1. We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.
    Dismiss Notice

Humanism and Death

Discussion in 'General Talk' started by CTZonEdit, Mar 26, 2014.

  1. CTZonEdit

    CTZonEdit Site Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    294


    Humanism is an interesting belief system in that it attempts to be "non-religious" while at the same time suggesting what it believes to be "right" and "wrong" for humanity and the appropriate way we should look at ourselves.

    So how do they come to the knowledge of what is "right" and "wrong"?

    The video says that we don't know what happens after death. That there is no proof of life after death. How do they know?
     
  2. roman8

    roman8 Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    74
    Gender:
    Female
    I like the quote by Ken Ham when debating Bill Nye, whenever Mr. Nye suggested that " Well we just dont know" Ken would reply " Well Bill there is a Book"

    They do not know what is right or wrong without God, their right and wrong will change , Gods word remains the same.
     
  3. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Interestingly, Atheism, which includes Humanism, fits the definition of 'religion' and the Supreme Court has declared Atheism a religion.

    How can you know what is not if you do not know what is, concerning death? Sure sounds like a faith statement to me!
     
  4. xhacker

    xhacker Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Female
    Morals without God is an interesting topic.

    Humanism puts it relativistic flag in the ground at humans, and then from there defines its objective morality.

    Put basically, most humans have three basic desires:

    1) Humans generally prefer to be alive than dead.
    2) Humans generally prefer to be healthy rather then ill.
    3) Humans generally prefer to be happy than sad.

    The interaction of these three basic wants leads us in our moral direction.

    Therefore with this moral system we can then make objective moral statements about now and the past. For example slavery, rape and murder are objectively morally wrong whether now or in the past, however acceptable they have been in certain time periods.

    A deity driven moral system puts it relativistic flag at the feet of the deity. Therefore what the deity describes as right or wrong is what the objective moral code is derived from.

    On death, we can only really speculate on what we observe, currently 155,000 people die a day. The observable evidence is that they all stayed dead. There have been historical figures that people have claimed to have returned from the dead, noticeably Jesus and Mithras (both rising up on third day). Both stories have problems. Firstly there is no-one alive who observed those events, secondly the people who recorded those events where not doing it first hand. The gospel writers where not the disciples, in fact no one knows who they were. The only salient facts from the gospels is they were written at least 40 years after the event, Mark was the first, and the other gospel writers largely plagiarized from him.

    The observable evidence strongly suggests when you die you stay dead, it may not be what you want to hear, but that sadly is irreverent (as far as facts go).
     
  5. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Atheism is relative to the time in which one lives. It is never objective, it is subjective to the feelings, wants and desires of the time, society, etc.

    When slavery was acceptable, it was moral. If the conqueror, the conquered wealth belongs to you, including their women, etc. If the conquered, you belong to the victor.

    Proof does not require a witness to be alive. No historian, etc will accept that demand.

    What is relevant to Christ is enemies of Judaism and Christ gave written testimony to the reality. No one did for Mithas.

    Sorry, but the writers were actually the Apostles or their disciples. You also have multiple writers agreeing with each other. Non Biblical and non Christian evidence is supportive as well. Manuscripts have long disproven the claim of being written well later.

    Also, the argument of no living contemporary witnesses to the writing must also be applied to the claim of being written much later. You cannot have two disparent claims for the purpose of supporting one claim and disproving another.

    Atheist make a lot of negative proof claims and demands. Nowhere in debate, court, logic, etc are negative claims acceptable as being proof of anything.

    Atheists make a lot of claims based on faith, not fact and without evidence.

    Far too many people have experienced things that are outside the realm of our physical reality to dismiss the spiritual.
     
  6. Jessie

    Jessie Pro Poster

    Messages:
    394
    I think phillipians 3:19 decribes it.
     
  7. xhacker

    xhacker Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Female
    You need to show some examples where bible historians agree the gospel writers were the apostles, i'm afraid the consensus is very much that no-one knows who the writers were, but they were almost certainly not one the apostles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

    Atheism and humanism are two different things. Atheism is simply stating that the evidence provided for the existence of gods/the super-natural is not strong enough to be accepted. In the same way it is up to someone who claims bigfoot exists to give evidence that such a creature exists, it not up to everyone else to prove bigfoot does not exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

    Your example of slavery being ok at some point, is the exact definition of relative morality. With humanism slavery has always been wrong, because it is objective to humans.
     
  8. xhacker

    xhacker Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Female
    I think you need to expand your reply a little more Jessie, im not sure how that applies to me.
     
  9. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, humanists are atheists.

    Your link is concerning people making declarations based on their own thoughts and opinions. I have listened to their presentations and debates in the past and they never offered any evidence backing their claims.

    As for evidence:
    http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...The_Historical_Reliability_of_the_Gospels.htm
    http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
    http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/geisler1.html

    No other historical data scratches the depth of proof for the Bible. I you reject the Bible you have to reject all of ancient history.
     
  10. CTZonEdit

    CTZonEdit Site Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    294
    I'll add a link as well:
    Were the Miracles of Jesus invented by the Disciples/Evangelists?

     
  11. xhacker

    xhacker Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Female
    Thanks for the links Core.

    Though some of their assertions are interesting, none of them say outright who wrote the gospels. This is of course because no one knows.

    There were a few logical fallacies :

    1) Just because a manuscript has been copied many times does not make it any more reliable. The Koran had been copied many times as well, this does not mean it is right.
    2) You cannot compare the claims of the gospels to other historic events. Why? Well if you compare say Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon river, there is nothing in that claim that says Julius Caesar did anything unusual. We are simply placing a historic character (that is referenced in thousands of other documents) at a geographical point (that people agree exists). The gospels are claiming supernatural events that are never repeated again. In fact worse than that there has never been a verifiable supernatural event (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html). Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

    We all apply this logic; if I claimed i saw a yellow car while cycling to work, very few people would argue with this assertion. If claimed i saw a yellow dragon while cycling to work, then people would question far more thoroughly my assertion - why? - because its far less likely to have happened. People would expect far more evidence for yellow dragons than yellow cars.
     
  12. xhacker

    xhacker Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Female
    I honestly dont know how you judge miracles (does anyone?). Certainly we can perform scientific 'miracles', that far out weigh anything in the NT.
     
  13. CTZonEdit

    CTZonEdit Site Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    294
    Dragons are mythical creatures.

    The Gospels are not myth. They are categorically ancient biographies.

    Were the Miracles of Jesus invented by the Disciples/Evangelists?

     
  14. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
     
  15. xhacker

    xhacker Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Female
    The Koran was written down during the life time of the Muhammad under his own supervision. But it was not in book form. It was written on different materials. It was first compiled in book form during the reign of Abu Bakr (632 - 634 AD) - Muhammad died in 632.

    I really think its pushing it to say the Bible thought the earth wasn't flat, if that is so, its hard to understand why the bible makes a number of references to the 'Four corners of the earth' - something a spherical planet does not have.

    BTW the earth was shown to be spherical in the 3rd century BC through Hellenistic astronomy; although Greek philosophy had speculated on this as early as the 6th century BC.
     
  16. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran

    The history of the Koran is chaotic, changing and unproven. There is no comparison with the history of the Bible and its manuscripts, which are consistent. unlike the Koran.

    I could have phrased the "600" statement better. Sorry.

    As for the BC on the earth being round, I am fully aware of that. I was talking Europe under the Catholics. As you say, it was speculation, not fact.

    On the four corners of the earth in the Bible, that is not an issue. "earth," means the dry land, not the whole planet. As science agrees the planet had one land mass only in ancient times. It indeed had four corners point to the compass points. The land was divided in the time of Peleg, Genesis 11, I believe.

    Job 26:10 and Isaiah 40:22 say round, not square.

    All that predates Pythagoras.
     
  17. Jessie

    Jessie Pro Poster

    Messages:
    394
  18. xhacker

    xhacker Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Female
    Well at the very least the bible is contradictory:

    Isaiah 11:12
    12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

    Revelation 7:1
    1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

    Job 38:13
    13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

    Jeremiah 16:19
    19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

    Daniel 4:11
    11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

    Matthew 4:8
    8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)
    (Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed. )

    Compared to this one verse:

    "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"

    First of all, a circle is not a ball or sphere or an egg-shaped object. A circle is a flat round surface, similar to flat rectangular, or square, or triangular surfaces. So if the Bible claims that the Earth is a circle, then this is still bogus because the earth is obviously not a flat surface.
     
  19. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it is not.

    First of all, the KJV is not the best translation of the Bible. That is a different discussion.
    Try the NIV:
    Four quarters, not corners.
    In example, the wing of a building is not a corner, but a quadrant.
    I could go on, but the definitions show it does not mean what you are saying.

    In fact, we still use expressions like that today knowing the earth is round.
    Satan is not human or bound by the laws you and I are.
    Well, I gave you two verses as example, not one.
    Look at the horizon, and scan 360, that is a circle. Cut a ball and look at the cut face. It is a circle.

    But you said the earth was square, since you gave it corners. Then the horizon would make a square, not a circle.

    I have never accused the Catholics of reading any other Bible back but their own man made one. In fact, it was a death penalty for anyone but a priest to have any Bible.

    The Bible never says the world was flat. Genesis states God separated the land, not lands, from the water. Science has confirmed there once was only one land mass.

    The Bible also says God divided that one land mass. Science has confirmed that.

    I see nothing other than the Bible got it right.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2014

Share This Page