Agnosticism, Atheism And Secular Humanism

[answers]

Moderator comment -

Post deleted.

Please observe the cut and paste policy.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Cut and paste policy anyone???

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16604


Once again, this could have been your post if you respected the guidelines in this forum:

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch30/default.htm

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by answers
The claims of these alternatives, however, will not hold up under investigation.

What a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Raithere]

In response to:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch30/default.htm

This probably was not worth my time, as this was one of the weakest papers I've ever addressed, but I did so anyway. Oh well...

An agnostic usually is someone who does not know whether God exists.

Incomplete and misleading:

ag•nos•tic n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Unfortunately, most agnostics do not make a real effort to know if there is a God. They do not consider the question all that crucial.

Unfounded claims. Qualify or quantify.

Yet it is. The very fact that an agnostic cannot be sure makes it logical that he should consider the claims of Christianity. Therefore, agnosticism is not grounds for rejecting Christianity; rather, it is grounds for examining Christianity.

No. Christianity might be dismissed as illogical and/or disproved, yet the ultimate question of God still remain open.

Atheists affirm there is no God.

Again, incomplete and misleading. The universal position in atheism is a lack of belief in God. Not all atheists believe that God categorically does not exist.

atheist n. 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Since the atheist is not all-knowing, he cannot make a dogmatic statement on God's existence.

While indeed, a categorical refusal of all definitions of God is unsupportable, one can build an argument regarding any human definition of God. Of course, his argument founders anyway as it's based upon the false premise above.

The alternative views, when soundly probed, are found not to undermine Christianity but rather to reinforce it. This is because philosophical systems and other religions, in their search for truth and meaning to life, fall short in their quest. Without God's revelation of Himself as recorded in the Bible, there is no way to determine whether or not we have the truth. It alone offers man truth and hope.

Wow... care to support the massive and unfounded presumptions in this statement?

This creed that "man is the measure of all things" offers no concrete solution to those looking for a way out, yet today in our world, humanism is quite popular.
...
Humanism fails on two counts, though. First, man operating by himself cannot set up true standards of justice or values in the world without God.

Unspoken and unproven premises: Unless both God and God's revelation is proven there is no reason to assume that there are any ethical standards that are not man-made. There is also no reason that even if religious doctrine was valid that man could not still develop his own valid standards and values.

If one man decides his human view of values is correct and another man decides his view, which is different, is correct, who will decide between them?

Logic and reason.

If one man decides his human interpretation of religious doctrine is correct and another man decides his view, which is different, is correct, who will decide between them? It is time to pull out the ouiji board?

Who would decide between the Nazis and the Jewish race in World War II? Each had a set of values, but who was right? The majority? The nicest? The meanest?

Who was right during the Crusades? It seems to me that Christianity has given us no firm ethical viewpoint from which to judge. Many atrocities have been carried out in the name of God and Jesus. However, it is possible to found a stable ethical system upon the common needs of people.

Without a higher standard of authority to go to, which is God, all of life is based on the values of the majority or of a dictator in power. They have no sure truth to turn to; it is all a matter of opinion.

Do you really wish to try to support the notions that: 1. All religious assertions are true. 2. That the truth is unknowable except through divine revelation? If so, please do try. Otherwise this is unfounded nonsense.

Second, humanism believes man is "getting better and better every day in every way." However, with two world wars in this century and the world on the brink of nuclear holocaust, the demise of optimistic humanism is a foregone conclusion.

Please, if this were so, there would be no human endeavor (including religion) that was not dead. One setback, or even many setbacks, is not disproof of progress or the 'demise' of the paradigm.

Thus humanism offers not hope but despair. Humanism does not solve problems; it creates them. If humanism is honestly examined, it leads man not to look to man, but beyond himself, for the answers.

All unfounded conclusions. This argument is pathetic thus far.

Later God was de-emphasized to the point where He was no longer seen as an intimate worker in creation

This is because investigation proved that God was not directly responsible for the everyday experiences in our lives. No miracles were found. Each turn revealed that there was a naturalistic explanation for those events that were previously attributed to God. This was simply discovery, not some attempt by man to eliminate the necessity of God.

Today this self-centered system of ideas exerts influence in all of our lives.

"Self-centered" indicates that the individual need only be concerned with their own affairs. Where does secular humanism suggest this?

It was God who was in the beginning (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3), not impersonal, self-creating nature from which man gradually evolved.

Please prove this assertion.

The Bible consistently teaches that it is upon the infinite God that this finite world depends for its existence.

Proof?

For primordial, non-intelligent mass to produce human intelligence assumes, contrary to reason, that an effect is greater than its cause.
...
To account for that human intelligence by a higher intelligence in whose image the human was made, and who sustains the very life of the human and his world, is reasonable -and biblical.

No; a localized increase in order or complexity does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Further, there is no substantiating evidence for creation.

When the apostle Paul argued with the Greek philosophers of his day he testified about this sustaining God:

Argument from authority.

For the humanists to blithely dismiss all religious philosophy and all evidence in support of the existence of God in two simple propositions does not settle the matter of God's existence.

No one said it did. These were conclusions, not arguments. Of course, based upon his 'arguments' in this chapter, the author does not seem to be aware of the difference.

As evangelical Christians we believe that our reasoning ability was given to us by God, in whose image we were created, and that responsible use of our reasoning ability to understand the world around us can lead us to sound evidence for the existence of God.

Please provide this evidence.

The evidence of God's existence and His gift is more than compelling, but those who insist that they have no need of Him, or it, will always find ways to discount the offer.

Argument from authority.

When Manifesto II says that it can find no design or purpose or providence for the human species, it devaluates man to a level below that on which God places him as His highest creation.

Please provide argument or evidence that man is "his highest creation". Or even that God exists.

the humanist takes away all worth from mankind.

Only if you value the fantasy of God above man.

Unless our worth is rooted and grounded in something objective and outside ourselves, we are of value only to ourselves, and can never rise above the impermanence of our own short lives.

Please the provide the objective foundation for God and Christianity.

The God of Christianity is outside our finite and transitory universe and His love for us gives us a value which transcends not only ourselves but our finite universe as well.

Proof?

Humanist Manifesto II states that we must save ourselves. We believe it is not possible for an individual to save himself in all circumstances.

Neither does the manifesto. Please note the transition from plural to singular. This is a fallacy of composition deliberately designed as a straw man argument.

Christianity gives true worth and dignity to man and secular humanism makes all human dignity subjective and self-centered.

Please show that these are more than just unsupported declarations.

Secular humanism rejects the idea of life after death, dogmatically asserting that it is impossible to prove. On the contrary, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a fact of history, verifiable by standard historical tests.

LOL... then please do so.

~Raithere

P.S. answers: How about voicing your own argument next time rather than simply borrowing chapters from other people's works.

 

[Voodoo Child]

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/

has the framed version, the contents page to get to the other chapters.

Apparently Confuscianism, Buddhism, Shinto, Islam, judaism and Hinduism are all false and of little value. Who knew? Thank God some arrogant pissant debunked thousands of years of philosophy and religous comtemplation with a few five thousand word essays. What a great site!!