What the World Needs is Less Religion, and More Humanitarians...Desperately

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 




Sooooo, are we giving a speech or having a debate? Make your mind up before you continue.


Hey! nice to hear from you again bigbert.
Make up my mind? Where have you been bert? I proposed the rules & conditions last night. Still waiting for you bert. If you want to concede I promise there is no shame bert. I mean it's not like I and most others don't already know humanism is wrong. It would be a personal moral victory for you to realize the same. Thus you would honor yourself by concession.

So did you u2u the mod junglejake? I think you should u2u Vagabond -- So can you start this weekend or perhaps Monday? I'm not sure what the mods need to so but I'm ready. I have been trying to get it set up. Have you?

I received this from jake :


I believe there are three judges who score it, but I'm not entirely sure. Vagabond has run the one or two that we've actually had and could give you the skinny on that.

In the formal debates, what has taken place is that a word limit is given, and each party has 24 hours to respond. The posts are first an introduction, three rebuttals and a conclusion. The conclusion cannot contain any new information, but must reiterate all the points made in the intro and rebuttals. If one of the parties does not respond within the 24 hour time limit without contacting the other opponent and judge (most likely Vagabond), they forfeit that response. After the conclusions are made, the judges weigh in anonymously and the verdict is handed out.


I already went ahead an u2u'd Vagabond as well. If you are serious about you beliefs why don't you please do the same.

Sincerely Yours
Bigwhammy




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I'm waiting for bert to contact the debate moderators. I have acted in good faith and contacted all the moderators and proposed a format. I will assume inaction as a default concession.

This article is a very sophomoric straw man.The author is either an intellectual cripple or blinded by bigotry. Christianity does not say this crap - He is quite deceptve. I went and looked up Humanist John Hamerlinck and he has no credentials listed. That's fine neither do I. Just don't assume he is an authority. He is a "free lance writer". If you post at ATS so are you!

I will address the supposed conundrum he portrays - dismantle it's fallacies and misrepresentations.



In the moral universe, there is a big difference between general rules and rigid laws. Immanuel Kant's The Critique of Practical Reason illustrates this point quite well. Kant used logic and reason to propose the existence of the categorical imperative, which impels us to "act as if the maxim of our action were to become . . . a universal law of nature." Without going into all the details, Kant concluded that, in light of the categorical imperative, it was always wrong to tell a lie--even to a murderer stalking your friend.

How many people, Christian or otherwise, would not lie in that situation? Is lying therefore an absolute moral wrong? No, because ethics are inescapably situational. Although there is general agreement across the ideological spectrum that lying is wrong, there are still situations in which it is the morally correct thing to do.


Using the objective moral law we still weigh these issues. Lying is immoral and murder is immoral. That's not an opinion but a fact. Sorry relativists - that never changes. There's not situation that makes lying moral .

Because there 2 conflicting values we use our God given judgment. So we lie to save our friend - we just accept that it was the best thing possible given the circumstances. But that doesn't make lying a MORAL thing to do by any means. It was made necessary. Necessary does equal moral. That is not moral relativism. That is situational ethics. They are entirely different concepts -- a freshman philosophy student should know that. I seriously wonder about the author's lack of credentials.

Also no Christian claims they are able to live morally 100 percent of the time. Duh. That why we need Jesus.


BTW:: I bet I know Immanuel Kant better than the guy that wrote that article, bigbert. I can use Kant's logic to defeat atheistic humanist beliefs as well. Try me




[edit on 5/29/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
You know a debate, formal that is, is a wonderful way to settle an issue. Yet so is "agreeing to disagree"...

I have debated numerous topics with numerous members and it does NOT always settle the issue.

As humans, we all have strong feelings and opinions about certain things and no amount of debating will generally change those.

I'm all for debating, just making an observation...

Semper



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Actually moral absolutism is what creates despots of men.

Why did Hitler massacre Jews? Because he thought he was right. He believed his own infallibility. He thought that he had the moral absolute.

What does relativism bring to the table? Well, I would consider myself a relativist. My moral code and your moral code will indubitably clash on many issues. For example, I believe it is the height of immorality to force a woman to bear the child resultant of rape. No doubt some would contend this.

Relativism allows us to have a more peaceful world. With moral absolutism there is no room for maneuver... It reduces the actions of men to black and white, right or wrong. In reality of course, the world is a quagmire of grey.

You mentioned that lying is always wrong, and that you would tell a murderer where your friend was hiding just to avoid lying... that you would sacrifice a life rather than lie. Are you being serious- is this a view you truly hold? If so, no amount of debate will enable us to understand each other.

Moral absolutism will lead to men imposing their will upon others, and inevitably to bloodshed.

Relativism allows civility, and is founded upon the gentlemanly concept of "agreeing to disagree".



[edit on 29-5-2008 by 44soulslayer]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I didn't post that article to describe Christianity, but to help describe the views of secular humanism.

And no, I have not written junglejake because I am awaiting an answer from you about my proposal.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Hmmm, it would seem SoulSlayer, that you are much better at describing your thoughts than I am.

Very well put, and you've just given away part of the tactic to which I was planning on using, but it's all good.

Good post.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Very good points, Semper. I have read some of your debates. The one that sticks in my mind the most was the theft is always wrong vs. stealing from the rich type of debate. Even though I do not share your views on it, you did make an incredibly strong stance.

Thanks for your input.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


I detect cold feet. I put a format up 2 days ago and not one word form you.

What proposal? You mean this?


Now, here's the thing, I really DON'T want to spend my time in a formal debate, so I am willing to say agree to disagree. This will take up much time, so an agreement here would suit me more; however:

If that does not suit you, and you absolutely insist, I will debate you. You must agree however to stop with the childish insults and accusations for which I've had to retaliate. I feel like I'm debating with a crybaby. No more name calling either.

I assume the premise will be 'Humanism: The Harbinger of a New Age, or the Destruction of Our Civility'. Yeah, sounds good doesn't it? Sometimes I just surprise myself. The alternative was 'Humanism: Good or Bad'. I like the first one better.



OK - No problem I accept.

"Humanism The Harbringer of the New Age or Destruction of Civility" sounds cool.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


No, that's not it. If you're going to accuse me of not reading your posts, you might want to make sure that you read mine.

I suggested 'Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism'.

And you proposed this yesterday, and you even admitted it just a couple of posts ago. Please stop exaggerating to make your points.

I'm headed out right now, but if you choose to accept the title theme to be 'Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism' (I'm thinking on how the world is today, whether we have moral relativity or absolute morals), I will write junglejake when I get back.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Actually moral absolutism is what creates despots of men.

Why did Hitler massacre Jews? Because he thought he was right. He believed his own infallibility. He thought that he had the moral absolute.


That's called a delusion. What does that have to do with morality?

It is the exact opposite. It is always relativism that causes despotism. If there are no absolute morals then morality is subject to personal opinion. Hitlers opinion or your opinion.

Hitler thought he was right. For some reason you seem to think you know Hitler was wrong. Why so? You know he was wrong? Who are you to say? His situation was relative - you're not in his shoes. Hmmmm?

You are making a judgment by appealing to an absolute standard. The moral absolute is that killing innocents is immoral. Hitler circumvented that for his personal opinion (relativism).



What does relativism bring to the table?


Concentration camps, Gulags, and Killing fields. Abortion, illegitimacy, and single parent homes. The collapse of Western Culture - take a look out your window it is happening as we speak.

I have a thread about it : The Decline of America



Well, I would consider myself a relativist. My moral code and your moral code will indubitably clash on many issues. For example, I believe it is the height of immorality to force a woman to bear the child resultant of rape. No doubt some would contend this.


Let me clear something up for you. You do not understand what I mean by an absolute objective moral law. What you are calling "absolutism" here is not what I or Christians believe at all. Disagreements over morals does not make them relative at all. The morals do not change because mens perceptions of them do.

Perception is relative - the moral laws are absolute.

Again you are completely hypocritical. You just said "I believe it to be the height of immorality..." Why do you believe that? What right do you have to impose you beliefs on anyone? Huh? Because you believe that the woman has an absolute moral right to control her own body. If your morality were relative you would not be offended by it at all, you would say oh whatever... its no skin off my nose.

But to you just know it violates her right to control her own body. You place that absolute right above the Babies absolute right to live. Both rights are valid. But because you do not believe a fetus is a child - you go with thwe womans right. If it were a 2 year old instead of a fetus your opinion would change would it not? The issue is not the rights themselves but whether a fetus is a child and which takes precedence. Just because there are complicated situations does not mean there are not objective standards.



Relativism allows us to have a more peaceful world. With moral absolutism there is no room for maneuver... It reduces the actions of men to black and white, right or wrong. In reality of course, the world is a quagmire of grey.


Again you misunderstand my position. Of course there are complicated situations. that does not negate standards.



You mentioned that lying is always wrong, and that you would tell a murderer where your friend was hiding just to avoid lying... that you would sacrifice a life rather than lie. Are you being serious- is this a view you truly hold? If so, no amount of debate will enable us to understand each other.


Damn you did not read what I said at all. I did not say that - you need to read it and I would appreciate an apology.

What I wrote:

originally posted by Bigwhammy
Using the objective moral law we still weigh these issues. Lying is immoral and murder is immoral. That's not an opinion but a fact. Sorry relativists - that never changes. There's not situation that makes lying moral .

Because there 2 conflicting values we use our God given judgment. So we lie to save our friend - we just accept that it was the best thing possible given the circumstances. But that doesn't make lying a MORAL thing to do by any means. It was made necessary. Necessary does equal moral. That is not moral relativism. That is situational ethics. They are entirely different concepts -- a freshman philosophy student should know that. I seriously wonder about the author's lack of credentials.




Moral absolutism will lead to men imposing their will upon others, and inevitably to bloodshed.



No Communism is founded on Godlessness and relativism. It has led to the worst mass murders in history. If killing is absolutely wrong - and you do what is right - there will be no killing.

You've been sold a bill of goods. Relativism is a big lie.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


yeah lets.

lets get the world bank to cough up .... oh err sorry no they wont.

the UN rock on the UN oh err no they wont.

Billionairs, oh err no they wont

mmm

demographics of world religions

Christianity: 2.1 billion

Islam: 1.5 billion

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

Buddhism: 376 million

primal-indigenous: 300 million

African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

Sikhism: 23 million

Juche: 19 million

Spiritism: 15 million

Judaism: 14 million

Baha'i: 7 million

Jainism: 4.2 million

Shinto: 4 million

Cao Dai: 4 million

Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million

Tenrikyo: 2 million

Neo-Paganism: 1 million

Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

Rastafarianism: 600 thousand

Scientology: 500 thousand

(estimates)

www.adherents.com...

blimey not a lot of Athiest humans left is there???religions play the major role because..... Da da dahhhh they are helping other religious people who, combined, vastly out number the none religious.

not much work being done by none religious is there? In fact according to Brittanica as of approx 2001 athiests make up just 2.5% of the global population but are only present in a total of 161 countries, you aren't even global.

many thanks

david



[edit on 29/5/2008 by drevill]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by drevill
 


Which make the stats of secular charities all that more impressive. Thank you for sharing that.

Oh, BTW, religious or secular, charities help everyone despite their religious beliefs, unless of course, your a prejudicial a*ho**.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Who said it was "My Point of View?"...


Remember in the debate forum, usually the topics are random and you have to "play" the side you are given....

That is half the fun of it...

Good thread Big Bert...

Semper



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Huh.

Even more impressive then.

And thank you.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Just wanted to say that I agree. It is not religion that is the problem, but rather the unwavering stance that people put on their beliefs in general. Religion is sacred to a lot of people, and that is fine, the problem comes in when people don't allow other to agree to disagree. This is not found only with religion though. This just reminds me of the Southpark episode, once religion is gone, we'll all be saying that my science is correct and your science is wrong. The root of the problem is within humanity, not our various belief systems.

I think we need to teach children more about the effects that their behavior has on a large scale, not teach them that religion is bad or that anything is good or bad in absolutes (except rape, I really can't justify that one action, sorry). There's a lot of grey in the world, we just don't teach kids to see in shades, it's black and white until you enter the "real" world. More activities like the blue/brown eye experiment to teach about discrimination would help more than abolishing religion (description linked at bottom). Peace out.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by drevill
 


Which make the stats of secular charities all that more impressive. Thank you for sharing that.

Oh, BTW, religious or secular, charities help everyone despite their religious beliefs, unless of course, your a prejudicial a*ho**.


Have you ever heard the parable of the good Samaritan?
It's really not about helping wounded strangers.
Did you know it is about racism?

Religious Charities target nonreligious peoples. Especially in the third world. Why do you send a missionary to someone who is already a Christian. DUH.

Please try to think a little more before bigotry gets the best of your better nature.



Have you u2u'd vagabon?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Wow. Your post doesn't even deserve an answer. Think about what you wrote and why. Wow.



Please try to think a little more before bigotry gets the best of your better nature.


See, this is the exact same thing I thought you had just agreed upon to not do, but your eagerness has led you back to your childish insults.

I have not U2U'd anyone yet because you, in your haste, have completely neglected the question I have set forth twice now so that you may jump to be the one to throw out insults towards me.

I will not debate you if you cannot agree to debate without the kind of sick debating practice seen here, and if you cannot answer my question. I will not ask a third time. Lessen your haste and go back and find it.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


For you to say absolutism or anything is wrong - then you are saying that you know what is right - aren't you?.

Is it just wrong at your house or everywhere?


Also consider this ss. For a relativist to have an opinion about anything you have to smuggle the objective moral law in the back door. How can you say that A is better than B if you do not appeal to standard of truth? What does "better" mean?

Look back at my straight line illustration. Without a standard there is no judgment possible.

Is relativism right? Or is relativism just relative? Only to a relativist I guess.
Moral Relativism is circular logic.

Relativism truly ends up with no morality at all - pure preferences. I like chocolate better than vanilla. I like mother theresa better than hitler. You have your truth I have mine. Its BS. Communism is founded on it . Thats what the damn cold war was about people. You are adopting a communist ideology. IT SUCKS. It kills people.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


bert I agree to not make any personal remarks whatsoever - I really want to attack your ideas -not you- but you have been slinging plenty of insults as well- so I agree to behave. Plus the mods will enforce the rules.

I want a formal debate precisely for that reason - to take the personality out and have someone impartial decide the merits of the ideas presented.

so by all means stop hesitating. So please u2u vagabond.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


You STILL have not answered my question.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join