Mr_Anony:
You see Martian, that stance will only be true if they once believed that a god used to help them but has now disappeared so they now have to help each other. It doesn't follow from a premise where they believe that such a helper god has never existed in the first place.

Huh? really?

If I have always known that no one is going to help me and others, it wouldnt logically follow that I would see myself and others as the ones that have to do the helping? Is that your point?

@anony

Contrary to your biased beliefs, humanism is not centred on the survival of the individual, rather humanity as one unit. Given that it places humanity as the pinacle of reason, defiance to gods and Nature etc.

The ideals and morals of the humanist are very different from Ayn Rand's (which you presume all atheists must subscribe to). The selfishness of the individual is not the goal, despite the self autonomy (same with self definition) given to the individual, but rather acknowledging the uniqueness of the person.

However you can't contemplate humanism outside the society, progress is deemed taken by society, knowledge is deemed useful to society, it is humanity/society that must survive.

A humanist society draws out its ideals and then lays morality in accordance to these goals and that within its knowledge. Altruism is unsurprising one of its greatest virtues.

Kay 17: @anony

Contrary to your biased beliefs, humanism is not centred on the survival of the individual, rather humanity as one unit. Given that it places humanity as the pinacle of reason, defiance to gods and Nature etc.

The ideals and morals of the humanist are very different from Ayn Rand's (which you presume all atheists must subscribe to). The selfishness of the individual is not the goal, despite the self autonomy (same with self definition) given to the individual, but rather acknowledging the uniqueness of the person.

However you can't contemplate humanism outside the society, progress is deemed taken by society, knowledge is deemed useful to society, it is humanity/society that must survive.

A humanist society draws out its ideals and then lays morality in accordance to these goals and that within its knowledge. Altruism is unsurprising one of its greatest virtues.

I see, humanism is not about the individual but humanity as a whole. If this is the case, then altruism sits perfectly in it. What doesn't fit in it now is self autonomy, because a time comes where a person will need to be sacrificed for the collective and it will not help if such an individual should choose not to be sacrificed. Such a person's decision must be overridden for the sake of the 'greater good'

You cannot have it both ways my friend.

Mr_Anony:
You see Martian, that stance will only be true if they once believed that a god used to help them but has now disappeared so they now have to help each other. It doesn't follow from a premise where they believe that such a helper god has never existed in the first place.

Why do you say so?

Mr_Anony:
I see, humanism is not about the individual but humanity as a whole. If this is the case, then altruism sits perfectly in it. What doesn't fit in it now is self autonomy, because a time comes where a person will need to be sacrificed for the collective and it will not help if such an individual should choose not to be sacrificed. Such a person's decision must be overridden for the sake of the 'greater good'

You cannot have it both ways my friend.

You are really playing the fool here. Do you have no shame?

You are trying to claim that embracing both the importance of indviduality and the importance of humanity as a whole are contradictory.


You must be a silly person not to see that individuality is a part of a whole; humanity made up of individuals.

it is like claiming a jigsaw piece is contradictory to the whole puzzle.




It is either

a) You are stup1d
b) You are decietful
c) You are full of hate for humanism


End of story

Martian:

Why do you say so?

If one has never known love, then how can such a one love?

Mr_Anony:
If one has never known love, then how can such a one love?

So people who are humanists don't know what love is?

Martian:

So people who are humanists don't know what love is?

That is not the point.

I was using love as a metaphor. the point is (still using love as a metaphor): You cannot start by by saying that the greatest lover cannot possibly exist and then start evaluating the love of people, what will you be basing it on? You must have been loved before else you won't be able to tell if you are loving or not.

Mr_Anony:
That is not the point.

I was using love as a metaphor. the point is (still using love as a metaphor): You cannot start by by saying that the greatest lover cannot possibly exist and then start evaluating the love of people, what will you be basing it on? You must have been loved before else you won't be able to tell if you are loving or not.

What are you talking about?!!! Forget metaphors, and keep it simple. Explain why you hold this opinion about humanists' altruism.

Mr_Anony:
You see Martian, that stance will only be true if they once believed that a god used to help them but has now disappeared so they now have to help each other. It doesn't follow from a premise where they believe that such a helper god has never existed in the first place.

Mr_Anony:
I see, humanism is not about the individual but humanity as a whole. If this is the case, then altruism sits perfectly in it. What doesn't fit in it now is self autonomy, because a time comes where a person will need to be sacrificed for the collective and it will not help if such an individual should choose not to be sacrificed. Such a person's decision must be overridden for the sake of the 'greater good'

You cannot have it both ways my friend.

A point where the individual's interest endangers the interest of society, is where self autonomy ends of course.

Martian:

What are you talking about?!!! Forget metaphors, and keep it simple. Explain why you hold this opinion about humanists' altruism.

You said the humanist knows that God won't help him so he helps other people. My point is simple, it doesn't follow unless the humanist once knew God to help him. If the humanist has never known God in the first place, then there will be no need for God not helping to be a reason why he should help another person.

Kay 17:

A point where the individual's interest endangers the interest of society, is where self autonomy ends of course.

You see individual interest and altruism are at opposite ends of the stick. When you give to one, you do so at the expense of the other. if the wishes of the collective is put first, then the wishes of the individual must suffer loss and vice versa. Besides, who gets to decide where exactly the boundaries are?

You cannot have it both ways

^^

Ppl help others, express compassion because its a command??

Mr_Anony:
You see individual interest and altruism are at opposite ends of the stick. When you give to one, you do so at the expense of the other. if the wishes of the collective is put first, then the wishes of the individual must suffer loss and vice versa. Besides, who gets to decide where exactly the boundaries are?

You cannot have it both ways

See an example where your point is flawed. A team, football or canoe paddlers where there is dependence on others to attain equal personal goals.

It is only where society's interest is being endangered not that its wishes are paramount.

Another example of where altruism and selfishness connect is Christianity, whereby a percieved good is rewarded greatly. So whenever a Christian does an altruistic act, feeding the poor and sick in return for no material reward, but God's reward or fear of punishment. An act of self preservation itself.

Humanism, involves the individual identifying himself as part of a greater body like nationalism and from whom he enjoys individual rights and protection.

It can be seen as indirect selfishness, but to humanity.
Have you seen Contagion the movie??

Mr_Anony:
You said the humanist knows that God won't help him so he helps other people. My point is simple, it doesn't follow unless the humanist once knew God to help him. If the humanist has never known God in the first place, then there will be no need for God not helping to be a reason why he should help another person.

God is just one of the religious dogmas rejected by secular humanists and not the central reason for their altruism. They have no reason to think gods exists and that's why unlike theistic philosophies, they place emphasis on human welfare instead of placing the needs of a god first. The humanist rejection of the idea of god is because the idea has being impotent and divisive throughout history so humanism grew out of the need for people to place emphasis on humans rather than gods.

The humanists knows that "God" won't help anyone because there is NO reason to think so or evidence of a god doing anything, but that is not the only reason for altruism.

Kay 17:

See an example where your point is flawed. A team, football or canoe paddlers where there is dependence on others to attain equal personal goals.

It is only where society's interest is being endangered not that its wishes are paramount.

I understand your example well. The point we keep coming back to is this: Where does altruism fit in a secular humanist worldview?

In a team, you don't have altruism, what you have is mutuality and reciprocity. All the players are working for their own benefit and helping each other is a means to achieving their personal goals. There is no altruism about it.

If one player was slacking, the logical thing to do would be to drop him off the team because it threatens their collective goals which also happen to be their individual goals (note that the slacker is not purposely sabotaging the team, he just isn't doing well enough)

Now altruism would be if the weakest player is to be thrown out but one of the stronger players chooses to bear his burden knowing full well that by so doing, he threatens the success of the team as well as his personal success. This is not rational

Again if this happens the rational solution should be to remove both the weakest player and the compassionate stronger player and replace them with two strong players so that the team can stand a chance of winning.

You see, this is why I say that for altruism to seat within secular humanism, an amount of irrationality has to be thrown in.

Martian:

God is just one of the religious dogmas rejected by secular humanists and not the central reason for their altruism. They have no reason to think gods exists and that's why unlike theistic philosophies, they place emphasis on human welfare instead of placing the needs of a god first. The humanist rejection of the idea of god is because the idea has being impotent and divisive throughout history so humanism grew out of the need for people to place emphasis on humans rather than gods.

The humanists knows that "God" won't help anyone because there is NO reason to think so or evidence of a god doing anything, but that is not the only reason for altruism.

Why don't you give us the other reason for the secular humanist's altruism and tell us why it is rational.

Mr_Anony:
Why don't you give us the other reason for the secular humanist's altruism and tell us why it is rational.

If being altruistic increases the overall welfare of society ,then that can be another reason (amongst many). Why do you even require a secular humanist's altruistic act to be rational?

Kay 17: Another example of where altruism and selfishness connect is Christianity, whereby a percieved good is rewarded greatly. So whenever a Christian does an altruistic act, feeding the poor and sick in return for no material reward, but God's reward or fear of punishment. An act of self preservation itself.

Humanism, involves the individual identifying himself as part of a greater body like nationalism and from whom he enjoys individual rights and protection.

It can be seen as indirect selfishness, but to humanity.
Have you seen Contagion the movie??

I have seen the movie contagion but you'll have to pardon me if I don't remember in detail....

The misconception you have about the Christian faith is that you believe that the Christian does good things so as to achieve a reward, the answer is no. The christian believes that no man can possibly be good enough deserve any blessings. The christian holds that man can only be saved by faith and not works.

It is after a christian has been saved (i.e. has already received the reward) that he does good works. . . .and he does it because he is following the example of Christ.

The christian does good after he has already received the blessing and he does it because the blessing he received was not earned but was freely given. We love because God first loved us.


When you do good even after you have already received the reward for goodness, That is altruism.

Martian:

If being altruistic increases the overall welfare of society ,then that can be another reason (amongst many). Why do you even require a secular humanist's altruistic act to be rational?

Oh I don't require it to be rational, I am only pointing out that it isn't

Mr_Anony:
Oh I don't require it to be rational, I am only pointing out that it isn't

Because the idea of god is not involved?

Mr_Anony:
The misconception you have about the Christian faith is that you believe that the Christian does good things so as to achieve a reward, the answer is no. The christian believes that no man can possibly be good enough deserve any blessings. The christian holds that man can only be saved by faith and not works.

I think the philosophy of secular humanism is better than christianity because it doesn't condemn people and assert they don't deserve to be helped, or "any blessing" as you put it.

Mr_Anony:
It is after a christian has been saved (i.e. has already received the reward) that he does good works. . . .and he does it because he is following the example of Christ.

The secular humanist doesn't need to be "saved" from anything before being altruistic and he does it for whatever reason he wants ?

Mr_Anony:
The christian does good after he has already received the blessing and he does it because the blessing he received was not earned but was freely given. We love because God first loved us.

The Secular humanist sees this as religious dogma and it's just one of the different religious dogmas that have no place in the philosophy. Secualr humanists don't expect rewards and unlike your christian self, they can actually help others because that's part of their personal moral codes and not because of some "reward that was freely given" by some god.

Mr_Anony:
When you do good even after you have already received the reward for goodness, That is altruism.

Whgen you do good without expecting some reward from some supernatural entity, That is altruism.

Mr_Anony:
LOL! Abeg posters please help him spot the "proof" in his post.

Forgive me I just saw this, lol

"Proof", Mr Anony, "proof" ---- you are looking for "proof"?

From our friends?

Ok oh!

@anony

Its clear, that as soon as the individual sees himself as part and parcel of the singularity of humanity, Love and altruism invariably results!.

Individual freedom is a mechanism to express the pecularity/uniqueness of every human and protect it.

I noticed you mentioned ONLY ppl who are saved can commit acts of altruism. Also, what role does altruism play in Christianity and why is it relevant and good.

Martian:

Because the idea of god is not involved?

Not necessarily

Enigma:

Forgive me I just saw this, lol

"Proof", Mr Anony, "proof" ---- you are looking for "proof"?

From our friends?

Ok oh!

Lol no it was in response to ryhmz, he claims that apostle Paul was a homo[i]s[/i]exual.
He quoted one long post which he claims contains "proof" of Paul's se[i]x[/i]ual orientation.
Next he called on everyone to read his post and see how true it is.
I was only helping him with his plea.

So far no one has bothered to defend his nonsense

Martian:

I think the philosophy of secular humanism is better than christianity because it doesn't condemn people and assert they don't deserve to be helped, or "any blessing" as you put it.

It is not about whether it condemns people or not, it is about whether it is true. If you see a perfectly good person, please do well to show me.

The secular humanist doesn't need to be "saved" from anything before being altruistic and he does it for whatever reason he wants ?

Of course you can be altruistic for whatever reason you want, however if the reason is one that is supposed to benefit you directly or indirectly then it is not altruism

The Secular humanist sees this as religious dogma and it's just one of the different religious dogmas that have no place in the philosophy. Secualr humanists don't expect rewards and unlike your christian self, they can actually help others because that's part of their personal moral codes and not because of some "reward that was freely given" by some god.

lol, it matters not what you see as religious dogma. The point is that as long as you cannot give a good reason for an action, such an action is irrational.

When you do good without expecting some reward from some supernatural entity, That is altruism.

I agree.

Kay 17: @anony

Its clear, that as soon as the individual sees himself as part and parcel of the singularity of humanity, Love and altruism invariably results!.

sure but for that to truly happen, the person must sacrifice his individuality

Individual freedom is a mechanism to express the pecularity/uniqueness of every human and protect it.

if that is the case then altruism cannot exist.

I noticed you mentioned ONLY ppl who are saved can commit acts of altruism. Also, what role does altruism play in Christianity and why is it relevant and good.

I didn't say that only the saved are altruistic, I said that altruism is rational amongst the saved. besides you say "commit acts of altruism" as if it is a crime. lol

What role does altruism play in Christianity? It is simply christian nature to be altruistic because Christians are followers of Jesus Christ and He is the perfect example of altruism. The very nature of Christianity is one of self-sacrifice and loving one's enemies.

^^
And they consequently follow Jesus, to be saved?!

Isn't altruism an act of freedom/choice? If its obedience to a command it wouldn't be altruism in your view.

Kay 17: ^^
And they consequently follow Jesus, to be saved?!

Isn't altruism an act of freedom/choice? If its obedience to a command it wouldn't be altruism in your view.

No they have already been saved, it is at the moment of salvation that one becomes a Christian.

From the moment you make the decision to follow Jesus, you have already received eternal life. You now live a life of self-sacrifice.

Basically, you can say that the Christian life is one where you choose to lead an altruistic life because Christ loved you first.

It is like when you fall in love with someone because the person loved you first, then you do things to please her, not to earn her love (she already loves you) but because you love her. You put your individual needs in the background as you satisfy hers.

I dare say that altruism is the best expression of love.

Mr_Anony:
No they have already been saved, it is at the moment of salvation that one becomes a Christian.

From the moment you make the decision to follow Jesus, you have already received eternal life. You now live a life of self-sacrifice.

Basically, you can say that the Christian life is one where you choose to lead an altruistic life because Christ loved you first.

It is like when you fall in love with someone because the person loved you first, then you do things to please her, not to earn her love (she already loves you) but because you love her. You put your individual needs in the background as you satisfy hers.

I dare say that altruism is the best expression of love.

doesn't the bolded come from a reciprocal obligation??

Is there a duty on a Christian to be altruistic SOLELY because he is a follower of Christ??