If there is no God. . . ?

[Dirty Penguin]

I am an atheist, and I am definitely not a humanist. In fact, I have not heard of it before reading it in this thread. I reason out how I act according to my own principles, and not through some manifesto created by a bunch of high-brow people that I have not met.

Is this good enough for you?

here..here.....brotha'.....:clap

 

[Spiritman]

I am an atheist, and I am definitely not a humanist. In fact, I have not heard of it before reading it in this thread. I reason out how I act according to my own principles, and not through some manifesto created by a bunch of high-brow people that I have not met.

Is this good enough for you?

You see it is simply a matter of what you base your ethics and style of life. If you base your style of life on God's principles, you accept God as the law giver. It is your chose to reason out your own behavior, which could be very high morally, but that does mean that you choose not to use God (because you are an atheist) and it does mean that you are following humanism (since your source of information comes from you, a human). We fail to see how recognizing this fact is an insult, it is simply a recognition.

This thread is about "if there is no God" and if this be the case, man is obviously on his own and if he does good, we give him credit for it and if he does evil, we give him credit for it. There are good and high moral humanist just as their are evil and bad God theorist. Humanism is a philosophy and not a group of people although a group of people can adopt the humanist philosophy. Every body recognizes that atrocities have been committed in the name of God but these people who commit these atrocities do not meet our standards righteous religious people. They are only people who say they believe in God but nonetheless do not live by God's principles.

 

[Storm]

Again you dimonstrate your complete ignorance of humanism.....

 

[Spiritman]

Just out of curiosity, who's "we"? You and God?

No. It is just that we were in told grammar school that it is rude to refer to self as "I" all the time. If that is no longer the rule, then perhaps we should change to using "I" but now that you know why we use we and us, please recognize that we are trying to be nice.

 

[Father Heathen]

You see it is simply a matter of what you base your ethics and style of life. If you base your style of life on God's principles, you accept God as the law giver.

Which god? Allah? Zeus? Odin? Ra? Vishnu? And where do we find these principles? In the Talmud? In The Koran? In The [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Bhagavad- Gita? In The Guru Granth Sahib?[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Dreamwolf]

No. It is just that we were in told grammar school that it is rude to refer to self as "I" all the time. If that is no longer the rule, then perhaps we should change to using "I" but now that you know why we use we and us, please recognize that we are trying to be nice.

Just out of curiosity where did you go to school? I have heard of a similar rule only once before, just curious if it ties in somehow to that previous instance.

 

[Spiritman]

Same here.. So I guess you got some idea-adjusting to do spiritman

According to our definition, all moral philosophies that do not fall under God based theory of morality is called humanism. If you disagree then consider this thread's definition of a operationally defined definition to to illustrate the difference between God based theory and atheist based theory. As the OP it is my job to define the terms and definitions used. We concede that there are many definitions of humanism. All definitions of humanism that have been quoted in this thread concedes the fact that moral rationality of humanism come from man. Please try to understand that in any debate terms and definitions must be operationally defined. If you want to debate in religion, which this forum is about, then you must understand operationally defined terminology, which some of you refuse to do.

 

[Storm]

According to our definition, all moral philosophies that do not fall under God based theory of morality is called humanism.

Then your definition is wrong.

If you disagree then consider this thread's definition of a operationally defined definition to to illustrate the difference between God based theory and atheist based theory. As the OP it is my job to define the terms and definitions used. We concede that there are many definitions of humanism. All definitions of humanism that have been quoted in this thread concedes the fact that moral rationality of humanism come from man. Please try to understand that in any debate terms and definitions must be operationally defined. If you want to debate in religion, which this forum is about, then you must understand operationally defined terminology, which some of you refuse to do.

What you're doing is as bad as Dawkins redefining "delusional" to encompass belief in God, and no, I will not play along.

 

[Dreamwolf]

As the OP it is my job to define the terms and definitions used. We concede that there are many definitions of humanism. All definitions of humanism that have been quoted in this thread concedes the fact that moral rationality of humanism come from man.

As the OP it is not your job to invent new definitions for the terms used. There are several widely accepted definitions at your fingertips that have been quoted from reputable sources. If your definition of Humanism still doesn't agree with those perhaps you are thinking of the wrong moral philosophy.

 

[Spiritman]

So far as I know, humans do not derive any moral principles from deity, although humans can be under the delusion they do. "Man is the measure" -- that is inescapable.

If there is no God, then what you say is absolutely true. Good job.

 

[Spiritman]

Some atheists are fascists, and fascists cannot be humanists. Some atheists are nihilists, and nihilists cannot be humanists. Some atheists are Stalinists, and Stalinists cannot be humanists. This is quite obvious because those idealogies clearly contradict the values of humanism. And there are Buddhist humanists and even Christian humanists. Our Nation's Founding Fathers were in fact Deists and Humanists themselves. There are humanists of all kinds, as there are atheists of all kinds. This may come to as a shock to you, but there are a myrad of different religions and philosophies out there, most of which are not mutually exclusive from one another. Research is our friend. Don't be shy, try it out sometime.

You're welcome, son.

We are using operationally defined terminology on this thread which defines humanism as the default philosophy of those who do not believe in God.

 

[Storm]

That definition is incorrect.

 

[Spiritman]

Who is this we you keep referring to?

We repeat for you, people of our age were taught in grammar school that to refer to "I" was rude; so, the plural form o English grammar is used instead of referring to I.

 

[McBell]

We are using operationally defined terminology on this thread which defines humanism as the default philosophy of those who do not believe in God.

Seems to me that if your argument is dependent upon your having to redefine a word, your argument is not worth much.

 

[McBell]

We repeat for you, people of our age were taught in grammar school that to refer to "I" was rude; so, the plural form o English grammar is used instead of referring to I.

Interestingly enough, I know many people of many ages and the only other one I know of who uses the plural to mean single flat out admits it is because it makes her arguments seem more plausible.
In short, it is a subtle attempt at appeal to numbers.

 

[Father Heathen]

We are using operationally defined terminology on this thread which defines humanism as the default philosophy of those who do not believe in God.

But to imply that all atheists share the exact same ideology/philosophy is false and thus renders your argument worthless.

 

[Spiritman]

Which god? Allah? Zeus? Odin? Ra? Vishnu? And where do we find these principles? In the Talmud? In The Koran? In The [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Bhagavad- Gita? In The Guru Granth Sahib?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Most of us are proponents of natural theology and believe we arrive at truth through rational and reflective thinking. The Bible, Talmud, Koran are used to confirm, not prove, our belief systems.

 

[Storm]

Most of whom?

 

[McBell]

Most of us are proponents of natural theology and believe we arrive at truth through rational and reflective thinking. The Bible, Talmud, Koran are used to confirm, not prove, our belief systems.

How rational is it to have to have your own definition of words?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We repeat for you, people of our age were taught in grammar school that to refer to "I" was rude; so, the plural form o English grammar is used instead of referring to I.

I suspect you are now being dishonest with us here. I suspect you are trying to make yourself appear smarter, knowledgable or above those here whom you are debating.

If what you are saying is true, for you, then you were being rude in this post....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1227063-post24.html

or in post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1227567-post24.html when you said ("my opinion") instead of using ("our") like you did in post http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1233688-post127.html

And were you being "rude" in post http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1229513-post12.html when you used ("I")?


How about here when you used it.....?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1227030-post1.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1227690-post10.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1227713-post13.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1228172-post20.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1228313-post23.html

It wasn't until on page 4 in the thread "Is it important to know what is really real?"
in post http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1228907-post38.html you began to refer to yourself as ("we"). This is why I think you are being dishonest with us and you appear to come off as a liar by making your above statement as if this is how you actually speak............