 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Secular humanists have a set of rules which they consider to be very important for creating a stable, successful, free society. These rules are very good, and they WORK. In fact, many of them are taken straight from the Bible. |
That is fantastic... seriously... but exactly what are these rules... and who has agreed upon them. I mean... if I'm a secular humanist where do I learn about what these rules are? If these rules exist... who approved them? If they are indeed universal as you have asserted, then naturally they should be universal agreement.
Then, after we figure out who approved them, if they are violated, who are they accountable too?
This is moral relativism P... repackaged. Nothing more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | First, thanks for the longer post Trinity, because I now understand where you're coming from...your POV is much clearer  |
But I have a suspicion you do not agree... 
| Quote: | Valid point, but Religion is subject to the same inspection...therefore, if morality does come from 1 monotheistic God, then why is there such observable differences (foreshadowing your cannibal point below as an example).
If anything, the final analysis seems to be that there is NO universal morality. Period. None. It's either the dogma on one faith group or the philosophy of another group. People don't like to think of that, even god-less ones. As I said before, SH becomes the religion of atheists...It has a moral base without a divine "arbiter/father-figure/judge". |
There are indeed many different views, perspectives, or beliefs... when it comes to religion. However, SH claims it is moral... it has a moral code... my question is who/what/where/how is this determined and agreed upon?
With religion, you have a standard. You have a deity, whether that deity is the God of the Bible, Allah, Vishnu... take your pick.. it matters not. Adherents for the standards (the moral absolutes) as outlined by their deity. With SH... I am maintaining that this absolute simply does not exist. It can not exist. There are no absolutes in SH as there is no universal agreement on what is and what is not right and wrong. I have listed several examples of this... and no one seems to want to address these facts. I understand it creates a dillema... and that is more or less my point as it is a deliema. Secular humanism is not what it claims to be.
| Quote: | | Valid point, but argues that there is no universal morality vice that God is the source of morality. If he allows it, then he at least tacitly accepts it. Go down that path further and God becomes either a racist or a bigot depending since he revealed himself to some people but not all people. |
I was just going to delete this... but... thought I would mention that you very well may have a point... and there are answers for this. But we are moving the goal posts here. This is about Secular Humanism.
| Quote: | | hmmm, yes and no. I think individuals are psychopathic. I think groups suffer from desensitation, "group think", and herd behavior. After WWII, most Germans appeared genuinely shocked by their own behavior despite actively or passively participating in genocide. There are lots of clinically interesting reports from the atrocities in Darfar and Rwanda and Serbia/Bosnia and other places about the average persons behavior/psychology in emotionally detaching from their "enemy." Some, the leaders mainly, are truly psychotic...the rest, get led. Many feel guilt and remorse afterward, so P#s has a point that I agree with. |
Many? Pondering... in Rwanda these folks were hacking each other to pieces. Mothers... children... entire villages. Once they were collected up after the fact, they were colluding how to avoid prosecution. There was very little remorse here. Their standard… universal truth was that the Tutsi’s deserved to live in lands in habited by Hutu’s… or vice verse… it was their truth. In their universal truth the other was evil and deserved to die.
Same thing in Nazi Germany... it was only until they were shown that there are consequences for their actions was there any admission of remorse. The majority went along.
| Quote: | | fair enuff. But would you argue that your beliefs are universally true to all mankind, or just to you? |
I believe that my belief and understanding of God is that He, and His word is universal... for everyone, everywhere, for all time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair 'nuff...
Like I said, I was really trying to explain SH more than defend it. I don't consider myself a SH, though I admire what adherents are trying to do as much as I respect the purpose of religion...
In answer to your question...you're right that there is no single source of authority. I suppose that concensus is achieved through analysis and discussion among SH "believers"...becuase it is a belief system/philosophy as much as religion is a belief system/dogma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | Fair 'nuff...
Like I said, I was really trying to explain SH more than defend it. I don't consider myself a SH, though I admire what adherents are trying to do as much as I respect the purpose of religion...
In answer to your question...you're right that there is no single source of authority. I suppose that concensus is achieved through analysis and discussion among SH "believers"...becuase it is a belief system/philosophy as much as religion is a belief system/dogma. |
If by consensus, you mean that 100% of Secular Humanists agree on every single issue, then of course there is no consensus. But if you look at any group of people with political beliefs, I would argue that none of them is NEARLY as unified as Secular Humanists are. Get a room full of Secular Humanists together and there is very little disagreement about any MAJOR issue.
They are certainly more unified than, say, Christians are.
I subscribe to a SH quarterly which I read dilligently, and I'm willing to bet that I've got my finger much closer to the pulse of SH than Trinity does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | I subscribe to a SH quarterly which I read dilligently, and I'm willing to bet that I've got my finger much closer to the pulse of SH than Trinity does... |
-k-... then you can tell me where these norms... universally accepted truths are spelled out.
If you haven’t missed it yet P... that is the point. All truth is relative with SH. Since truth, or what is acceptable is relative, then it can be anything we want it to be... therefore, SH is relative... and if the group (Nazis/Communists/Comare Rouge) decide their truth is that others should die... there isn't an authority, other than themselves, telling them that it is not permissible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
-k-... then you can tell me where these norms... universally accepted truths are spelled out.
|
I wish you'd stop using the words 'universally accepted'. No group of people agrees on everything UNIVERSALLY. The vast majority of Secular Humanists have a core set of values. Pondering has already done a pretty good job describing them.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
If you haven’t missed it yet P... that is the point. All truth is relative with SH. Since truth, or what is acceptable is relative, then it can be anything we want it to be... therefore, SH is relative... and if the group (Nazis/Communists/Comare Rouge) decide their truth is that others should die... there isn't an authority, other than themselves, telling them that it is not permissible. |
Trinity, milk is composed mostly of water. You are composed mostly of water. Therefore you are milk.
The beliefs of Secular Humanists are relative. The beliefs of Communists and Nazis are relative. Therefore Secular Humanists are Communists and Nazis.
You see, even if you're right and Secular Humanists have values which are not absolute, then your argument still falls down big time in the logic department. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
I wish you'd stop using the words 'universally accepted'. No group of people agrees on everything UNIVERSALLY. The vast majority of Secular Humanists have a core set of values. Pondering has already done a pretty good job describing them. |
I thought you were the one who used 'universal'... if I'm wrong, I apologize. But when we got going down this rabbit trail... this seems to be the term you used when describing the values that Secular Humanists endorse. I'm simply pointing out that they are not indeed universal... as they are indeed relative.
| Quote: | Trinity, milk is composed mostly of water. You are composed mostly of water. Therefore you are milk.
The beliefs of Secular Humanists are relative. The beliefs of Communists and Nazis are relative. Therefore Secular Humanists are Communists and Nazis.
You see, even if you're right and Secular Humanists have values which are not absolute, then your argument still falls down big time in the logic department. |
P… I’m trying to figure out what values… which values… who actually believes these values.. that secular humanists endorse.
You have not mentioned once what these values are, who has decided that they are accepted, and by which standard you are applying. I do remember you referring to some innate sense that humans posses… but other than that, nothing other than I don’t understand what I’m talking about. I’m taking your philosophy and subjecting it to the same tests you and others so gleefully subject Christianity too… and it seems it fails miserably.
Secular Humanism is nothing more than an excuse for atheists to yammer about being moral, without having to define morality and be accountable for it. You can’t have the one without the other… and that is why the philosophy fails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
You have not mentioned once what these values are, who has decided that they are accepted, and by which standard you are applying. I do remember you referring to some innate sense that humans posses… but other than that, nothing other than I don’t understand what I’m talking about. |
I'm pretty sure that I HAVE told you what the values are. I guess you don't remember me saying this:
The values of SH are essentially those found in the Bible. More specifically, they are essentially the teachings if Jesus Christ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Trinity,
I see your point and it's a fair one, but you're not conceeding anything to P#s, and he's been pretty straightforward too...
There is a sub-text to this discussion that hasn't come forward and that's the unspoken assertion that SH is BETTER than Christianity...I'm not saying that it is, but I think that's the cause of some of the friction here...
You're correct that there is no single authority. Adherents strive to individually and collectively achieve the goals outlined a few pages back. That's why I keep saying that it is "Like Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism) but without a Diety"
Under critical analysis based on observable events, both SH and "pick-your-religion" fail to historically and universally hold consistent to their "tenets"....
I suspect that some of the growth of SH came from people that rejected Christianity (the mystical/mythical parts) but treasured the moral, benevolent aspects of it....and saw reflections of those core beliefs (be kind, help the unfortunate, love your family...) in other religions...that's where the idea comes from for "universal human truths"...
Me? I have my own belief system that I conceed is illogical and tenuous at best...but whose isn't? Isn't that the definition of "belief" and "faith"?
I keep an open mind and adjust my "truths" as I learn more. I have a core set of beliefs that I hold true for myself and "hope" others possess/aspire to...They do look alot like core Christian tenets (skipping the divinity stuff); I respect aspects of Islam (as expressed in the Koran, not the actions of militant adherants), but I also find resonating themes in a number of Far Eastern mysticism "religions"....just in case you were curious  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | I'm pretty sure that I HAVE told you what the values are. I guess you don't remember me saying this:
The values of SH are essentially those found in the Bible. More specifically, they are essentially the teachings if Jesus Christ. |
So when Christ states that murder is hating your enemies, adultry is just looking at a women with lust, divorce is unlawful, or serve only one master... that is Secular Humanism?
Last edited by Trinity1 on Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | Trinity,I see your point and it's a fair one, but you're not conceeding anything to P#s, and he's been pretty straightforward too... |
What should I be conceding... he has not presented any set standard from which I can make a determination.
| Quote: | There is a sub-text to this discussion that hasn't come forward and that's the unspoken assertion that SH is BETTER than Christianity...I'm not saying that it is, but I think that's the cause of some of the friction here...
You're correct that there is no single authority. Adherents strive to individually and collectively achieve the goals outlined a few pages back. That's why I keep saying that it is "Like Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism) but without a Diety" |
And I keep asserting that in order for it to 'be like' there must be an absolute truth... authority... law giver. We can quibble all day long on what the meaning of that law is, but there is the law... the rule to follow. I have seen none in SH... and that is my point as everything is relative.
| Quote: | | Me? I have my own belief system that I conceed is illogical and tenuous at best...but whose isn't? Isn't that the definition of "belief" and "faith"? |
Ah... but it is an admitted belief.... faith... an 'oghtness' predicated on an authoritative law giver's admonishments... not because we think it is a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
