Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
#811
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Shila


Stephen,

In my post #809 above, have you EVER seen such a Bible ignorant and stupid woman that Shila represents, other than Tradesecret?  Watch Shila come up with a myriad of Satanic EXCUSES now to not bring forth her 2nd class woman Historical Jesus Thread! She will RUN and HIDE to prevent herself from myself and you, and the membership, in easily making Shila the continued pseudo-christian Bible fool regarding her proposed thread's topic!

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."  (1 Corinthians 14:34)


.
#812
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

In my post #809 above, have you EVER seen such a Bible ignorant and stupid woman that Shila represents, other than Tradesecret? 

Like I have mentioned above at 801 Brother D. She is adamant that the bible should be taken literally but then ignores the strict rules set out in the verses that the scripture sets out itself. So she's off to a poor start already.
. 

other than Tradesecret? 

Even with all of his/her imagined theological education, the bible ignorance of the Reverend tradsecret will take some beating, Brother D. 

I look forward to shila's brand new original maiden thread. 
 

#813
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

-->
@Shila
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


Stephen,

In my post #809 above, have you EVER seen such a Bible ignorant and stupid woman that Shila represents, other than Tradesecret?  Watch Shila come up with a myriad of Satanic EXCUSES now to not bring forth her 2nd class woman Historical Jesus Thread! She will RUN and HIDE to prevent herself from myself and you, and the membership, in easily making Shila the continued pseudo-christian Bible fool regarding her proposed thread's topic!

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."  (1 Corinthians 14:34)


You forget it was women that anointed Jesus.

Interesting Holy Bible Facts

Which Woman Anointed Our Lord Jesus Christ With Oil?
In the Holy Gospels, there are different accounts of women who anointed our Lord Jesus Christ with oil. The first one mentioned is in Luke 7:36-50. The second is mentioned in John 12:1-8. The third is mentioned in Mark 14:3-9 also recorded in Matthew 26:6-13.

+When we look closely into these three accounts, we find that they were actually three separate events that occurred on three separate days in three different places by three different women.


In the New Testament, Jesus Christ reveals Himself as our anointed King, Priest, and Prophet. He is God’s Holy and chosen Son, the Messiah. In fact, Messiah, which literally means “anointed one,” is derived from the Hebrew word for “anointed.” Christ (Gr. Christos) means “the anointed one.”

All this was possible because the women anointed Jesus thus fulfilling the prophesies.

Your scriptural ignorance is very telling.

#814
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Tarik
so, FUNCTIONALLY each person needs to figure out FOR THEMSELVES what they believe is "right" and what is "wrong" ?
Yes, if what they believe aligns with God.
In other words, I can believe whatever I want so long as God says it's right?

That's the equivalent of letting a child pick out a candy at the store except they only get the candy bar if they pick the one you decided they should choose. Either the Bible (or whatever informs your flavor of religion) has clear instructions on how you should live your life and you don't get to decide for yourself, or the Bible isn't the word of God.

#815
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
--> @Tarik
so, FUNCTIONALLY each person needs to figure out FOR THEMSELVES what they believe is "right" and what is "wrong" ?
Yes, if what they believe aligns with God.
K_Michael: In other words, I can believe whatever I want so long as God says it's right?

That's the equivalent of letting a child pick out a candy at the store except they only get the candy bar if they pick the one you decided they should choose. Either the Bible (or whatever informs your flavor of religion) has clear instructions on how you should live your life and you don't get to decide for yourself, or the Bible isn't the word of God. 
The Garden of Eden was a candy store. God even declared it so.

Genesis 2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
#816
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
Genesis 2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
You've argued that the Genesis story is literal, if that is the case, then please explain the literal physical existence of a "tree of knowledge"?
#817
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@K_Michael
Either the Bible (or whatever informs your flavor of religion) has clear instructions on how you should live your life and you don't get to decide for yourself, or the Bible isn't the word of God. 
You can agree with something without it being your word.
#818
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
--> @Shila
Genesis 2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
You've argued that the Genesis story is literal, if that is the case, then please explain the literal physical existence of a "tree of knowledge"?
We all know about the medicinal characteristics found in trees. Chemical found in trees help restore memory, cure cancer,  induce a feeling of Ecstasy or spiritual high. The closest we are coming to this tree of knowledge is Marijuana. Unfortunately God blocked access to both the tree of life and knowledge after he banished Adam and Eve from the garden.

#819
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Tarik
You can agree with something without it being your word.
If the Bible isn't the word of God, then what indication do you have that He agrees with it?
#820
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-> @Tarik
You can agree with something without it being your word.
K_Michael: If the Bible isn't the word of God, then what indication do you have that He agrees with it?
Are you seeking Tarik’s help to guide you through your Bible study? 
#821
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@K_Michael
If the Bible isn't the word of God, then what indication do you have that He agrees with it?
I never said The Bible was or wasn’t the word of God, I simply made a general statement.
#822
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Tarik.

Semantics.

Your word is your agreement.

Your agreement is your word.

"One's word" is a sincere pledge.

Unless one is being insincere of course.


#823
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
--> @K_Michael
If the Bible isn't the word of God, then what indication do you have that He agrees with it?
I never said The Bible was or wasn’t the word of God, I simply made a general statement
This is why the  conversation continued without you. Your non-committal position and generalization was not helpful.

#824
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@K_Michael
@Shila
Your non-committal position and generalization was not helpful.
K_Michael’s error wasn’t helpful, and I resent that notion of me.
#825
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik

I never said The Bible was or wasn’t the word of God, I simply made a general statement
Your non-committal position and generalization was not helpful.
K_Michael’s error wasn’t helpful, and I resent that notion of me.
Your non-committal position quote: “I never said The Bible was or wasn’t the word of God.”

And generalization quote: “I simply made a general statement.”

…….was not helpful.
#826
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
“It is not a truth statement so it does not have a truth value.”

“it’s so obviously true that we should care for other people?”

Which one is it?
First of all, asking which one is it makes absolutely no sense because these two statements have nothing to do with each other. The first is me explaining that "well being" by itself is neither true or false because it's not a claim, it's a thing we are using to judge actions against.

Regarding the second sentence, you asked me whether it is obviously true that we should care about other people and I replied "it is to me". That is a very simple way of saying it is in my subjective opinion. English 101.

If one thing is clear in our discussions it's that you seem to be incapable of absorbing nuance. Everything to you must be one thing all the time or something else all the time. Reality is not that simple. Something can be true in one sense and not true in another so context has to be understood and taken into account. 

This is the case when we talk about truth and objectivity. As I started to say before, truth is nothing more than an assessment we make. There's generally two different types of truth; I'll label them internal and external.

Both types of truth follow the same process; it's a comparison between a statement and on object. If the two match, we call that true. If not we call it false. The difference between internal and external is what we are comparing the statement to.

External truth is when a statement is compared to reality. i.e. "the earth is flat". To address this statement we recognize the definitions of earth and flat, form a concept of it, and then check that concept against reality to see if it matches.

Internal truths are when a statement matches to it's own premises. If we're playing basketball and I score more points than you I win. The statement is true because the premises include the fact that the person who scores more points wins.

External truths are objective, full stop. Internal truths are only objective within their own premises, but the premises can be changed. There is nothing that says the person who scores the most points wins, that's a human construct so it can change and in fact we have invented many games where the opposite is true. It is whatever we say it is.

Before I continue, what part of this do you not understand or take issue with?

So if someone were to assess that the earth was flat does that make it true?
It does in their mind, but reality says otherwise, at least according to my mind and I'm willing to bet yours.

The fact that a statement is objectively true does not mean every person will believe it.
#827
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
It does in their mind, but reality says otherwise, at least according to my mind and I'm willing to bet yours.

The fact that a statement is objectively true does not mean every person will believe it.
Let’s look at what is objectively true about you taken from the information you  provided about yourself in your profile.
 You are objectively unknown in ever aspect of your life.

#828
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
The first is me explaining that "well being" by itself is neither true or false because it's not a claim
No, but saying we should all value it is.

Regarding the second sentence, you asked me whether it is obviously true that we should care about other people and I replied "it is to me". That is a very simple way of saying it is in my subjective opinion. English 101.
But you didn’t just say “it is to me” you said “Does that really need explaining?” As if it’s such an objective common sense notion that the question shouldn’t even be asked in the first place meaning you expected that notion from me, but that expectation should be in regards to objective facts not subjective opinions, subjective opinions have nothing to do with common sense.

reality says otherwise
Which is what truth is in regards to, not an assessment an ignorant mind makes (e.g. the earth is flat) like you said before.
#829
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
But you didn’t just say “it is to me” you said “Does that really need explaining?” As if it’s such an objective common sense notion that the question shouldn’t even be asked in the first place meaning you expected that notion from me, but that expectation should be in regards to objective facts not subjective opinions, subjective opinions have nothing to do with common sense.
How does common sense become objective opinions?
#830
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
How does common sense become objective opinions?
They don’t.
#831
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
--> @Shila
How does common sense become objective opinions?
They don’t.
According you your earlier post, you said: expectation should be in regards to objective facts not subjective opinions, subjective opinions have nothing to do with common sense.

This implies common sense  is not subjective opinions therefore it must be objective opinions.
#832
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
This implies common sense  is not subjective opinions therefore it must be objective opinions.
No, it implies it must be objective fact.

#833
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
-> @Shila
This implies common sense  is not subjective opinions therefore it must be objective facts.
No, it implies it must be objective fact.
Correct, fixed typo.

#834
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Regarding the second sentence, you asked me whether it is obviously true that we should care about other people and I replied "it is to me". That is a very simple way of saying it is in my subjective opinion. English 101.
But you didn’t just say “it is to me” you said “Does that really need explaining?”

10.13.2022 12:40PM
“I choose well being as my standard because that’s what I value.”
Why?

10.13.2022 6:35PM
Because I care about other people. Does that really need explaining?

10.13.2022 11:15PM
“Does that really need explaining?”
Why? Because it’s so obviously true that we should care for other people?

10.14.2022 8:18AM
It is to me. I am well aware that many people don't, but not even those individuals would consider themselves moral.

You started the conversation off by asking me why I value well being, which is a silly question so I responded by explaining why and asked you if I really needed it to be explained. It was basically me asking you if you're being serious.

This is really simple stuff, you would understand it easily if you stop listening for trigger words and start paying attention to the actual conversation.

The first is me explaining that "well being" by itself is neither true or false because it's not a claim
No, but saying we should all value it is.
I never "claimed" we should all value it in any kind of a true/false sense. I gave you my opinion which I expressed purely as an opinion.

Moreover, you are once again jumbling two different conversations together. All I was saying there is that "well being" is not a claim. For you to take that, make up the rest of the claim and then pretend I said it is blatantly dishonest.

So for the last time; "well being" is my standard for morality. "Well being" is not a true nor false statement, it is simply a concept that I am pointing to. Because it is my standard, and is not a claim, my standard is neither true nor false and by extension, any moral claim that follows from it will never be objective since the standard itself will never be true nor false.

Now repeat everything I just said and substitute "God" in for "well being" and we have the problem with your morality as well.

As if it’s such an objective common sense notion that the question shouldn’t even be asked in the first place meaning you expected that notion from me, but that expectation should be in regards to objective facts not subjective opinions, subjective opinions have nothing to do with common sense.
It is your perogative to not care about other people, but if that's the case then you are a sociopath so discussing morality with you is a waste of time.

reality says otherwise
Which is what truth is in regards to, not an assessment an ignorant mind makes (e.g. the earth is flat) like you said before.
I just explained this. Did you read it?

Truth is an assessment. There is no way around that. Without a mind doing the assessing there are no concepts to consider nor any assertion of truth to be made.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. A lack of knowledge does not change the fact that an assessment is being made nor does it impact the truth value of the assessment being made.

Asserting someone else's ignorance is you're own assessment. Doesn't make it true.

This is all really basic stuff.
#835
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
so, FUNCTIONALLY each person needs to figure out FOR THEMSELVES what they believe is "right" and what is "wrong" ?
Yes, if what they believe aligns with God.
how do we know what "god" wants ?
#836
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
which is a silly question
What about that question is silly?

It is your perogative to not care about other people, but if that's the case then you are a sociopath so discussing morality with you is a waste of time.
Is that another “opinion” your expressing because opinions in debates is the literal example of a waste of time.

Truth is an assessment. There is no way around that.
But there’s truth pertaining to the creator of the first mind.

A lack of knowledge does not change the fact that an assessment is being made nor does it impact the truth value of the assessment being made.
Yes it does, it’s called an untruthful assessment.
#837
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Tarik
so, FUNCTIONALLY each person needs to figure out FOR THEMSELVES what they believe is "right" and what is "wrong" ?
Yes, if what they believe aligns with God.
how do we know what "god" wants ?
John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
#838
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
oh, good

now we can just throw all the haters in prison
#839
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
which is a silly question
What about that question is silly?
I'm not about to sit here and explain to you or anyone else why I value the well being of other people. If you value it as well then you don't need it explained. If not then you're a sociopath and therefore not worth this conversation.

Sometimes when we talk about these things, the most basic of assumptions are challenged in order to make a deeper philosophical point. If you have such point here then stop wasting time and explain it.

It is your perogative to not care about other people, but if that's the case then you are a sociopath so discussing morality with you is a waste of time.
Is that another “opinion” your expressing
No, it's the definition. Look it up.

Truth is an assessment. There is no way around that.
But there’s truth pertaining to the creator of the first mind.
That has nothing to do with anything I've said.


A lack of knowledge does not change the fact that an assessment is being made nor does it impact the truth value of the assessment being made.
Yes it does, it’s called an untruthful assessment.
No, it doesn't. Ignorance is a description of one's mental state. Truth pertains to a claim being made. Those are two completely different things. Einstein was wrong about a lot of things, and even Trump is right sometimes.

This is really basic stuff.
#840
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
oh, good

now we can just throw all the haters in prison
How can there be haters if we all love one another. Even the haters will be loved.

This must all be very foreign to you. But that is what John 13:34 says.