianity as arguments? They are not.

Morality, Natural Law, theories of knowledge, metaphysics, and the plenty of other bad arguments or conclusions that show up fill my time now.

[SteveII]

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.

If the supernatural doesn't interact with the natural world then it's inconsequential. It's the daydream of something that might be, somewhere, in some distant universe that will never have any effect on you whatsoever.

On the flip side, if it does interact with the natural world then it's detectable. The measurements might be incomprehensible, but we'd at least detect something. I may not be able to explain a burning bush that isn't consumed by the fire, but noticing that one exists is Bronze Age level "Hey, that looks damned odd!" basic observation.

Exactly! Empirical does not mean detectable. The atheist talking points usually say to demand empirical evidence. That is the wrong standard. The universe, all the events in outlined in the Bible, all the personal experiences with God are all 'detectable'...obviously.

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'.

So with no evidence for god, there's less than no evidence for sin, and even less than that for any moral system based on it. Remind me which side of this discussion you're on again.

I'm not interested in whether you believe it. I am more interested that people don't mischaracterize someone else's belief -- especially basic ones. Calls into the question the atheist's credibility or more charitably, their knowledge of basics when they say something to the effect of "I left Christianity about 8 months ago..."

[SteveII]

Like kissing boys and cussing.  It's a very serious moral position to take, for a very serious moral god.

There is none beside me.
I am the Lord, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the Lord do all these things

Ooops!

Did you bother to look up the Hebrew word? No, of course not. It is specifically not moral evil (which is what we are talking about). All modern translations use the word calamity.

7 I form light and create darkness;
I make well-being and create calamity;
I am the LORD, who does all these things. (ESV)

Further, do you think that in the 1189 chapters in 39 books that form the Bible there might be other verses that help understand the principle of moral evil other than a verse that does not even apply? No, that would be to understand the thing you so confidently dismiss.

[SYZ]

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.

I have no interest in convincing you of anything and don't care what you find compelling or not. But to say there is no evidence or no reasons to believe is ignorant and repeating such a thing makes you sound stupid. See here for details previously outlined.

Thank you for the link.

The fact that you don't care what I think or what I find
compelling is a major faux pas for your arguments in
defence of gods and the paranormal.

You should care what other's opinions are in order
to get a more prevailing, all-encompassing world view.
Living one's life solely by the tenets of theism—both ethics
and morals—is a very tendentious standpoint.

Every time I've asked you a specific question are asked
that you explain something in more detail, and along with
some sort of evidence supporting your beliefs, you've
simply ignored my questions, prevaricated or equivocated.

I also resent you effectively calling me "ignorant" or "stupid"
—and doing so in no way increases the plausibility of your
own arguments. You should—and probably do know—that
ad hominems are the purview of someone lacking any
viable evidence for their own claims.     Tsk, tsk.

[SteveII]

I have no interest in convincing you of anything and don't care what you find compelling or not. But to say there is no evidence or no reasons to believe is ignorant and repeating such a thing makes you sound stupid. See here for details previously outlined.

Thank you for the link.

The fact that you don't care what I think or what I find
compelling is a major faux pas for your arguments in
defence of gods and the paranormal.

You should care what other's opinions are in order
to get a more prevailing, all-encompassing world view.
Living one's life solely by the tenets of theism—both ethics
and morals—is a very tendentious standpoint.

I don't care what you find compelling or not. I do care about being accurate and accurately characterizing someone else's claims. There is a big difference.

Every time I've asked you a specific question are asked
that you explain something in more detail, and along with
some sort of evidence supporting your beliefs, you've
simply ignored my questions, prevaricated or equivocated.

Most of your 'specific questions' are to prove or otherwise show evidence of Christianity. I am not interested in doing that anymore than I have. If you have a specific argument why any of my specific beliefs are not evidence (from the link perhaps), I would defend any position I have staked out.

I also resent you effectively calling me "ignorant" or "stupid"
—and doing so in no way increases the plausibility of your
own arguments. You should—and probably do know—that
ad hominems are the purview of someone lacking any
viable evidence for their own claims.     Tsk, tsk.

Then I will rephrase: The belief that there is no evidence is ignorant. Repeating something ignorant does not add intellectual weight to one's comments.

[SteveII]

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.

This veritable word salad is ultimately without any meaning.
Says a lot without saying  anything LOL.

This is a classic non sequitur...

"Do you think as the pinnacle of God's creation that he
would characterize our position the same as you do?"

It presupposes that your God exists, and then uses that
existence in and of itself to characterise a non-beliver's
state of being.

rep·re·hen·si·ble
/ˌreprəˈhensəb(ə)l/
adjective
deserving censure or condemnation.

If you fail to understand the doctrine and then call it 'reprehensible' (as Patty claimed) based on that misunderstanding--that seems to be a conclusion based on an error. Understanding the doctrine takes 'reprehensible' off the table for most reasonable people--even if you think the belief is nonsense--don't you think?

[1Sam15]

You concept of 'evil' is off. Evil cannot be created. It is traditionally defined as anything contrary to the nature/will of God.

Isaiah 45:7
King James Version
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.


Do you think it’s evil to force someone into existence, forced them to obey rules and are tortured forever for disobeying? @SteveII

[1Sam15]

There is none beside me.
I am the Lord, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the Lord do all these things

Ooops!

Did you bother to look up the Hebrew word? No, of course not. It is specifically not moral evil (which is what we are talking about). All modern translations use the word calamity.

    7       I form light and create darkness;
    I make well-being and create calamity;
    I am the LORD, who does all these things. (ESV)

Further, do you think that in the 1189 chapters in 39 books that form the Bible there might be other verses that help understand the principle of moral evil other than a verse that does not even apply?  No, that would be to understand the thing you so confidently dismiss.

Why do they keep printing bibles that say one thing but means something else? @SteveII

[Paleophyte]

If the supernatural doesn't interact with the natural world then it's inconsequential. It's the daydream of something that might be, somewhere, in some distant universe that will never have any effect on you whatsoever.

On the flip side, if it does interact with the natural world then it's detectable. The measurements might be incomprehensible, but we'd at least detect something. I may not be able to explain a burning bush that isn't consumed by the fire, but noticing that one exists is Bronze Age level "Hey, that looks damned odd!" basic observation.

Exactly! Empirical does not mean detectable. The atheist talking points usually say to demand empirical evidence. That is the wrong standard. The universe, all the events in outlined in the Bible, all the personal experiences with God are all 'detectable'...obviously.

Clearly you read that back to front.
 - Empirical means detectable and measurable. That's pretty much the definition.
 - ISupernatural is a weasle word but I was taking it to mean detectable but inexplicable.
 - Anything that isn't detectable is Inconsequential. It can never affect the natural world.

Personal experiences are empirical evidence of anedata. Congrats, you've proven that believers exist.
Biblical passages are empirical evidence of scripture. Wow. Scripture exists too.

None of these are evidence for god. We can demonstrate this quite simply by the ease with which you rightly reject exactly the same claims made by any religion other than yours.

[SYZ]

I appreciate the time you've taken to make the propositions
and conclusions as per your link but in no way do they provide
any viable supporting evidence for your faith and/or belief in
Christianity, the Abrahamic bible, God, or the supernatural.

It's composed largely of non sequiturs, pre-suppositions, false
premises, speculation and circular argumentation.  

None of your propositions can be falsified.  As can all the sciences.

At one point, you say that "premises provide supporting evidence
for the plausibility of a conclusion."  This is not true. False premises
are often incorrect propositions that form the basis of an argument.

You also say "inductive arguments offer conclusions that are likely,
grounded in the evidence presented."  Again, not true.  Inductive
arguments—by their nature—possess a degree of uncertainty. They
are used to show the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from
known premises is true.  And likelihoods do not equal evidence.

I simply can't be bothered to comment on most of your propositions,
but the very first one is truly nonsensical.....

Numerous instances in the New Testament attribute miraculous occurrences to a supernatural entity, specifically God. Consider the example of the paralytic healed by Jesus as recounted in Mark 2:10-12, where Jesus not only forgives sins (to which the attendees objected that he had the power to do)but also heals the man's paralysis in full view of others--to specifically illustrate the point that he had power to forgive sins. This and many other accounts underscore the presence of supernatural causation within specific contexts, enhancing the significance of the miracles described.

Claiming that a man (who may not even have existed as portrayed) healing
a crippled man is totally and without one iota of confirmatory evidence.  It's
nothing more than a 2,000-year-old myth!  That you utilise this absurd story
as some sort of support for your theistic faith illustrates just how flimsy that
faith is.  And I'm sure you know that faith is defined as belief without evidence.

So...

Why doesn't your allegedly "omnipotent" god—at least occasionally—cure a
baby born with spina bifida?  Or at the very least, guide scientists to find a
cure for motor neurone disease?  Why did your god not suppress the recent
COVID pandemic that killed more than 6 million people, by simply destroying
the virus in the first place?

If he were to exist as you claim, then he'd be regarded as an angry, impotent,
capricious, stupid, mean-minded, god who's created a world which is so full
of injustices and pain and unnecessary death.     He'd be a total arsehole.

[SYZ]

You concept of 'evil' is off. Evil cannot be created. It is traditionally defined as anything contrary to the nature/will of God.

Isaiah 45:7
King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Do you think it’s evil to force someone into existence, forced them to obey rules and are tortured forever for disobeying? @SteveII

And.....

Proverbs 16:4,

The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

Also.....

Romans 9:22,  

God has made everything for its purpose, even hurtful and unjust oppressors.

     —What a great bloke eh?    

[Dānu]

If evil is the absence of God, then why is it intolerable to him? Does this not sound like mere narcissism?