Yes, you were in error. Isn't it strange that your absolutely real aquaintance (that you positively -did not- make up) made exactly the same error (or didn't - depending - and now there are two of them)? Small world I guess. hrugs:

(September 19, 2014 at 1:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I was in error regarding humanism full stop Agenda. My mistake.

This was Rhythms error:

Quote:LOL, Frodo...that's hedonism..not humanism........ hedonism (and not even ethical hedonism...yuck). I can see how this completely real person that you absolutely didn't make up might confuse the two, they both start with an H.

He accused me of making these two people up. A nonsensical conclusion.

Which JW compounded by responding to my reply of "why would I make them up?!" With:

Quote:I can.only presume stupidity. Anyone stupid enough to confuse humanism with hedonism is stupid enough to invent someone to prove their point.

So the reason that JW thinks I lied (claim) is because I'm stupid (attack).

The main reason I think you made them up is because I don't think anyone who calls themself a humanist would be stupid enough to confuse humanism with hedonism, and vice versa.

Tbh I think you come across as stupid either way. Even if you didn't make the two people up ,you still based your rant against humanism on hearsay and didn't bother to check your sources first. And I dont believe an intelligent person would've done this either.

I honestly don't see a way out of this for you, without coming across as stupid. Sometimes, when in a hole, its best to.stop digging.

(September 20, 2014 at 1:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, you were in error. Isn't it strange that your absolutely real aquaintance (that you positively -did not- make up) made exactly the same error (or didn't - depending - and now there are two of them)? Small world I guess. hrugs:

What are you talking about now lol

---

Hey JW

I did check first and mentioned the humanism described. If you notice I stopped digging immediately and admitted my mistake. I accused you of an ad-hom attack which seems to be solid. It's you welding the shovel right now.

You don't dig holes with a shovel, you dog holes with a spade...

Dog holes? Do I want to know?

This question is entirely reliant on your own morals, as you ask it in the context of whether or not Christians can be relied upon to "arrive at commendable moral convictions." In this way you're are asking whether or not a Christian can have moral convictions that are commendable in your opinion which as a self-described anti-theist isn't often likely, and is rather self-evident.

The only other context for your question is that there is some form of universal law of morality, which would then have to be defined, which you have not done, thereby making the question unanswerable.

As to your question of whether or not Christians can "ponder deeply the different difficult moral dilemmas or social conflicts that often throw themselves at humanity" I would answer yes, though pondering a moral dilemma deeply would not have to necessitate a conclusion different to those presented in Christianity. I would also say that Christians themselves would say that it is not always necessary to do so, as they would answer that in some situations a morally correct course of action is apparent due to our inherent knowledge of what is right or wrong.

I admit that I have difficulty in seeing the sense of this question, as it is entirely based upon morals, which you cannot judge people upon (let alone whole groups) unless based upon a universal moral foundation, something that I don't see can exist from the viewpoint of an anti-theist, as what is right or wrong is surely by your logic, a matter of opinion.

Universal moral standards are not required, only a set shared between an anti-theist and a christian and specific to the issue in question. It's often the case that the two people (or groups, concieved as such) -do share- that set, and will agree to the terms....but that the set is subverted specifically in the case of their christianity and the demands made by that faith upon their morality. I have a favorite fulcrum upon which to observe that little dilemma play out: see below.

(September 23, 2014 at 12:42 pm)nalsA Wrote: The only other context for your question is that there is some form of universal law of morality, which would then have to be defined, which you have not done, thereby making the question unanswerable.

Morality is universal in the sense that there are objective conditions (i.e. the world) upon which human beings can increase their sense of happiness, comfort, pleasure, etc., or vice versa, enhance their misery, suffering, decrease their freedom, etc. Of course, particularities will differ but that's where discussions within a framework of rational humanism, along with experience, can allow for a better morality to emerge, as opposed to an absolutist's dogma declared via revelation. Generally when, for example, we see someone stabbing themselves in the name of "pleasure," we agree that they're not a person who is acting rational, so if you want to appeal to special cases such as that, I don't think you'll find any problems in this discussion that are exclusive to moral issues.

Quote:inherent knowledge of what is right or wrong.

Based on a rationale that puts the well-being of persons first or some rash ideal dictated by an imagined being?

Quote:I admit that I have difficulty in seeing the sense of this question, as it is entirely based upon morals, which you cannot judge people upon (let alone whole groups) unless based upon a universal moral foundation, something that I don't see can exist from the viewpoint of an anti-theist, as what is right or wrong is surely by your logic, a matter of opinion.

Once you agree that it's better to exist in a state of freedom, security, and happiness, as opposed to torture, oppression, and fear, then it's really quite sensible to talk about morality in terms of an objective logic in the same manner that one speaks of arithmetic. Of course, if you deny the first premise, and declare your enjoyment for self-mutilation, it's fair to say you'll probably find as many allies as you would if you were to insist that twice two equals five.

(September 22, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Dog holes? Do I want to know?

Keep him away from my bitch!

IMG_5294

(September 23, 2014 at 12:42 pm)nalsA Wrote: This question is entirely reliant on your own morals, as you ask it in the context of whether or not Christians can be relied upon to "arrive at commendable moral convictions." In this way you're are asking whether or not a Christian can have moral convictions that are commendable in your opinion which as a self-described anti-theist isn't often likely, and is rather self-evident.

Actually, the question relies on humanist morals.

That context has been made clear in the OP. Arguing whether or not the morals dictated by humanism are universal would be a different issue.