Hey guys, just wanted to share a message I came across


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zI_RNE5smw

The video features Michael Ramsden responding to the definition of humanism as the new religion of a post-modern Europe, Michael quotes Prof John Gray to say that a truly secular worldview does not permit the hope of humanism; humanism, says Gray, is simply the Christian faith delivered in secular terms.

Give it a look and tell me what you think.

Mr_Anony: Hey guys, just wanted to share a message I came across


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zI_RNE5smw

The video features Michael Ramsden responding to the definition of humanism as the new religion of a post-modern Europe, Michael quotes Prof John Gray to say that a truly secular worldview does not permit the hope of humanism; humanism, says Gray, is simply the Christian faith delivered in secular terms.

Give it a look and tell me what you think.

I AINT ABOUT TO WATCH NO EDOMITE HEATHEN TELL ME ABOUT GOD. THATS LIKE BUYING EBA FROM A CHINESE RESTAURANT LOL

Mr_Anony:

Give it a look and tell me what you think.

why ask what people think when you "know" and you are "fully convinced" that morality is not possible without Yahweh.

buddhists who are good are only good because of christian values.

atheists who are good are only good because of christian values.

muslims who are good are only good because of christian values.

anything good can only come from christian values.

some christians are bad because they dont follow the christian values.

thats what i "think" and nobody can convince me otherwise. no way


are you satisfied now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

cyrexx:

why ask what people think when you "know" and you are "fully convinced" that morality is not possible without Yahweh.

buddhists who are good are only good because of christian values.

atheists who are good are only good because of christian values.

muslims who are good are only good because of christian values.

anything good can only come from christian values.

some christians are bad because they dont follow the christian values.

thats what i "think" and nobody can convince me otherwise. no way


are you satisfied now?

the irony is that you really are no better. If the above was flipped 180 degrees you would be guilty of the same bias and myopia.

davidylan:

the irony is that you really are no better. If the above was flipped 180 degrees you would be guilty of the same bias and myopia.

the usual 'if they are right, i accuse them of the same' technique.... classic...

buzugee: I AINT ABOUT TO WATCH NO EDOMITE HEATHEN TELL ME ABOUT GOD. THATS LIKE BUYING EBA FROM A CHINESE RESTAURANT LOL

Oh racist you

cyrexx:

why ask what people think when you "know" and you are "fully convinced" that morality is not possible without Yahweh.

buddhists who are good are only good because of christian values.

atheists who are good are only good because of christian values.

muslims who are good are only good because of christian values.

anything good can only come from christian values.

some christians are bad because they dont follow the christian values.

thats what i "think" and nobody can convince me otherwise. no way


are you satisfied now?

I would have preferred that you had watched the video instead

musKeeto:
the usual 'if they are right, i accuse them of the same' technique.... classic...

For starters, i didnt think cyrexx was right. sometimes its much easier to point out the glaring hypocrisy in a lot of the nonsense atheists spew than to bother dissecting the posts.

cyrexx:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

This is a great series.

Mr_Anony:

I would have preferred that you had watched the video instead

What made you think i've not watched the video.

i watched it and my responses were based on what i saw in the video.

you on the other hand, i dont think you watched the video i posted in response to your video, cos the video might be from a "bogus" person if it contains what you dont like.

Before Christianity there was morality, not so?

turnstoner: Before Christianity there was morality, not so?

and you know this how?

You ever heard of history books? Go read some, my friend!

cyrexx:

What made you think i've not watched the video.

i watched it and my responses were based on what i saw in the video.

you on the other hand, i dont think you watched the video i posted in response to your video, cos the video might be from a "bogus" person if it contains what you dont like.

Hmm, It was because I saw your responses and your video that convinced me that you didn't watch the original video or perhaps you didn't understand it at all and just posted what you felt would be an appropriate reply. Anyway that's fine, even more amusing is how you throw in the word "bogus" apparently, you are still nursing some wounds from a previous thread.
I was expecting a better debate from you I was hoping you would question the positions of Michael Ramsden and especially professor John Gray being that he is an atheist who doesn't believe that secular humanism logically follows from atheism.

I was expecting a proper informed and knowledgeable debate from you but all I got was a video that doesn't really relate to the topic and sarcastic reply based on your biases and who you suppose me to be. It is alright, you don't have to debate it or comment but I am afraid that the more I encounter you, the more I see a man who has replaced one version of blind faith with another version blind faith.

Don't be a fanatic I beg you. Sit back and properly reason your position. Search for the truth because when you have found it, no one will be able to take it away from you + you will have a ready answer to anyone who asks you about it....because you will know it deep down to be true.

All the best.

Mr_Anony:

Don't be a fanatic I beg you. Sit back and properly reason your position. Search for the truth because when you have found it, no one will be able to take it away from you + you will have a ready answer to anyone who asks you about it....because you will know it deep down to be true.

All the best.

I am yet to see you give any ready or meaningful answer to any question that is being asked of you here. . .By the way truth is relative, no?. . .Your truth is someone else lie. . .And your lie is some one else truth. . .

Mr_Anony:

I was expecting a better debate from you I was hoping you would question the positions of Michael Ramsden and especially professor John Gray being that he is an atheist who doesn't believe that secular humanism logically follows from atheism.

So one man's opinion which is faulty and baseless in my opinion should be held sacred?. . .His opinion isn't sound. . .

davidylan:

For starters, i didnt think cyrexx was right. sometimes its much easier to point out the glaring hypocrisy in a lot of the nonsense atheists spew than to bother dissecting the posts.

This!
+1
QFT!

I have been saying (and even doing) this for some time; sometimes you wonder why it is worthwhile to school them properly on some things rather leave them in their ignorance or self-delusion; in fact sometimes the reason for responding to them is for the sake of others (rather than themselves) or for some other worthwhile transcending reason.

Mr_Anony: Hey guys, just wanted to share a message I came across


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zI_RNE5smw

The video features Michael Ramsden responding to the definition of humanism as the new religion of a post-modern Europe, Michael quotes Prof John Gray to say that a truly secular worldview does not permit the hope of humanism; humanism, says Gray, is simply the Christian faith delivered in secular terms.

Give it a look and tell me what you think.

Why does humanism have to be a total repudiation of Christianity to be valid? But, then, I have not watched the video.

Mr_Anony:
Hmm, It was because I saw your responses and your video that convinced me that you didn't watch the original video or perhaps you didn't understand it at all and just posted what you felt would be an appropriate reply. Anyway that's fine, even more amusing is how you throw in the word "bogus" apparently, you are still nursing some wounds from a previous thread.
I was expecting a better debate from you I was hoping you would question the positions of Michael Ramsden and especially professor John Gray being that he is an atheist who doesn't believe that secular humanism logically follows from atheism.

I was expecting a proper informed and knowledgeable debate from you but all I got was a video that doesn't really relate to the topic and sarcastic reply based on your biases and who you suppose me to be. It is alright, you don't have to debate it or comment but I am afraid that the more I encounter you, the more I see a man who has replaced one version of blind faith with another version blind faith.

Don't be a fanatic I beg you. Sit back and properly reason your position. Search for the truth because when you have found it, no one will be able to take it away from you + you will have a ready answer to anyone who asks you about it....because you will know it deep down to be true.

All the best.

I guess what you think you know, IS the truth, right?

mazaje:

I am yet to see you give any ready or meaningful answer to any question that is being asked of you here. . .By the way truth is relative, no?. . .Your truth is someone else lie. . .And your lie is some one else truth. . .

Lol, this is where I disagree with you: truth is never relative. Truth is always independent of personal opinion. Perhaps, the reason you don't accept an answer as meaningful is because you don't even know what meaning is since everything for you is based on relative opinions but that's by the way, let's move on.

mazaje:
So one man's opinion which is faulty and baseless in my opinion should be held sacred?. . .His opinion isn't sound. . .

Here comes your dilemma: How can you know for sure if his opinion is sound or not when all you have are your own opinions which which other people also consider not to be sound? I'll leave that as an aside for now.

Let me hear your thoughts on the matter: Why is John Gray's stance faulty?

MyJoe:
Why does humanism have to be a total repudiation of Christianity to be valid? But, then, I have not watched the video.

Perhaps you should just watch the video

rhymz: I guess what you think you know, IS the truth, right?

Yes I am sure of it.

....By the way long time no see. You left our "Jesus vs Paul" thread and ran away. How far you?

davidylan:

and you know this how?

was there any need to ask this question mr itk?

Mr_Anony: Hey guys, just wanted to share a message I came across
. . . .
The video features Michael Ramsden responding to the definition of humanism as the new religion of a post-modern Europe, Michael quotes Prof John Gray to say that a truly secular worldview does not permit the hope of humanism; humanism, says Gray, is simply the Christian faith delivered in secular terms.

Give it a look and tell me what you think.

This is similar to something I said on this forum fairly recently and is a position I had held for some time independently of Gray's work; much of the so-called "values" or "morality" that "secular" humanism seeks to espouse is borrowed (and/or adapted) from the very same much vilified Christianity specifically and religion in general.

As John Gray said (and see my current signature): "To insist that religion is peculiarly malignant is fanaticism, or mere stupidity."

Mr_Anony:
Lol, this is where I disagree with you: truth is never relative. Truth is always independent of personal opinion. Perhaps, the reason you don't accept an answer as meaningful is because you don't even know what meaning is since everything for you is based on relative opinions but that's by the way, let's move on.

the only truth independent of personal opinion is SCIENCE. Do you want to disagree?

Enigma:

This is similar to something I said on this forum fairly recently and is a position I had held for some time independently of Gray's work; much of the so-called "values" or "morality" that "secular" humanism seeks to espouse is borrowed (and/or adapted) from the very same much vilified Christianity specifically and religion in general.

As John Gray said (and see my signature): "To insist that religion is peculiarly malignant is fanaticism, or mere stupidity."

Word!

diluminati:
the only truth independent of personal opinion is SCIENCE. Do you want to disagree?

I don't disagree. But the point is that science is a method for finding truth and not a statement of truth itself. Methods of finding truth are mathematics, logic and science. Truth is the conclusion.

Basically, logic in it's many forms is our best method of arriving at the truth.

cyrexx:

why ask what people think when you "know" and you are "fully convinced" that morality is not possible without Yahweh.

buddhists who are good are only good because of christian values.

atheists who are good are only good because of christian values.

muslims who are good are only good because of christian values.

anything good can only come from christian values.

some christians are bad because they dont follow the christian values.

thats what i "think" and nobody can convince me otherwise. no way


are you satisfied now?

You may have watched the video but you rather choose to take it completely from a biased standpoint, I was gonna reply to you to say you didn't watch the video but then i thought maybe, just maybe you did watch it and that probably i'm the one missing something, so i had to watch the video a second time and i see the context of your reply which is that professor john gray accuses humanists of believing & practicing christian values, he even accuses richard dawkings of same. But your conclusions are biased because somehow you have resolved that it was @Anony's ulterior motive here, to use the words of a renowned atheist to propagate the christian point of view, thus you have failed to grasp the ultimate message of the presentation which is a challenge to christians or anybody for that matter who holds any conviction, whether they are willing to be tested by such convictions(at least that's what i got from it).

On another point, I watched your video, it was interesting, infact i enjoyed it and have gone ahead to subscribe to that channel so i can watch it's other videos in another time. So while i'm a christian, i'm not afraid to listen to any message objectively because my christianity permits(infact mandates) me to do so, I know how to be open and i'd encourage you try same.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, this is where I disagree with you: truth is never relative. Truth is always independent of personal opinion. Perhaps, the reason you don't accept an answer as meaningful is because you don't even know what meaning is since everything for you is based on relative opinions but that's by the way, let's move on.

Lets cut the all the chase here, we are talking about religious "truth" here arent we?. . .It is always based on personal opinion and that is a fact. . .When it comes to religion EVERYTHING is relative and based on opinions and counter opinions. . .

Here comes your dilemma: How can you know for sure if his opinion is sound or not when all you have are your own opinions which which other people also consider not to be sound? I'll leave that as an aside for now.

Let me hear your thoughts on the matter: Why is John Gray's stance faulty?

He claims that a truly secular worldview does not permit the hope of humanism; humanism, says Gray, is simply the Christian faith delivered in secular terms. This is completely false and has no evidence to support it. . .All world views are a creation of humans and as such his premise is false. . .

Your best bet for arriving at truths is by empirical enquiry (science). Not just logic. Logic alone is not always self evident

okeyxyz:

You may have watched the video but you rather choose to take it completely from a biased standpoint, I was gonna reply to you to say you didn't watch the video but then i thought maybe, just maybe you did watch it and that probably i'm the one missing something, so i had to watch the video a second time and i see the context of your reply which is that professor john gray accuses humanists of believing & practicing christian values, he even accuses richard dawkings of same. But your conclusions are biased because somehow you have resolved that it was @Anony's ulterior motive here, to use the words of a renowned atheist to propagate the christian point of view, thus you have failed to grasp the ultimate message of the presentation which is a challenge to christians or anybody for that matter who holds any conviction, whether they are willing to be tested by such convictions(at least that's what i got from it).

On another point, I watched your video, it was interesting, infact i enjoyed it and have gone ahead to subscribe to that channel so i can watch it's other videos in another time. So while i'm a christian, i'm not afraid to listen to any message objectively because my christianity permits(infact mandates) me to do so, I know how to be open and i'd encourage you try same.

Thank you very much and point noted:

but to really get the gist of my reply, you need to understand many of my past conversations/debates with Mr Anony. i wish many more christians will be like you in that you are willing to listen and consider your opponent's point of view, even if eventually you disagree with them. What other christians want is to demand that you agree with them or you are in error, like the hookline-and-sinker approach in their places of worship. it can be annoying sometimes. Mr Anony especially approaches you like "you are wrong and i am right" everytime you present a case to him. he will ignore all your points and demand that you agree to all his points in a crusade that he alone has the truth and anything that contradicts hims must be a falsehood.

i think you understand me better now. but let me not derail the thread and leave these "righteous" christians to keep calling the humanist's bluff while blocking their ears to understand what humanist really stands for.

cheers.