mazaje:

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. . .

Wrong! Truth is truth, religions are opinions which may be true or untrue. Not everything is relative.

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. . .

I don't think you've watched the video yet. You are only arguing based on the short summary.

Thats true mazaje. Religious truth is based on each mans opinion, its his OWN truth,therefore it cannot be a universal truth but SCIENCE is a universal truth and it evolves. Religious truth is all imaginary, all in your HEAD mr Anony no matter how many verses you quote.

cyrexx:


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 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 humanist really stands for.

cheers.

Oh sorry, Is that how I come across? Oya pele sorry biko.
But bros what do you want me to do na?
If I make statement, you say I am biased and brainwashed.
If I make argument, you say I am using convoluted logic.
If I ask question, you say that the question is meaningless.
If I answer question, you call me artful dodger.

Wetin una wan make I do na? You want me to say that I am wrong when you haven't proven me wrong so that you can be happy? You want me to lie?

Even when I produce produce proof from your own sources, I am still wrong eh bros? What have I done?

Why always me?

Oya bros no vex. just watch the video and comment for us. I promise not to argue with you on this.

diluminati: Thats true mazaje. Religious truth is based on each mans opinion, its his OWN truth,therefore it cannot be a universal truth but SCIENCE is a universal truth and it evolves. Religious truth is all imaginary, all in your HEAD mr Anony no matter how many verses you quote.

I hear you! Thou that hast great knowledge of what is in my head.

.........and just in case you were wondering, the above is not a bible verse....

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

Yes but empirical inquiry can only answer questions based on physical facts. When it comes to answering intangible questions that deal with quality and value, it is powerless. e.g. science cannot answer a question like "What is beauty?"

Science to me is a form of logic.

Mr_Anony:
Wrong! Truth is truth, religions are opinions which may be true or untrue. Not everything is relative.

Religious truths are all opinions. . .

I don't think you've watched the video yet. You are only arguing based on the short summary.

I watched the video, I just wanted to deal with one point at a time. . .

mazaje:

Religious truths are all opinions. . .

Says mazaje's opinion

I watched the video, I just wanted to deal with one point. . .

Incidentally the one point "you just wanted to deal with" was copied verbatim from the video summary pasted here by me. I hear you.

Mr_Anony:
Says mazaje's opinion

Its a fact that religious "truths" are all relative. . .

Incidentally the one point "you just wanted to deal with" was copied verbatim from the video summary pasted here by me. I hear you.

Nothing wrong with that na. . .Abi?

mazaje:
Its a fact that religious "truths" are all relative. . .

Lol, and this "fact" is based on what exactly?

Nothing wrong with that na. . .Abi?

Nothing wrong with that o my brother, the video & summary sef na copypaste

Mr_Anony:
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?

You are sure of what you think or know to be the truth and you argue that truth is not relative, huh? So tell us what is the truth?
By the way, I did not run away from my own thread, I was tired of going round and round with you in circles especially when you started sounding angry and condescending. Anyway, don't derail your own thread by trying to instigate me on issues from another thread cos I could take you on anytime

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.

But on a fact note, Prof John Gray views are deeply and fundamentally flawed here, He assumes to interpret christainity perfectly and therefore assumes to know what attributes are uniquely christian, thus judging that other belief systems cannot practice morality while distancing themselves from christianity. I don't think prof John Gray has ever read the bible in-dept, otherwise he'd know that at no point does christianity ever make claim to be the sole custodian of human righteousness(Humanism), christianity has stated that anybody can attain human righteousness whether or not they believe in christ, they can be atheist, humanist, moslem, Buddhist etc, We are all aware of a sense of right and wrong and capable of adjusting our behaviors to abide by them. The only thing christianity claims absolute propriety over is the principle and significance of Jesus coming to die, in essence putting sin to death and granting god's salvation to anyone who believes in this principle. That is the god-righteousness that christianity claims, not morality. simple.

okeyxyz:

christianity has stated that anybody can attain human righteousness whether or not they believe in christ, they can be atheist, humanist, moslem, Buddhist etc, We are all aware of a sense of right and wrong and capable of adjusting our behaviors to abide by them. The only thing christianity claims absolute propriety over is the principle and significance of Jesus coming to die, in essence putting sin to death and granting god's salvation to anyone who believes in this principle. That is the god-righteousness that christianity claims, not morality. simple.

Mr Okey your arguments are contradictory. You claim that christianity affirms salvation and righteousness whether or not one belives in Jesus Christ; then in another breath you talk about christians' rigid claims to the death and ressurection of christ as a way of eternal atonement and salvation for christians, are you not saying thsame thing?
By the way, I have a little question for you, that is if you are not an atheist by the way;
1. Who was the sole founder of this whole death and resurrection of Jesus christ as a way to attain salvation and atonement for sins; Jesus or Paul?
2. Was Jesus actually God's son in Flesh with thesame nature and power with God or was he like the other prophets or the promised human messiah promised the jews in the prophesies.
3. Since we are talking about truth and what makes a statement the absolute truth; Do you agree that the claims of the bible are absolute truth and not mere written documents by religious men with their agenda.

okeyxyz:

But on a fact note, Prof John Gray views are deeply and fundamentally flawed here, He assumes to interpret christainity perfectly and therefore assumes to know what attributes are uniquely christian, thus judging that other belief systems cannot practice morality while distancing themselves from christianity. I don't think prof John Gray has ever read the bible in-dept, otherwise he'd know that at no point does christianity ever make claim to be the sole custodian of human righteousness(Humanism), christianity has stated that anybody can attain human righteousness whether or not they believe in christ, they can be atheist, humanist, moslem, Buddhist etc, We are all aware of a sense of right and wrong and capable of adjusting our behaviors to abide by them. The only thing christianity claims absolute propriety over is the principle and significance of Jesus coming to die, in essence putting sin to death and granting god's salvation to anyone who believes in this principle. That is the god-righteousness that christianity claims, not morality. simple.

You have missed the entire point of christianity. Christianity holds that Christ is the ONLY way and that ALL who come to Christ will be saved. Humanism adopts all the principles of Christianity but rejects Christ. John Gray's argument is that once you start from an atheistic standpoint, then it doesn't logically follow to define morals based on a theistic standpoint. He says "morality of an atheist cannot be true morality since it becomes something manufactured for people to get along." (paraphrased)

rhymz: Mr Okey your arguments are contradictory. You claim that christianity affirms salvation and righteousness whether or not one belives in Jesus Christ; then in another breath you talk about christians' rigid claims to the death and ressurection of christ as a way of eternal atonement and salvation for christians, are you not saying thsame thing?

You misunderstand. Christian doctrine makes a clear distinction between two forms of righteousness, human righteousness(by works) and god's righteousness(based on death & resurrection of jesus). So while christians also observe morality, it is not what makes one fundamentally a christian. Anybody can be a "good" person in human terms, but that doesn't make you a christian.

rhymz:
By the way, I have a little question for you, that is if you are not an atheist by the way;
1. Who was the sole founder of this whole death and resurrection of Jesus christ as a way to attain salvation and atonement for sins; Jesus or Paul?

Jesus preached it in coded messages(parables), paul revealed it. These messages were coded on purpose to hide jesus's mission(from the devil ) on earth, so if this makes sense to you, the devil did not know that jesus was meant to die, that was god's greatest trick on him.

rhymz:
2. Was Jesus actually God's son in Flesh with thesame nature and power with God or was he like the other prophets or the promised human messiah promised the jews in the prophesies.

He was/is god. He is equal with god, in same quality, size and number!

rhymz:
3. Since we are talking about truth and what makes a statement the absolute truth; Do you agree that the claims of the bible are absolute truth and not mere written documents by religious men with their agenda.

I believe the bible is absolute truth, that is a discipline I hold to myself and any "true christian", I cannot hold you to the same task because it makes no sense(both in the eyes of god and man) asking you to practice what you don't even understand.

Mr_Anony:
You have missed the entire point of christianity. Christianity holds that Christ is the ONLY way and that ALL who come to Christ will be saved. Humanism adopts all the principles of Christianity but rejects Christ. John Gray's argument is that once you start from an atheistic standpoint, then it doesn't logically follow to define morals based on a theistic standpoint. He says "morality of an atheist cannot be true morality since it becomes something manufactured for people to get along." (paraphrased)

@Bolded, True, christ is the only way to the true god and nothing else. Christ is not the only way to morality, thus prof Gray has completely missed it. people of other beliefs can have morality too.

waiting for Mr. Anony to admit he was wrong..
Were there no moral people before Christ?

musKeeto: waiting for Mr. Anony to admit he was wrong..
Were there no moral people before Christ?

he is NEVER wrong.

he will "prove" you wrong now, watch out for it !!

I watched the video and stopped 10 minutes in. The numerous problems in his points are glaring.


1) The basic premise that humanism is from christian values is only partially true and a gross exaggeration. We humans are born with natural instincts- some good some bad. We already have a moral compass. There exists a codified morality/ethics in ALL religions, be they theistsic, athesistic or monotheistic religions. Christianity has helped us in arranging certain moral/ethical principles in the bible, no doubt. However, christianity has some immoral and inhuman values as well (regulating slavery, inequality between women and men etc). Hinduism and Bhuddism have some religious pluralism to them that is not present in christianity (christianity does not accept the morality of an unrepentant unbeliever). Pluralism is central to Humanism.


2)Humanity does not have an equivalent to salvation in Christianity. Humanism does not promise a salvation for all but recognizes the potential of the human race to better if we use our knowledge, reasoning, natural values and freedom ethically.

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

3) The speaker in the video, is using one atheist's opinion as an opinion for all atheists and a profound truth on atheism.

diluminati: Thats true mazaje. Religious truth is based on each mans opinion, its his OWN truth,therefore it cannot be a universal truth but SCIENCE is a universal truth and it evolves. Religious truth is all imaginary, all in your HEAD mr Anony no matter how many verses you quote.

Obviously confirms for me that you truly dont know anything about science.

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

I clearly disagree. There is plenty of "science" out there that is purely personal opinion. You really dont know anything about science do you?

diluminati:
was there any need to ask this question mr itk?

its perfectly ok to say you or others dont know. What do you define as morality and did such exist BEFORE christianity? Please explain.

davidylan:

I clearly disagree. There is plenty of "science" out there that is purely personal opinion. You really dont know anything about science do you?

Science is not personal opinion. You are wrong.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1]

davidylan:

its perfectly ok to say you or others dont know. What do you define as morality and did such exist BEFORE christianity? Please explain.

Didnt your African ancestors have a sense of morality or are you an uncle tom that will accept Jewish morality as universal before even thinking about anything?

MacDaddy01:


Science is not personal opinion. You are wrong.

Much of science starts as personal opinion and a lot of it remains so. You dont know anything about science dumbo.
I give you a quick example - when Darwin wrote on vestigial organs, it was purely personal opinion that had no basis in scientific facts. But it was accepted by most of the scientific world for greater than 50 yrs.

MacDaddy01:


Didnt your African ancestors have a sense of morality or are you an uncle tom that will accept Jewish morality as universal before even thinking about anything?

Define morality.

Besides you're just as bad an uncle Tom who sits around crying about having to accept jewish morality while touting English scientific theories.

davidylan:

Much of science starts as personal opinion and a lot of it remains so. You dont know anything about science dumbo.
I give you a quick example - when Darwin wrote on vestigial organs, it was purely personal opinion that had no basis in scientific facts. But it was accepted by most of the scientific world for greater than 50 yrs.

what do you think science is you dullard? You are using your computer today thats evidence of science in all respect. Show me the evidence a snake actually talked in common language and a chariot of fire can actually take someone to the skies. The science we know that have made life much better is a universal truth and you cant dispute that. I dont need big words to show you your folly.

diluminati:
what do you think science is you dullard? You are using your computer today thats evidence of science in all respect. Show me the evidence a snake actually talked in common language and a chariot of fire can actually take someone to the skies. The science we know that have made life much better is a universal truth and you cant dispute that. I dont need big words to show you your folly.

I just gave you an example of how much of science actually starts out as personal opinion and you went off on an irrelevant rant? smh.

davidylan:

Much of science starts as personal opinion and a lot of it remains so. You dont know anything about science dumbo.
I give you a quick example - when Darwin wrote on vestigial organs, it was purely personal opinion that had no basis in scientific facts. But it was accepted by most of the scientific world for greater than 50 yrs.

"Is". Present tense. Science is not personal opinion. You had to go far back in time to prove your point, not that you did anyway.

MacDaddy01:



"Is". Present tense. Science is not personal opinion. You had to go far back in time to prove your point, not that you did anyway.

Daft... i went as far back as that because it was the easiest example i could find that you or anyone could readily identify with. A lot of the scientific theories that we deal with (i mean scientists who truly work at the bench rather than empty-headed internet jingoists) starts out as personal opinions.

davidylan:

Define morality.

Besides you're just as bad an uncle Tom who sits around crying about having to accept jewish morality while touting English scientific theories.

English scientific theories? As a biologist, shouldnt you know that Mendel and Carl Von Linne were not British or American?

There is no need to define morality. But let's say that morality is a set of principles or norms by which are put up for men to live a better, just life

davidylan:

Daft... i went as far back as that because it was the easiest example i could find that you or anyone could readily identify with. A lot of the scientific theories that we deal with (i mean scientists who truly work at the bench rather than empty-headed internet jingoists) starts out as personal opinions.

@ bolded
Epic Fail. Why couldnt you say that it ends as opinions and give one example

MacDaddy01:


English scientific theories? As a biologist, shouldnt you know that Mendel and Carl Von Linne were not British or American?

There is no need to define morality. But let's say that morality is a set of principles or norms by which are put up for men to live a better, just life

1. I was talking about Darwin in my last response to you before that, which is why i said English.

2. There is now no need to define morality? then you go right ahead to provide a "definition"? Seriously are you ok? It is alright to say your position is completely indefensible. You bleat loudly about how you think our ancestors must have had a form of morality that is similar to what we have today WITHOUT PROOF and you want us to take you seriously?