Humanism v the Christian God

[McCulloch]

Of course, I think the other way around: Humanism doesn't deliver on its proponents' promises; but God does deliver on His promises.

What are the promises of Humanism? What are the promises of God?
Has Humanism failed to deliver its promises?
Has God always delivered on His promises?

[jgh7]

I'll just cover one aspect of the promises of Humanism and God. My answer is actually more of just the general promises of Christianity, but I suppose those count as God's promises too.

So humanism basically dictates that people should use their own reasoning with the intent of improving their lives and the lives of those around them. Reasoning is the most effective way for people to make the world a better place, and with sound reasoning people will eventually figure out what is right for them and others.

Christianity basically states you should put your faith in Jesus and his teachings, and in return you will be given happiness, peace of mind, guidance from the Holy Spirit to help you live a righteouss life, and a great new life in Heaven when you die. However, should you not put your faith in Jesus (or perhaps it's more accurate to say "should you be one of the unlucky ones who God does not call to have faith in Jesus") then you will be sentenced to Hell for eternal suffering and sadness.

For Christianity's promises:

As far as I know, there is no way of verifying Christianity's promises after somebody dies. At this point, the evidence we have seems to go against Christianity by suggesting that when your brain shuts down, your consciousness shuts down as well. As far as the Holy Spirit goes, I think that's just a bunch of balogna. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate an ability or knowledge imparted on by the Holy Spirit that lead me to believe it was Supernatural rather than just the person's brain catering to their desires. As far as righteouss living goes, we all know there are Christians out there who are very hateful people, just as there are Christians who tend to be on the caring compassionate side. I am left doubtful that there is any supernatural guidance in any of this; it all just boils down to different minds and circumstances that cause people to act the way they do.

Conclusion: Christianity's promises can't be proven. Based off of observations of people, I lean on they side that it's grade A bologna.

For Humanism's promises:

I'll be honest, I read a wiki article to get the summation on what Humanism is. It's a philosophy of sorts. I wouldn't say it has any promises, except that it seems to put its faith in people using reasoning to make this world a better place. While reasoning often helps humans to accomplish goals that make this world a worse place, I still do believe that ultimately our own reasoning is the best chance we have at making this world better.

Conclusion: I think most would agree that it's better to use reasoning and think deeply about matters such as morality rather than giving them little thought and just doing things based off your whims or what someone or something or perhaps some book tells you to do.

[Flail]

...Who is to say that even if there is a God that He or 'it' requires us to 'believe in Him without evidence' in order for Him to do whatever it is Gods do? My reasoning tells me that any superintelligent God would NOT want me to accept things without evidence,reasoning,logic and common sense and that to blindly follow the words of others by faith alone would be wrong.

[ChaosBorders]

Of course, I think the other way around: Humanism doesn't deliver on its proponents' promises; but God does deliver on His promises.

What are the promises of Humanism? What are the promises of God?
Has Humanism failed to deliver its promises?
Has God always delivered on His promises?

Depending upon interpretation, perspective, what you consider valid evidence, etc. I'm not really sure there are any 'promises' God has made that can be verified.

And to my knowledge Humanism does not make any promises, given it is a philosophy. What its proponents promise, as referenced in the quote by GentleDove, I do not know.

In the interest of keeping this thread from simply becoming a place to rant against Christianity by people who view God as having broken his 'promises', or against Humanism by people who view the opposite, perhaps you could either rephrase the questions to something like:

If you are a proponent of humanism, what do you consider its promises, do you consider those promises to have been kept, and what evidence do you have to show that is the case?

If you are a proponent of the Christian God, what do you consider its promises, do you consider those promises to have been kept, and what evidence do you have to show that is the case?

And then define what type of evidence you consider to be acceptable for this thread.

Just a suggestion. I think this topic is an interesting idea, but I don't forsee any really constructive conversation coming from how it is currently phrased.

[Zzyzx]

.

Depending upon interpretation, perspective, what you consider valid evidence, etc. I'm not really sure there are any 'promises' God has made that can be verified. .

Thank you

Promises by god are simply quotes from a story book. Many storybooks tell tales about thousands of different gods making threats and promises " NONE of which can be shown to be truthful or applicable.

And to my knowledge Humanism does not make any promises, given it is a philosophy. What its proponents promise, as referenced in the quote by GentleDove, I do not know.

In the interest of keeping this thread from simply becoming a place to rant against Christianity by people who view God as having broken his 'promises', or against Humanism by people who view the opposite, perhaps you could either rephrase the questions to something like:

If you are a proponent of humanism, what do you consider its promises, do you consider those promises to have been kept, and what evidence do you have to show that is the case? .

Although I do not identify as a humanist (but as a Non-Theist / Ignostic " not Agnostic), I am aware of absolutely NO promises made by humanism.

If you are a proponent of the Christian God, what do you consider its promises, do you consider those promises to have been kept, and what evidence do you have to show that is the case? .

I await Christian response (but hold no expectation that it will be credible).

And then define what type of evidence you consider to be acceptable for this thread. .

VERIFIABLE, credible, convergence of evidence from widely varying sources

[McCulloch]

Depending upon interpretation, perspective, what you consider valid evidence, etc. I'm not really sure there are any 'promises' God has made that can be verified.

Then why is it that believers keep on about God's promises and how faithful he is to keep them?

And to my knowledge Humanism does not make any promises, given it is a philosophy. What its proponents promise, as referenced in the quote by GentleDove, I do not know.

Neither do I, and I am a Humanist. I was hoping that GentleDove would clarify what she meant in her comment about Humanism not delivering on its promises.

In the interest of keeping this thread from simply becoming a place to rant against Christianity by people who view God as having broken his 'promises', or against Humanism by people who view the opposite, perhaps you could either rephrase the questions to something like:

If you are a proponent of humanism, what do you consider its promises, do you consider those promises to have been kept, and what evidence do you have to show that is the case?

If you are a proponent of the Christian God, what do you consider its promises, do you consider those promises to have been kept, and what evidence do you have to show that is the case?

And then define what type of evidence you consider to be acceptable for this thread.

Just a suggestion. I think this topic is an interesting idea, but I don't forsee any really constructive conversation coming from how it is currently phrased.

As you may have guessed, the OP was made as a response to what I see as an absurd and unsupportable assertion made by another debater, rather than an attempt to produce really good debate. Thank you for calling me out on that. :slap:

However, if we are to compare or contrast Humanism with Theism with regard to the promises, kept or broken, we should not restrict it to the proponents from each camp to define what the promises are necessarily. In the original post, a proponent of the Christian God went so far as to say that Humanism does not live up to its promises. For her to make such an accusation, it would be reasonable to assume that she has some idea of what those promises are. So, lay them out for us, please GentleDove. What are the promises that Humanism has made that you so confidently assure us have been broken? And what are the promises that God has made and has kept?

[ChaosBorders]

Depending upon interpretation, perspective, what you consider valid evidence, etc. I'm not really sure there are any 'promises' God has made that can be verified.

Then why is it that believers keep on about God's promises and how faithful he is to keep them?

Because from their subjective point of view God probably seems to have done so.
Which is why any thread discussing the keeping/breaking of said promises should first clearly define what constitutes valid evidence for that thread. Since I have not read the thread GentleDove originally posted that in, I cannot be certain just how out of line it was, but I am guessing at a minimum it was off-topic.

She also (by your quote) did not present any evidence to support her claim. However, were it somehow in line with the topic and she did present evidence, a clear definition for acceptable evidence in the OP (such as the one Zzyzx provided) would prevent her from trying to construct a context which would allow such subjective evidence.

(If my multi-thread assertions that it would good if people defined context in the OP seem odd, it is because attempts to construct different frameworks is often considered a perfectly valid debate tactic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate. I know people doing that annoys a lot of people though, so I suggest defining the context in the OP so there can be no later valid attempts to "change" it.)

Neither do I, and I am a Humanist. I was hoping that GentleDove would clarify what she meant in her comment about Humanism not delivering on its promises.

In fairness to GentleDove, unless I am misreading it, the quote appears to state "its proponents' promises," implying she has heard Humanists assert promises on behalf of Humanism.

If that is the case, she should have stated what those claims were (preferably quoting them if possible) and how they have failed.

However, if we are to compare or contrast Humanism with Theism with regard to the promises, kept or broken, we should not restrict it to the proponents from each camp to define what the promises are necessarily. In the original post, a proponent of the Christian God went so far as to say that Humanism does not live up to its promises. For her to make such an accusation, it would be reasonable to assume that she has some idea of what those promises are. So, lay them out for us, please GentleDove. What are the promises that Humanism has made that you so confidently assure us have been broken? And what are the promises that God has made and has kept?

Except that (going only off the quote you provided in the OP) Humanism was never actually said to have made promises, only its proponents. So any non-Humanist that makes claims that Humanism made any promises can be dismissed out of hand, whereas opponents of the Christian God can probably dig up plenty of "promises" they could claim to have been broken, by mere virtue of interpreting however it is they wish to do so.

Thus to be fair to each side I would propose that only the proponents of each belief can make positive assertions about what promises were made, and the other side are free to try and tear down those assertions.

[Zzyzx]

.

In the original post, a proponent of the Christian God went so far as to say that Humanism does not live up to its promises. For her to make such an accusation, it would be reasonable to assume that she has some idea of what those promises are. So, lay them out for us, please GentleDove. What are the promises that Humanism has made that you so confidently assure us have been broken? And what are the promises that God has made and has kept?

I agree; however, I have no expectation that GD or any other person will attempt to identify "the promises of Humanism" (vs. the promises of Christianity).

What I observe is that when challenged, many seem to disappear from the thread or from the forum entirely.

[ChaosBorders]

What would also be interesting is to see this debate (if better phrased) carried out both in this forum, and the forum that automatically accepts the Bible as authoratative and see what different conclusions are made in each.

(Though to be honest, if using a definition of evidence such as proposed by Zzyzx, his expectation there'll be no takers is probably right).

[JoeyKnothead]

Since the OP asks and I get to do the 'definitioning'...

Promise from God: "I'll be back".

Unfulfilled.

Promise from Humanism: Free beer for all.

Unfulfilled.

(That bit about humanism there is an attempt to steer the philosophy, and may not actually be a current part of that philosophy, but if it ever is, and it ever fulfills the promise - Oh happy da-ay!)