If there is no God. . . ?

[Spiritman]

Then your definition is wrong.


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

Could it be that you simply have an oppositional personality to things that your hear for the first time? The fact that you have said that I was full of sh**, that you would have to educate me on humanism, and that you ojbect to everything said about humanism even though we use operationally defined terms leads me to believe that you are not really interested in discussion. We are not interested in personal conflict or personal attacks of any kind.

 

[Spiritman]

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.

Oh! Informed one, please provide me a list of definitions that you prefer we use to discuss humanism. All trained debaters agree on definitions of terms to be use in debate. Our definition of humanism is well within the broad scope of, as you say, the many accepted definitions of humanism. We simply have chosen one and identified it with acceptable terminology. You could use your argument of not using operational terms against every major scientific research project and philosophical theory in existence but it would only slow down and retard progress. We are not making new definitions but delineating among the many definitions to which you allude. Oppositional attitudes for oppositional sake is not reasonable.

 

[Spiritman]

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

That would be true but we are not redefining but rather operationally defining a term. It has always been the use of operationally used terminology that has clarified the growth of all scientific and philosophical studies. Without operationally defined terms scientist would never have been able to had their great discoveries adequately evaluated and accepted. Again, it is not re-defining as much as it is zeroing in on a definition that is to be used. What possible problem do you have with this?

 

[Spiritman]

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.

Well, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Spiritman]

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

All those who join the debate on this thread accept the operationally defined definitions so that we all can avoid all speaking about a different subject. That is the type of debate that is worthless. We adjure you to understand that this is the position of all formal debtors,scientist, professional philosopher, business men, etc. and all who claim to be intellectual adhere. Would you please clarify what argument that we are making that you consider to be worthless or are you too in opposition for oppositional sake?

 

[Father Heathen]

It's called a straw man fallacy.

 

[Spiritman]

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

An intellectual should welcome the clarification that operationally defined terminology brings to debate.

 

[Spiritman]

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............

You are obviously being trait.

 

[McBell]

That would be true but we are not redefining but rather operationally defining a term. It has always been the use of operationally used terminology that has clarified the growth of all scientific and philosophical studies. Without operationally defined terms scientist would never have been able to had their great discoveries adequately evaluated and accepted. Again, it is not re-defining as much as it is zeroing in on a definition that is to be used. What possible problem do you have with this?

How about the fact that you are NOT "zeroing in on a definition" but are in fact doing the exact opposite to the point of redundancy.

How is that a problem?
Simply put it is merely you attempting to black and white a situation that is clearly not black and white.

Then to top it off, you want to try and argue your seriously over simplified strawman.

 

[McBell]

An intellectual should welcome the clarification that operationally defined terminology brings to debate.

But you are not "clarifying" anything.
You are muddying the waters to be able to more easily attack your strawman.

 

[McBell]

You are obviously being trait.

Funny.
I see it as poking a hole in your claim.

Did you forget than suddenly remember this teaching?

 

[Storm]

You are right, Spritman, for a debate to be meaningful, terms must be agreed upon. Since nobody is willing to accept your redefinition of humanism, you need to find a word or phrase that actually fits what you're trying to say.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You are obviously being trait.

Hardly.....

I'm being stright up with you. I asked the question and it appeared your response was a disingenuous. I just had to point out your earlier post where there was a lack of the (we, our and us). It's really not important to this particular discussion and it is totally my fault for taking it off topic. I say this because this is the honest thing to say....:sarcastic

 

[Spiritman]

Hardly.....

I'm being stright up with you. I asked the question and it appeared your response was a disingenuous. I just had to point out your earlier post where there was a lack of the (we, our and us). It's really not important to this particular discussion and it is totally my fault for taking it off topic. I say this because this is the honest thing to say....:sarcastic

Thank you!

 

[rojse]

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.

Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read these before posting such rubbish, particularly the second article. Right now, it seems that you have not made any attempt to understand what humanism actually is, and would have found links to these pages had you spent five mintes reading the first link, which Storm kindly provided for you.

But, simply, from my reading of the articles about humanism, (would like to thank Storm for bringing this up) I cannot classify myself as a humanist for several reasons. Firstly, my interest is in myself first and foremost, followed by family, then friends and acquaintances. I have little compassion for strangers, and that is contrary to humanism. Secondly, humanism believes that everyone, regardless of their situation, is capable of striving for humanistic ideals. I think that that is rubbish, because people are too greedy and self-interested to care about strangers, when they have far more pressing personal concerns.

The second article should refute your assertation that humanism excludes religion. Religious humanism emphasises logical reason, although people have managed to include humanist beliefs with their religious beliefs.

The third is simply to show that there is a differentiation between religious humanism and non-religious humanism.

The last part of your post is worth a separate thread. However, it seems quite hypocritical to say that people that act in the name of your religion doing evil deeds does not really belong to your religion, while say that everyone that acts in the name of your religion doing good actually does.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If you had the intellectual capacity to explain this statement we would not have to sleep on it? Can you do it?
Name one atheist that is not a humanist, can you do? Name one humanist that is not an atheist, can you do it?

I've been away for a week or so, but checking up on things shows that Rolling Stone has an understudy.

I'll take the last question - I am a humanist that is not an atheist.

I know that, for you, that is not "God based logic", but it'll have to do. You see - it comes from this place we call "reality".

Would that you could suspend your dogmatic ignorance long enough to join us.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... As the OP it is my job to define the terms and definitions used...

Gee, I wonder if this could cause confusion?

The other 99.9% of the population will operate using words, phrases, and titles as defined in dictionaries and used throughout the English speaking world, while you simply "make it up as you go along".

Yea - that's going to lead to a solid platform from which to conduct a debate ...

 

[Spiritman]

Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read these before posting such rubbish, particularly the second article. Right now, it seems that you have not made any attempt to understand what humanism actually is, and would have found links to these pages had you spent five mintes reading the first link, which Storm kindly provided for you.

But, simply, from my reading of the articles about humanism, (would like to thank Storm for bringing this up) I cannot classify myself as a humanist for several reasons. Firstly, my interest is in myself first and foremost, followed by family, then friends and acquaintances. I have little compassion for strangers, and that is contrary to humanism. Secondly, humanism believes that everyone, regardless of their situation, is capable of striving for humanistic ideals. I think that that is rubbish, because people are too greedy and self-interested to care about strangers, when they have far more pressing personal concerns.

The second article should refute your assertation that humanism excludes religion. Religious humanism emphasises logical reason, although people have managed to include humanist beliefs with their religious beliefs.

The third is simply to show that there is a differentiation between religious humanism and non-religious humanism.

The last part of your post is worth a separate thread. However, it seems quite hypocritical to say that people that act in the name of your religion doing evil deeds does not really belong to your religion, while say that everyone that acts in the name of your religion doing good actually does.

We are not urgently interested in reading about humanism since this thread is about what things would be like without God. The assertion we make is that without God the only source of moral standards would be man and that is what we operationally define as humanism. If there is anything written in the sources you recommend that would controdict this statement, you or Storm are welcome to present it. The fact is that you and Storm are not interested in discussing the thread but are ganging up on this thread because it presents a point that supports a theist point of view.

There are many types of humanism but each type has one common factor which is that man, not God, is the source of its epistemology and rhetoric. Do you deny this with all your sources in hand? If you are such experts on humanism, feel free to start a thread on the subject, present your point of views and we will be most happy to post on your thread.

But, simply, from my reading of the articles about humanism, (would like to thank Storm for bringing this up) I cannot classify myself as a humanist for several reasons. Firstly, my interest is in myself first and foremost, followed by family, then friends and acquaintances. I have little compassion for strangers, and that is contrary to humanism. Secondly, humanism believes that everyone, regardless of their situation, is capable of striving for humanistic ideals. I think that that is rubbish, because people are too greedy and self-interested to care about strangers, when they have far more pressing personal concerns.[/QUOTE

We present the above quote from you to illustrate that you are the author of rubbish on this thread since you present all the classical criticism against humanism without being aware of this fact. The reason you give for the fact that you are not a humanist is one of the main tenants of humanism in that humanism allows for the glorification of man and his hedonistic nature, which you claim to have.

Your reading sources may be good and informative. From your knowledge and lack of ability to express what these sources say , indicates to me that you have not read them. You or Storm certainly have no idea of what humanism is and the best retort Storm has when this fact is presented to her is to declare that we are "full of sh**." She did finally admit that she had a limited knowledge of humanism. My opinion is that both of you are good trolls but have limited intellectual ethics that the RF ask for from its participants. Unless you can adhere to the topic at hand and stop leading the discussion with personal attacks, go away. How do you people get away with this chronic behavior without being flagged by the monitors?

 

[Spiritman]

Gee, I wonder if this could cause confusion?

The other 99.9% of the population will operate using words, phrases, and titles as defined in dictionaries and used throughout the English speaking world, while you simply "make it up as you go along".

Yea - that's going to lead to a solid platform from which to conduct a debate ...

What have I made up?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

We are not urgently interested in reading about humanism ...

We would submit that you are not interested in reading anything, about anything. Rather, we would submit that you are interested in proselytizing.

That's what we think.