Secular humanism Secular humanism focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives. It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or Godit neither assumes humans to be inherently evil or innately goodnor presents humans as "above nature" or superior to it. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions.
April 22, at 8: What you despise—unscientifically and anti-philosophically—is the ability of human reason to arrive at knowledge that is not accessible to the five primary senses… even while you depend on such things all the time.
While all knowledge comes through the senses, not all knowledge is sensory knowledge. We reject to your face your Hobbesian-inspired worldview where all are at war with all—animated by the unscientific and anti-philosophical claim that there is no universal human nature, and therefore no universal moral law, and therefore there is no possibility of a general conversation regarding the future of mankind.
Christians are far more capable of defending certain moral objectives including universal human rights than radical skeptics and naturalists are of defending religions freedom, freedom of speech, and other basic human rights. Because Christians defend the prerogatives of reason, we can far better defend democracy against irrational and often violent religion jihadism than the skeptic or moral relativist for whom the claims of reason are a mere cultural construct.
That is what science writ large is all about: You naturalists a priori limit knowledge to sensory knowledge.
Critical thinkers are expansive: If you want to discount the efficacy of moral philosophy or metaphysics simply because they fail your self-serving preconceived notions of how the world should be, then by all means flail yourselves into non-critical thinking bliss.
April 22, at 9: To a certain extent, I agree, at least to the extent that we are discussing evidence in the context of conversation and mutual persuasion. I cannot count as my own evidence any private subjective experience you might have, nor can you count my private subjective experience as your own evidence.
What you despise—unscientifically and anti-philosophically—is the ability of human reason to arrive at knowledge that is not accessible to the five primary senses… It seems both uncharitable and presumptuous for you to tell me what I despise.
Note that universal differs from objectively true: And many communists, myself included, consider specific objective physical circumstances, such as economic exploitation and political oppression, to be universally objectionable.
We reject to your face… Reject as you please. Argue if you can. Having studied apologetic arguments for a decade, I have seen no such sound argument. Offer such an argument, and I will examine it carefully on its own merits.
I eagerly await your demonstration. If you consider my views inherently unserious, there seems no reason to consider present the presumption of good will and sincerity necessary to conduct a civilized conversation.
Should you wish to venture an actual argument, to be considered on its own merits, I will be more than happy to respond substantively. April 23, at First, I should have qualified my mention of theistic hindus. My understanding of some schools of hinduism is that there is simply one God — Brahman.
Any other god is not an actual separate entity, but just some manifestation of an aspect of this god, who is personal in nature.
There are absolutely, positively differences between the religions. Limited beings that we know are in abundance — no mere man is utterly singular, in their own class distinct from all other men. A person who is talking about, say. Even in that case I think there are going to be strong points of agreement between faiths, but clearly an anthropic, created, drastically limited entity is nothing at all like the Gods otherwise in agreement.
No, not every god would qualify. And, forgive my lack of proper capitalization.Thinking Christian To Build Your Understanding, To Build Your Faith. Against Smug Atheism Against Smug Atheism. May 12, Tom Gilson. To those who think I’m being smugly triumphal here: I believe my analysis is correct.
I think it’s okay to offer a correct analysis, even one that shows that one’s opponent is wrong.
I’m open to. Why do theists think atheists' arguments are offensive when they are purely facts? Update Cancel. Answer Wiki. this page. They are simply answering your challenge. But when atheists go out of their way to challenge the beliefs of Christians, as in questions like this one, Some theists do not believe the arguments of atheists are.
Jul 01, · When atheists and Christians were asked to judge one another, members of the two groups fell back on many of the negative stereotypes that .
Some parents take the view that their children should choose their beliefs for themselves, but what they then do is pass on certain ways of thinking about religion, like the idea that religion is.
Christianity [To theists, but Christians especially] Is analogy an appropriate means of developing understanding within faith-based religions?
(timberdesignmag.comReligion) submitted 1 year ago by -mickomoo-starmaker. This got me thinking about other circumstances where theists (specifically Abrahamic theists, namely Christians) rely on analogies. The number of Christians and cultural strength of Christianity are both declining in the United States.
This decline is noticeable and is affecting church life, culture, and politics.