[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thinking back on the atheist/agnostic dispute that went on, I was surprised to find out that Dawkins describes himself as agnostic. I’ve always seen him offered up as an atheist.[/quote]
He acknowledges the fact that even though he believes the probability is slim to none, it is a possibility that a “god” exists.
So he’s Agnostic more in theory than practice.
Dawkins is a Humanist in practice.
Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?
[/quote]
I think it would be easier to just go with Deism in these threads sometimes.[/quote]
deists are cowards… [/quote]
Absolutely, fence sitters who are afraid to publicly claim their atheism.
Hmm… and about Christ’s sacrifice. Why was it necessary for Jesus to die in order for God to forgive us? he can do anything, yes? Does that not include unconditional forgiveness? [/quote]
But wait…You read the bible right??? Not. [/quote]
Jesus crucifixion was NOT a sacrifice. It was a martyr.
In a violent world, it was the inevitable conclusion (and thus, the fulfillment) of the new law of universal love.
Death is what happen, sooner or later, when you love a sword-bearing ennemy.
Jesus/God couldn’t ask YOU to do that without doing it Himself.
Jesus crucifixion was NOT a sacrifice. It was a martyr.
In a violent world, it was the inevitable conclusion (and thus, the fulfillment) of the new law of universal love.
Death is what happen, sooner or later, when you love a sword-bearing ennemy.
Jesus/God couldn’t ask YOU to do that without doing it Himself.
[/quote]
Too bad i think that the very idea of an universal love is both logically absurd and morally abbhorent.
If i weren’t an unredeemable pagan, i could have make a decent franciscan friar.^^
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thinking back on the atheist/agnostic dispute that went on, I was surprised to find out that Dawkins describes himself as agnostic. I’ve always seen him offered up as an atheist.[/quote]
He acknowledges the fact that even though he believes the probability is slim to none, it is a possibility that a “god” exists.
So he’s Agnostic more in theory than practice.
Dawkins is a Humanist in practice.
Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?
[/quote]
I think it would be easier to just go with Deism in these threads sometimes.[/quote]
deists are cowards… [/quote]
Theists are the ones always trying to prove they are worthy of God. Deists believe in the all powerful yet don’t fear it. Seems quite the opposite of coward last time I checked the meaning of the word.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thinking back on the atheist/agnostic dispute that went on, I was surprised to find out that Dawkins describes himself as agnostic. I’ve always seen him offered up as an atheist.[/quote]
He acknowledges the fact that even though he believes the probability is slim to none, it is a possibility that a “god” exists.
So he’s Agnostic more in theory than practice.
Dawkins is a Humanist in practice.
Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?
[/quote]
I think it would be easier to just go with Deism in these threads sometimes.[/quote]
deists are cowards… [/quote]
What if they were born and raised in a society/culture of deists.
They had deist parents, went to deist schools, had deist friends, etc…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thinking back on the atheist/agnostic dispute that went on, I was surprised to find out that Dawkins describes himself as agnostic. I’ve always seen him offered up as an atheist.[/quote]
He acknowledges the fact that even though he believes the probability is slim to none, it is a possibility that a “god” exists.
So he’s Agnostic more in theory than practice.
Dawkins is a Humanist in practice.
Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?
[/quote]
I think it would be easier to just go with Deism in these threads sometimes.[/quote]
deists are cowards… [/quote]
A very large portion of christians (or any religion) could be considered deists.
They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Thinking back on the atheist/agnostic dispute that went on, I was surprised to find out that Dawkins describes himself as agnostic. I’ve always seen him offered up as an atheist.[/quote]
He acknowledges the fact that even though he believes the probability is slim to none, it is a possibility that a “god” exists.
So he’s Agnostic more in theory than practice.
Dawkins is a Humanist in practice.
Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?
[/quote]
I think it would be easier to just go with Deism in these threads sometimes.[/quote]
deists are cowards… [/quote]
A very large portion of christians (or any religion) could be considered deists.
They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously.
[/quote]
It was a joke, I use deism a lot actually. It’s just not the end all be all faith. But they do read the bible in that for most who claim it, the ethical, moral tenets are still quite viable if you disavow the divinity.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Too bad i think that the very idea of an universal love is both logically absurd and morally abbhorent.
If i weren’t an unredeemable pagan, i could have make a decent franciscan friar.^[1]
Why would it be morally abhorrent?
I default to Kant when talking about ‘universal love’…
You still could be quite a good Franciscan friar, I think being a missionary or a parish priest would be better, you can touch more lives…
Again, the morally abhorrent part, I find confusing. I have never heard of love being abhorrent before…
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[/quote]
Tirib, what are your thoughts on Humanism? I realize that you’re a bible guy and a Christian, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[/quote]Tirib, what are your thoughts on Humanism? I realize that you’re a bible guy and a Christian, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it. [/quote]Please define what YOU mean by “humanism” before I proceed on another misunderstanding with you. I have shoulders, chest and tri’s now though. I won’t be able to respond til later. I addressed you in the epistemology thread too btw.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
How old is the earth pat?[/quote]
Something can be both round and flat.
LOL! and what a bachelor can be both married and not married ? lol[/quote]
Can Man be God? No. Can God be Man? No. …But who was Jesus?
Can a virgin conceive? No… But who was Mary?
If someone dies, can they be alive? No…But who was Lazarus?
Can 3=1? No. Can 1=3? No. But who is the Trinity?
Is it possible, logic is insufficient in understanding God? Is it possible that God isn’t bound to the Laws of Man?
[/quote]
Yes its possible but then there is no talking about it. YOu have to remain silent, since to understand we have to have sense. If you toss out logic then there is no way to understand what one is talking about. I am aware that in quantum mechanics light can be both a wave and a particle each precluding the other.
If you hold to these statements of theology then you are left with nonsense (in the sense of communicating meaning in an everyday sense), and that is why I said you have to remain silent.
[/quote]
Understanding truth is not exclusive to the Physical senses. I never said to toss out logic, I said that using logic in arguments concerning God can only prove that the idea of God is reasonable. It cannot prove God. Therefore, using logical arguments against atheists can only AT BEST, prove that the idea of God is reasonable.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[/quote]
Tirib, what are your thoughts on Humanism? I realize that you’re a bible guy and a Christian, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it.
[/quote]
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[/quote]
Tirib, what are your thoughts on Humanism? I realize that you’re a bible guy and a Christian, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it.
[/quote]
Humanism= moral relativism[/quote]
Yeah that’s truth but trivally true. I say this because I don’t think humanism is a crazy form of relativism ok. In other words while it doesn’t have a universally truth that it asserts, something true for all societies and people its not wishy washy. Killing is wrong and hence immoral but in some contexts its not. Killing a person who is shooting and killing others, is justified as a form of defense. But understand that killing in this case has to be while he has others in his site.
killing as a form of assassination is immoral if it can’t be proven in a court of law that, more harm than good will prevail if it is not done. If cases for certain exceptions can’t be made then the dictum " all killing is wrong" becomes a travesty. " killing a fetus is at a certain stage is justifiable. One problem with this is when one side refers to a fetus as a baby, they beg the question of personhood. But that whole issue opens a whole can of worms.
Absolutism has its problems too. Not all forms of theology hold to the same moral principles. Does the God of christianity agree with the God of Judaism, or Islam. The practice of those religions have differences and hence problems if one wants to claim that Absolutism is superior to moral relativism.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< Humanism seems to be the trend of leading intellectuals.
Coincidence?[/quote]Absolutely not. That’s exactly as it should be and always has been.[quote]ranengin wrote:<<< They believe in god but don’t take the bible (or other religious text) seriously. >>>[/quote]Oh how true this is as well.
[/quote]
Tirib, what are your thoughts on Humanism? I realize that you’re a bible guy and a Christian, but I’d like to get your thoughts on it.
[/quote]
Humanism = moral relativism[/quote]
From Wikipedia:
Secular humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. Secular humanism contrasts with religious humanism, which is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.
It’s not moral relativism, moral relativism in its current “trendy” form is little more than the reason most liberals are laughed at (and rightfully so).
