Humanism on trial......

Originally posted by twhitehead
My sister (a farmer) calls all the talk about global warming 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic'.
She has recently convinced me that the best way to deal with global warming is better farming practices that put more carbon into the soil.
The problem with politics and systems of government etc is that to a large extent short term trends override ...[text shortened]... and children we would be investing far more in quality education for all than we currently do.

"It is a fact that if we really want to improve the future of the world for our grand children we would be investing far more in quality education for all than we currently do."

That is the truth.

I think the problem with providing an education is that those who do the providing are hell bent on a political/social/cultural agenda rather than just providing the basics necessary for improving ones' economic condition, which would go a long way in securing our children's future.

Originally posted by dystoniac
Strange, as only a retard cannot grasp a simple concept that God is a Holy God and cannot accept sin of any form. He gives us the choice; you choose. If you choose to hate God, you have made a conscious choice. One can't have his cake and eat it too. If you were God, how would you run things?

Wow, you're confused.

First of all, no atheist I have ever known has "made a conscious choice" to be atheist (i.e., to be without belief in God's existence). You attribute such choice to atheists because you simply do not understand the nature of belief. One cannot just actively choose to believe this or that. Rather, in deliberative belief formation, one is passively brought into belief based on the evidential considerations that sufficiently recommend this or that. I have never "chosen to hate God", whatever that would even mean. I just see no good reasons to think He exists. Actually, for the typical Christian formulation of 'God', I see good reasons to think God doesn't exist. So, I have been brought into atheistic belief based on evidential considerations (considerations that bear directly on the question of the truth of Christianity). Could you explain how I am morally blameworthy for that?

Second, you obviously have no idea what constitutes genuine personal freedom. The scenario where your God "gives us the choice" is simply a forced-choice scenario. It amounts to nothing more than coercion because supposing one has sufficient reasons to think your God exists in the first place, one then has overwhelming prudential reasons thrust on him to submit to your God's will. It's nothing more than coercion and scare tactics. Only in some bizarro world could freedom reduce to simply the ability to submit to another's will in the face of coercive threats. That totally perverts the notion of personal freedom since personal freedom is supposed to be about autonomy -- literally, about self-governance, which is of course diametrically opposed to being coerced in line with the will of another. Of course, I already said that I see reasons to think your God doesn't exist; so I don't take biblical threats of hellfire and damnation too seriously.

If you were God, how would you run things?

I can tell you some things I wouldn't do. I wouldn't create a bunch of little minions and then demand that they worship and love me at pain of their suffering the worst fate one could think up. Because that would just be really petty, jealous, and mean of me.

I would also be really smart if I were God, so I would not make silly notional mistakes, like stating that belief and dispositional/evaluative/motivational sets like love and hate are simply choice-based things.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The basic thrust of my thread is to ask those who place their faith in human nature whether their faith is waning or not.

The fact that humanity seems bent on self destructing and ignoring the facts on climate change should make everyone think about their view of humanity. Maybe you prefer not to think about rising emissions in a world that is 2-3 degrees away from the abyss?

Quit wasting everyone's time. Again, what's this got to do with 'humanism'? You didn't answer my questions. Again, what are you supposing 'humanism' is? What are you saddling the 'humanist' with here? What is "faith in human nature" even supposed to mean here? You failed to address my actual concerns with this thread.

Originally posted by knightmeister
He cannot give you any other third choice - it does not exist. To be with God forever is the only thing for which you were created , to reject this will mean that you will be unhappy forever. The fire and brimstone stuff is a warning not a threat.

Isn't God omnipotent? Can't He bring about any logically possible state of affairs? Isn't a logically possible state of affairs that I fail to love and worship God (or even fail to acknowledge his existence) and yet not be subjected to eternal torment? Why isn't this an option on the table then?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]If you were God, how would you run things?

I guess I would demand that my wife love and worship me, or I will either torture her endlessly, or torture her then kill her—because I am loving and I love her, and simply cannot tolerate it if she doesn’t love me back.

Oh yeah, and because I am holy, I cannot tolerate any sins on her part—because I lo ...[text shortened]... ”, does it suddenly all make sense? Would it then represent a fair statement of your theology?[/b]

No, your example is senseless, pardon the honesty. God doesn't torture; it is not in His nature.

Originally posted by Deep Thoughtless
Such a shame that instead of listing so many commandments about how much we should worship and suck up to God that the Almighty didn't see fit to add a commandment 'Thou shall look after the Planet'

God does give man an edict to take care of the planet. Read the Book of Genesis.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Wow, you're confused.

First of all, no atheist I have ever known has "made a conscious choice" to be atheist (i.e., to be without belief in God's existence). You attribute such choice to atheists because you simply do not understand the nature of belief. One cannot just actively choose to believe this or that. Rather, in deliberative belief format ...[text shortened]... valuative/motivational sets like love and hate are simply choice-based things.

Wow, so many words to say say....what? We do choose whether or not to believe in God. You have made a conscious choice to refuse to believe that God exists. Have you sincerely prayed to God to open your eyes? God created man to be inn harmony with Him. When we choose not to, we become lost, or in the case of atheists, non-believing. You do not know where you will go when you die, but God does. Death is not a mystery to Christians. We will be united with God in everlasting life. It must be lonely to "know" that when the last breath is drawn, one ends up as only a....memory.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Isn't God omnipotent? Can't He bring about any logically possible state of affairs? Isn't a logically possible state of affairs that I fail to love and worship God (or even fail to acknowledge his existence) and yet not be subjected to eternal torment? Why isn't this an option on the table then?

God knew you before you were ever thought of. He created you to have a relationship with Him. Life is the greatest gift anyone can be given. God doesn't create robots; He could have, but it would have been a sham. He put you here rather than let you be what you were before-nothing. Therefore, in order to prove that man will love Him and worship Him out of love, God gave us all the choice to choose Him and everlasting life or Satan and everlasting separation from God. There is nothing you can do to change this. You either accept the greatest gift ever imaginable, or you choose the worst suffering ever imaginable: conscious separation for eternity from God. Your choice. You don't have to like it, but you have to choose.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The ice caps are melting , the CO2 keeps pumping into the air - we sense we are living on borrowed time , so what will man do?

Will he.............

a) stick his head in the sand and wait until it's too late thus stupidly destroying himself via his own technological prgress?

OR

b) Overcome his greed and shortsightedness and take proper rad ...[text shortened]... hat had "faith in human nature" will be proved wrong.

Tick tock tick tock.......

Those who have "faith in human nature" WILL be proved wrong. Greed and apathy will win out over logic. Thank God I'm a Christian! 😏

Originally posted by dystoniac
Wow, so many words to say say....what? We do choose whether or not to believe in God. You have made a conscious choice to refuse to believe that God exists. Have you sincerely prayed to God to open your eyes? God created man to be inn harmony with Him. When we choose not to, we become lost, or in the case of atheists, non-believing. You do not know w ...[text shortened]... must be lonely to "know" that when the last breath is drawn, one ends up as only a....memory.

We do choose whether or not to believe in God.

No we don't, at least not directly. I think you do not understand the nature of belief. I would recommend this very interesting thread, which I think is broadly relevant: Thread 83831

-Removed-

I didn't mean self-governance in that sense. I meant that autonomy is about self-governance in the sense that it is about acting from our practical identities. That is, when one acts autonomously one acts in line with considerations that have the support of her own reason, her own evaluative commitments and personal value system, etc., in the absence of coercion.

I think I understand your point, however. In a sense, our laws of the land certainly give us prudential reasons to act in certain ways (or I guess to abstain from acting in certain ways). However, most of the laws I am familiar with are based on considerations that would have the support of my reason anyway, and I certainly do not consider them coercive. On the other hand, your god's directive seems more or less completely arbitrary, and the consequence is so grave and unjust that it certainly qualifies as the sort of coercion that precludes personal freedom.

I think it's rather sad and pathetic how many theists can offer me only these sorts of prudential reasons to obey what are putatively divine commands. There's something very ugly about the whole thing.

Originally posted by dystoniac
God knew you before you were ever thought of. He created you to have a relationship with Him. Life is the greatest gift anyone can be given. God doesn't create robots; He could have, but it would have been a sham. He put you here rather than let you be what you were before-nothing. Therefore, in order to prove that man will love Him and worship Him ou ...[text shortened]... ration for eternity from God. Your choice. You don't have to like it, but you have to choose.

I already told you: my atheism is not a matter of simple "choice". If you could provide me with compelling argument for god's existence, then you could bring me into theistic belief whether I liked it or not!

You either accept the greatest gift ever imaginable, or you choose the worst suffering ever imaginable

If it were truly offered as a 'gift', I would have thought that one could refuse it without risk of being subjected to torture or suffering for that refusal. I gave many gifts to many different people over the Christmas holiday. If any one of them had refused the gift I offered, I certainly would not have felt compelled to torture them for it. In fact, I feel that such a hypothetical response to gift refusal would be totally inappropriate and entirely uncalled for. Nor do I think there is anything about the notion of 'gift' that should entail suffering upon refusal (or simply failure to accept); if anything, the entailment of suffering upon refusal doesn't seem compatible with the notion of a great gift. Are you sure you are employing the notion of 'gift' in a proper way?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]We do choose whether or not to believe in God.

No we don't, at least not directly. I think you do not understand the nature of belief. I would recommend this very interesting thread, which I think is broadly relevant: Thread 83831[/b]

Bbarr, the "Pope of atheists", and I say that without disdain. His context well-spoken from a philosophical standpoint. The error in this is that philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. One must search his/her heart and reach out to god, and God will instill the ability to believe. Even Job, who suffered more than most humans ever will never gave up on his belief in God, and he was severely tested more so than 99.9% of humans ever will be; he was justly rewarded for his faithfulness. I challenge you to put aside the science of humanistic logic and take a step and sincerely seek the harmony that will eventually come with belief. I've already gone through my agnostic/atheistic point of life, and it led to nothing except supposed facts which can never put mam in harmony with his destiny.

Originally posted by dystoniac
Bbarr, the "Pope of atheists", and I say that without disdain. His context well-spoken from a philosophical standpoint. The error in this is that philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. One must search his/her heart and reach out to god, and God will instill the ability to believe. Even Job, who suffered more than most humans ever will it led to nothing except supposed facts which can never put mam in harmony with his destiny.

One must search his/her heart and reach out to god, and God will instill the ability to believe.

What is that supposed to mean? Did you actually read through the thread I posted? Did you see the outcome of knightmeister's "experiment" directed toward myself and bbarr? Did you actually read any of our genuine concerns with such an experiment?