Ep. 102: How can we not sin?

[Dr Mundo]

"God killed that guy but we don't know what the eternal state of that guy is."

Does anyone want to talk about this part here? I may have to do more with morality than anything else, but I think morality ties in well to "how can we not sin?" at any rate I don't see that this particular episode of the podcast will bring about much communication, for much of the same reasons Brad, and Oz were saying. They didn't really bring strong/believable substance to the show. Emery I think is a cut above the typical person as far as this type of scenario goes and In my opinion would need a higher caliber companion/partner in crime, not to be disrespectful of the guests but lets call it like it is.

But does the type of thinking that the quote above advocates trouble anyone? That is certainly not something I think represents a moral framework, I have heard it said by I think Martin from the Atheist experience, that What Christan's have isn't a morality system, but an appeal to authority. Sometimes I think that rings true. For people like Mitch, and to some extent MTH this type of thinking is not to be applauded but to be criticized, and so I respect them for at least that.

[NH Baritone]

And by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER heard any atheist / freethinker / secular humanist speak with this sales-pitch style, and I think the reason for that is probably that one can’t SELL evidence and reason, while on the other hand anyone can simply talk about those things honestly and sincerely.

A close-to-equivalent atheist version of the used-car-salesman "pitch" is the host of "The Thinking Atheist" podcast (http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/).

And I agree, Brad, that regardless of the content, such style can turn a podcast into an unlistenable festival of manipulation.

[yjoeyh]

If Glen really wants to call Emery out on his thinking, he needs to focus more pointedly on whether it really is the case that this image Emery draws of people making honest mistakes is really the sum of the human condition. That represents a rather typical liberalist failure to understand human problems, commonly insisting that education is the cure all -- because that just ain't so. People do not live up to their own ideals and that is not because of honest mistakes, but because they will do things that they know is wrong and do so repeatedly even when the consequences are rather obviously destructive of both themselves and others. There is also evil in the world and it is epidemic.

Yes, I think this really is one of the core problems with a humanistic viewpoint. Falling back on education as the solution is trite at best, as is the assertion that religious thinking is the root cause of it, rather than human depravity. Even if atheism were true and religion were the path of least resistance for all the terrible evils of humanity… if you take religion out of the picture, then what happens? Has any progress been made, or do we just find a new scapegoat?

The problem of evil is a great argument against Christianity and theism in general. I'll certainly grant that. I may say it is answerable, but it's still a great argument. If I were an atheist I would make my camp there. But when we take those theistic things off the table, the problem remains, strong as ever, because no matter what your ideology, evil is a real thing that we all have to deal with every day. Not only that, we also know that there are far worse evils we will probably never have to experience, happening to other people every day. We are stuck with knowing that, but what can we do about it? What should we do about it? I don't mean to come off overly cynical, but the truth is sometimes ugly.

Under a humanistic viewpoint, I can only see two options:

#1 We can deal with human evil as we encounter it, cutting our losses if you will, and turn our backs on the rest of it, hoping to keep up the charade until we die and are released from the knowledge of evil and the responsibility of dealing with it. Another variation might be to place blind, unreasonable, faith in the outlook of humanity, choosing to believe that despite the way things are now, and the way things have progressed (or regressed) over time, that humans will someday get it right and 'outgrow' evil. (This is a common theme in science fiction tales of the future.) I guess this is somewhat similar to the common concept of heaven, and a lot of people may like to believe in such a reality. I wish I could, but reason and rationality prevent me from doing so.

#2 We can confront evil head-on taking any and all measures necessary to rid the world of what causes it, namely human beings. Who else can we point the finger at? Germs? Giraffes? Aliens? Gods? No, under a humanistic worldview, humans are the one and only thing we can point to as the source for current human evil and resulting suffering of humans. (NH's signature line echoes this sentiment ) The only way to correct the problem is to remove them all.

Again, I'm not trying to be overly cynical and dark here. I'm just trying to follow these ideas about humanity to their logical conclusion in light of certain presuppositions (i.e. actual evil, no god, human experiences, etc.)

Now of course none of this is a good reason to think humanism or even atheism is not true. Even more, it would be a terrible reason to think that theism or Christianity are true. But part of my point is to show how it seems like these facts about evil are conveniently ignored when subjects like humanism and secularism are on the table, but the gloves come off and they all come back into play once we bring religion and God into the discussion.

I have heard it said by I think Martin from the Atheist experience, that What Christan's have isn't a morality system, but an appeal to authority.

I don't think it's either. I think anyone who actually believes in Christianity will agree it's purpose is not to establish a moral framework. On those grounds alone, Christianity would quickly fall apart. However, reasoned morality and reasoned authority are a part of the overall structure.
So in this example, I think all Glen was saying was that there is a lot we don't know about this story, specifically how it relates to the question at hand and that one possible, and speculative reason was that God had sufficient reason for killing Uzzah and that did not necessarily equate to "judgment" since judgment, from a Christian perspective involves the "eternal state."
Now of course, another equally speculative interpretation is that God was just being an asshole, which is basically what the question implies, and what follows morally from that way of thinking. So even if the first option is part of a person's thinking, there's no "appeal to authority" where we say we don't know and we likewise do not have an application of the text.
Personally, I think this is much more a problem of interpretation anyway. 2 Samuel, like many OT texts, relies on a lot of hagiographic language as well as other forms of hyperbole. So the specifics of this story are not really known, and neither are these kinds of conclusions about God we try to draw from them.

Emery I think is a cut above the typical person as far as this type of scenario goes and In my opinion would need a higher caliber companion/partner in crime, not to be disrespectful of the guests but lets call it like it is.

I humbly agree with you here, but I honestly think we could do a much better job if given the opportunity to do more shows. From Glen's and my experience doing our own show, I can say that our "green" wears off pretty quickly and we are capable of engaging in much more substantive discussions. If and when we are on again, give us another chance to give you something worth your time listening to. We promise to step it up a bit on the next one.

[Dr Mundo]

I humbly agree with you here, but I honestly think we could do a much better job if given the opportunity to do more shows. From Glen's and my experience doing our own show, I can say that our "green" wears off pretty quickly and we are capable of engaging in much more substantive discussions. If and when we are on again, give us another chance to give you something worth your time listening to. We promise to step it up a bit on the next one.

I am far less unforgiving than NH and Brad apear to be I suppose. Because I wouldn't automatically shut you guys off if you were on again. Its not that your "green" needs to wear off, its that I don't think either of you have a good understanding of what is means to not be a Christian. You certainly convinced me that you don't understand the concepts behind humanism, or even atheism which is as simple as it gets. You conflate different views, unknowingly I would imagine ( I certainly wouldn't want to accuse you of knowingly misrepresenting concepts and moral frameworks as I don't know or care to guess your intentions.) When I hear Emery doing a podcast. Its almost as if he has correctly Guessed what the other person is going to say and has planed out a rebuttal or an analogy that fits perfectly to demonstrate that he has a good grasp of the issues and that his views on the matter are more informed and better reasoned then the "opponent's". All while on the fly witch is the most impressive part. He doesn't like to admit it but he is quick witted and intelligent. When Tony was claiming that people are doing all the can to try to avoid to overwhelming conclusion that God is real, Emery brought up a case in where it wasn't that they tried to disprove God when dealing with germs as an explanation for sickness, and Tony conceded the point. Yet reverted to the same claims time and time again. You seem like Tony. In that you know you are right about God and will defend your points instead of listening to the evidence and keeping an open mind. So while I think Emery makes valid points and has great analogies when a point of disagreement comes around, you guys (theists "in the most General form") just hymm and haw when presented with similar situations. To me its indicative of not wanting to concede or give any ground what so ever. In doing so you apologize for some of the worst atrocities, and force me to lose respect for your moral framework. I don't respect any idea or train of thought that will bypass our compassion and empathy to make excuses for or defend atrocities, regardless of who commits them. I would be willing to give you guys an other listen. But you must first do something for me. Become more educated in other worldviews and frameworks and how they are constructed, have an open mind. And most importantly come prepared to address the points you wish to address in a coherent and concise manner.

[yjoeyh]

Its not that your "green" needs to wear off, its that I don't think either of you have a good understanding of what is means to not be a Christian. You certainly convinced me that you don't understand the concepts behind humanism, or even atheism which is as simple as it gets. You conflate different views, unknowingly I would imagine ( I certainly wouldn't want to accuse you of knowingly misrepresenting concepts and moral frameworks as I don't know or care to guess your intentions.)

This is one of my beefs coming at it from the other side as well. I'm not going to play the innocent card here because I recognize that you have several valid points, but you have to admit that this is the kind of thing we see pretty much all the time from the other side. You have Christian after Christian both on the podcast and in the forums present their ideas about the fundamental concepts of Christianity and theism (which also is as simple as it gets.) But the other side rarely seems to understand them even on a most basic level, let alone address them for what they are. Instead it becomes an endless parade of strawmen arguments, red herrings and prejudicial indictments based on broad generalizations that don't even apply to the subject at hand.
I agree Emery is a pro at this, even though he doesn't let on that's the case. It would be difficult indeed to match wits with him or some of these other guys around here. I don't think me, Glen, or any of the other Christians to ever have been on the show can be that good.
Now the point of this show was to talk specifically about atheism (sans Christianity) and if it is even possible to do such a thing. Perhaps that should have been something I made clearer on the front end of the discussion. You imply that we come off as not having the most basic understanding of things like humanism and atheism. While I don't think that's true, I can certainly see where we might have given that impression, because we were intentionally trying to put our own prejudices aside and approach the topic somewhat objectively, with minimal presuppositions, but now I see that makes it seem like we don't even have a basic familiarity with it.

In doing so you apologize for some of the worst atrocities, and force me to lose respect for your moral framework. I don't respect any idea or train of thought that will bypass our compassion and empathy to make excuses for or defend atrocities, regardless of who commits them.

I don't think I've given any kind of details as to what my "moral framework" is, and that wasn't even realted to the topic. But since you brought it up, what kind of moral framework do you suggest fits reality the best?

I would be willing to give you guys an other listen. But you must first do something for me. Become more educated in other worldviews and frameworks and how they are constructed, have an open mind. And most importantly come prepared to address the points you wish to address in a coherent and concise manner.

Thanks for being willing to give us another try! Thanks also for offering suggestions on how we can improve. Your points are taken and we agree to try very hard to do each of those things you request.

[Dr Mundo]

This is one of my beefs coming at it from the other side as well. I'm not going to play the innocent card here because I recognize that you have several valid points, but you have to admit that this is the kind of thing we see pretty much all the time from the other side. You have Christian after Christian both on the podcast and in the forums present their ideas about the fundamental concepts of Christianity and theism (which also is as simple as it gets.) But the other side rarely seems to understand them even on a most basic level, let alone address them for what they are.

how do you not see the distinction between Theism/Atheism, and something as specific as Christianity, Witch by the way is not simple and don't pretend it is. Theism and Atheism are both really simple. Belief in god, or No belief. Christianity goes deeper than that and you know it. On top of that we have many different people with many different views claiming to be Christians and that their Christianity is the true version of it while others distort it. How can we understand what Christianity is when there are so many different views on it? Is that our fault? No, either have a concise, coherent definition of Christianity and accept the criticism that come with that, or continue to have an evasive title with some basic structure and no real way to develop a complete (or at least Good) understanding of what the term actually means.

Instead it becomes an endless parade of strawmen arguments, red herrings and prejudicial indictments based on broad generalizations that don't even apply to the subject at hand.

If and when someone engages in that type of behavior I will be just as quick to defend you or attack you depending on what side of those types of arguments you are engaged in.

I agree Emery is a pro at this, even though he doesn't let on that's the case. It would be difficult indeed to match wits with him or some of these other guys around here. I don't think me, Glen, or any of the other Christians to ever have been on the show can be that good.

I think Scott at least makes it a good show to listen to sometimes.

Now the point of this show was to talk specifically about atheism (sans Christianity) and if it is even possible to do such a thing. Perhaps that should have been something I made clearer on the front end of the discussion. You imply that we come off as not having the most basic understanding of things like humanism and atheism. While I don't think that's true, I can certainly see where we might have given that impression, because we were intentionally trying to put our own prejudices aside and approach the topic somewhat objectively, with minimal presuppositions, but now I see that makes it seem like we don't even have a basic familiarity with it.

Well I disagree based on your last post. We can make this real easy. Tell me why you think some of your points are relevant in view of humanism and how they can correct the mistakes you think they are making.

I don't think I've given any kind of details as to what my "moral framework" is, and that wasn't even realted to the topic. But since you brought it up, what kind of moral framework do you suggest fits reality the best?

There is no moral framework that fits reality the best, what I can tell you is that if we base our morality on understanding, compassion, empathy and respect. We will have a far better system than that of worship to some God. If God does something that we don't think is moral don't just make excuses for it. I just didn't like the way the argument sounded on the podcast where you guys were talking about the Arc and the guy that God killed.

Thanks for being willing to give us another try! Thanks also for offering suggestions on how we can improve. Your points are taken and we agree to try very hard to do each of those things you request.

Sure, its not ground breaking new info but It might help. I don't know if anyone else has better criticism to offer you but I hope they do. There are lots of smart, thoughtful people on these forums, and I think you could benefit from having their input.

[yjoeyh]

how do you not see the distinction between Theism/Atheism, and something as specific as Christianity, Witch by the way is not simple and don't pretend it is.

No I was talking about theism there, and you went on to agree with me on that point.

Theism and Atheism are both really simple.

Yes Christianity is much more complex than atheism or theism. I think that was part of the point I was trying to make. But fallacious reasoning is still fallacious reasoning no matter how complex the topic is.

On top of that we have many different people with many different views claiming to be Christians and that their Christianity is the true version of it while others distort it. How can we understand what Christianity is when there are so many different views on it?

Are you suggesting that something with complicated, sophisticated and controversial views can't be understood? I thought that was the point in talking about it to start with. Let's pretend Christianity, Atheism, Theism, Humanism, etc are off the table. You still have different people bringing ideas to the discussion with the assumption that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That doesn't in any way preclude someone from being open minded, sincere or willing to find fault in their position and see how they can correct their own wrong thinking and turn it into right thinking. So any kind of indictment of Christianity on those grounds is completely unjustified and inescapably hypocritical.

either have a concise, coherent definition of Christianity and accept the criticism that come with that, or continue to have an evasive title with some basic structure and no real way to develop a complete (or at least Good) understanding of what the term actually means.

That's exactly what some of us Christians are trying to do. The problem seems to be we get lots of push back when we don't accept the prejudicial, straw men uniform we're expected to wear. How is it our fault or our responsiblity to answer for the bad assumptions of atheists or at best the inconsistencies of other Chrisitians positions?

Tell me why you think some of your points are relevant in view of humanism and how they can correct the mistakes you think they are making.

It's relevant to the previous comment about the underassessment of how bad humans really are to one another and how humanism must consider and assign the proper weight to that fact. Now humanism is more complicated than just atheism, so the indictment relates specifically to how much of an optimist the humanist says he is. Any mistakes made will depend on how consistently or inconsistently they reconcile optimism, human value, human evil and moral responsibility. Correcting those mistakes would involve resolving those inconsistencies. For example, if a humanist were to claim that all human beings are equally valuable, then they have to explain why they do not value all human beings equally, or somehow show that they do. Also, if the claim is that human life is more important than human experience they would have to justify treating their experience higher than other human life. And if the human experience, including the totality of suffering at the hands of other humans, is of ultimate importance, then how can allowing them to continue to exist, when the means to erradicate them is available, be morally justifiable? It's very similar to the Hume/Epicurian argument from the problem of evil... Are humanists willing to prevent human evil, but not able? Are they able, but not willing? Are they both able and willing? Then why does it continue?
So just like the implications of certain Christian beliefs are a problem for you, the same kinds of problems are very much present in humanistic thinking as well. Of course, I don't think the majority of humanists take it that far, any more than Christians take much of those parts of their worldview that far, but just like with Christians, asking why they don't or at least how they avoid it without contradiction is a fair question.

[Dr Mundo]

how do you not see the distinction between Theism/Atheism, and something as specific as Christianity, Witch by the way is not simple and don't pretend it is.

No I was talking about theism there, and you went on to agree with me on that point.

Agreed, sorry I missed that.

Are you suggesting that something with complicated, sophisticated and controversial views can't be understood?

No but if 30 different people believed 30 different things about a card I showed them, One says its a picture of a cat, one that its that of a dog, one person even says there is nothing on the card, How can someone from the outside looking in, think the card that was shown to those 30 different people is even the same card? Why would I treat that card the same. That is what you guys have done with the term Christianity. Should I believe Mitch? Should I believe you? Why not believe Mike? You have made the term Christianity lose its significance.

Let's pretend Christianity, Atheism, Theism, Humanism, etc are off the table. You still have different people bringing ideas to the discussion with the assumption that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That doesn't in any way preclude someone from being open minded, sincere or willing to find fault in their position and see how they can correct their own wrong thinking and turn it into right thinking. So any kind of indictment of Christianity on those grounds is completely unjustified and inescapably hypocritical.

And that is not what I am doing. We have several different explanations on what Christianity is/means. What is the best way for us to figure out witch is the most accurate of all those definitions? Until then I can only talk to you about your specific form of Christianity and show you how its inconsistent with the real world (based on the best available evidence we have at our disposal at the moment). But in talking to you about your specific form of Christianity we have left that term devoid of meaning. It would be better for me to say, talking to you about your specific religion.

That's exactly what some of us Christians are trying to do. The problem seems to be we get lots of push back when we don't accept the prejudicial, straw men uniform we're expected to wear. How is it our fault or our responsiblity to answer for the bad assumptions of atheists or at best the inconsistencies of other Chrisitians positions?

You may get hit with some straw men, and I will be happy to help you combat those types of arguments, But that is not what you are going to be dealing with, in terms of arguments with well reasoned and well informed atheists. What push back do you get from us. I typically see our responses in the form of questions. If you say X is what Christianity should be, or believe in. We rightfully want to know, How do you know that? If answering those types of questions is difficult, don't blame us or insist that we are throwing logical fallacies at you. Come up with an intelligent, evidence based response. Then and only then will your argument have the proverbial legs to stand on. Until you do that however, your position regarding the supernatural is no different to me than a person claiming to be abducted by aliens, or claiming to be a psychic.

It's relevant to the previous comment about the underassessment of how bad humans really are to one another and how humanism must consider and assign the proper weight to that fact.

What about their assignment of weight to the bad actions of humans do you have a specific issue with?

Now humanism is more complicated than just atheism, so the indictment relates specifically to how much of an optimist the humanist says he is. Any mistakes made will depend on how consistently or inconsistently they reconcile optimism, human value, human evil and moral responsibility. Correcting those mistakes would involve resolving those inconsistencies.

Just what mistakes are you referring to? Just to be clear can you provide a specific mistake so we can put that statement into context?

For example, if a humanist were to claim that all human beings are equally valuable, then they have to explain why they do not value all human beings equally, or somehow show that they do.

Do you know if its typical for of a humanist position to assert that all humans have equal value?

Also, if the claim is that human life is more important than human experience they would have to justify treating their experience higher than other human life. And if the human experience, including the totality of suffering at the hands of other humans, is of ultimate importance, then how can allowing them to continue to exist, when the means to erradicate them is available, be morally justifiable?

There are times, when intervention must take place. I would agree that if we have the power it would be our responsibility to help those in need. If someone like Hitler would be alive today doing what he did to the Jews, I can hardly see any reason to sit back and watch if we had the means to stop him.

It's very similar to the Hume/Epicurian argument from the problem of evil... Are humanists willing to prevent human evil, but not able? Are they able, but not willing? Are they both able and willing? Then why does it continue?

Not really. Because we know humanists are not able to prevent all "evil". (what you call evil I call behavior that is detrimental to both human physiology and psychology.) Don't know if you understand that original argument. Its in light of a God who is purported to be both all loving and all powerful.

So just like the implications of certain Christian beliefs are a problem for you, the same kinds of problems are very much present in humanistic thinking as well.

Such as?

[yjoeyh]

No but if 30 different people believed 30 different things about a card I showed them, One says its a picture of a cat, one that its that of a dog, one person even says there is nothing on the card, How can someone from the outside looking in, think the card that was shown to those 30 different people is even the same card? Why would I treat that card the same. That is what you guys have done with the term Christianity. Should I believe Mitch? Should I believe you? Why not believe Mike? You have made the term Christianity lose its significance.

Well that's a good example of a straw man argument. The example you give (cat/dog/nothing on a card) is hardly analogous to different views of Christianity. There are certain things that are pretty basic to Christian belief, including God, Jesus, the Bible, the Holy Spirit, sin, forgiveness, etc. But that's not to say that every Christian's view of those things has to line up 100% in order for their identity as Christians to have any meaning at all. It's not even reasonable to have such an expectation to begin with. Yes there are different views in play. It's a complicated concept so that is to be expected. But to leap to the conclusion that there is not a real definition of Christianity at the core, based on those differences, is a huge exaggeration.

You may get hit with some straw men, and I will be happy to help you combat those types of arguments, But that is not what you are going to be dealing with, in terms of arguments with well reasoned and well informed atheists.

I disagree. In my experience it's pretty easy to decipher which atheists are well-reasoned and well-informed pretty early in the conversation, because the ones that aren't run quickly towards ad hominem and other emotionally charged fallacies pretty much immediately and demonstrate that they have no real interest in a serious discussion about these issues. Now the ones that are better reasoned and informed, like yourself, are the only ones that me and other Christians like the ones on this forum are typically going to take the time to interact with but these are also the ones that seem to rely heavily on straw men and red herrings right off the bat. They may not realize they are doing it, but it still happens frequently.

I typically see our responses in the form of questions. If you say X is what Christianity should be, or believe in. We rightfully want to know, How do you know that?

That would be great if it were true, but that's not at all what I typically see. It's much more like, "I think a lot of Christians say X is what Christianity should be, but X+Y does not equal Z, so why do you believe X?" And the response, "Well I don't believe X " doesn't seem to be an acceptable answer.

What about their assignment of weight to the bad actions of humans do you have a specific issue with?

If they acknowledge that the bad actions of humans far outweighs the good, then I have no issue with that specifically. If they do not, then I would say their assessment lacks validity. We would have to look at the evidence they present to support their position at that point.

Just what mistakes are you referring to? Just to be clear can you provide a specific mistake so we can put that statement into context?

The mistakes would be holding to a contradictory viewpoint. Of course there's no way to point out any specific ones at this point since we are only talking about generalities and hypotheticals. I'm not going to start building my own straw men here.

Do you know if its typical for of a humanist position to assert that all humans have equal value?

Not at all. I was just saying they could make that assertion, in much the same way that a Christian could make the assertion that the sun revolves around the earth. If they did, they would be wrong and we could demonstrate why we think they are wrong.

There are times, when intervention must take place. I would agree that if we have the power it would be our responsibility to help those in need. If someone like Hitler would be alive today doing what he did to the Jews, I can hardly see any reason to sit back and watch if we had the means to stop him.

I agree, but that's an easy one. What if stopping him meant dropping atomic bombs on all of Europe, taking out millions of people along with him? What is the humanist's higher moral obligation… to end the suffering, or to preserve human life?

Not really. Because we know humanists are not able to prevent all "evil".

Similar but not exactly the same. But it's not difficult to imagine a humanist having the ability to prevent 'human' evil by eliminating all humans. Remember if we are discussing a hypothetical God, we can also discuss a hypothetical humanist.

Don't know if you understand that original argument. It's in light of a God who is purported to be both all loving and all powerful.

Yes I get the original argument. It's pretty good logic, but the first premise, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent" fails because it is ultimately non-sequitur.

Such as?

Such as the implication that humans are our own worst enemy, and that all humans should be eliminated at all cost since they bring about human suffering. Or that it is our duty as humans to decide for and act on what we think is best for the human race, to the point of filtering out which humans we see as beneficial for our survival and eliminating all the rest.

[Keep The Reason]

Such as the implication that humans are our own worst enemy, and that all humans should be eliminated at all cost since they bring about human suffering.

This is humanism?? What knd of humanist would argue to eliminate humans in the cause of relieving human suffering? And where are these lunatics locked up?

Or that it is our duty as humans to decide for and act on what we think is best for the human race, to the point of filtering out which humans we see as beneficial for our survival and eliminating all the rest.

Oh, you mean artificial selection, like humans have employed for thousands of years in breeding livestock. That was around before humanism. Why would you say that such is a part of humanism?

I think that ole boogeyman man Hitler thought like this. You know, the Roman Catholic one who often cited as his mission from god the task of ridding the world of people god hated, the Jews, and making sure it was populated by those he felt were better-- you know, the Germans. Not much of a humanist at all.

[yjoeyh]

This is humanism?? What knd of humanist would argue to eliminate humans in the cause of relieving human suffering?

One that is perhaps internally consistent within that ideology to the point that they see it as the best solution or one that sees that as a justification for their inclination towards violence and power.

Oh, you mean artificial selection, like humans have employed for thousands of years in breeding livestock. That was around before humanism. Why would you say that such is a part of humanism?

More like genocide than animal husbandry. You're right that we do not value non-human life the same as human life. That is one thing humanists and Christians seem to agree on. And I'm not saying that it is part of humanism. I'm asking why it's not, or at least how does a humanist justify the omission of this kind of thinking from their ideology.

I think that ole boogeyman man Hitler thought like this. You know, the Roman Catholic one who often cited as his mission from god the task of ridding the world of people god hated, the Jews, and making sure it was populated by those he felt were better-- you know, the Germans. Not much of a humanist at all.

Yes, very much the kind of actions that result from this mindset. He certainly wasn't much of a Christian either... but why do you say he wasn't much of a humanist? It sounds very humanistic to me. If he really thought that the master race of humans was what was best for humanity and that it was necessary to eliminate the 'cancerous' humans (Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholic Priests, etc) because he viewed them as critically dangerous to the survival of what he considered the only real valuable humans (Aryans,) then how is that not humanism? Isn't part of the humanists creed to "free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community." Isn't that exactly what Hitler trying to do, no matter how misguided he may have been?

[mitchellmckain]

[

I think that ole boogeyman man Hitler thought like this. You know, the Roman Catholic one who often cited as his mission from god the task of ridding the world of people god hated, the Jews, and making sure it was populated by those he felt were better-- you know, the Germans. Not much of a humanist at all.

Yes, very much the kind of actions that result from this mindset. He certainly wasn't much of a Christian either... but why do you say he wasn't much of a humanist? It sounds very humanistic to me. If he really thought that the master race of humans was what was best for humanity and that it was necessary to eliminate the 'cancerous' humans (Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholic Priests, etc) because he viewed them as critically dangerous to the survival of what he considered the only real valuable humans (Aryans,) then how is that not humanism? Isn't part of the humanists creed to "free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community." Isn't that exactly what Hitler trying to do, no matter how misguided he may have been?

Yes the problem with humanism is how you define what is human and as long as you have a genetic definition of humanity then I cannot see any fundamental difference from Hitler's "humanism". In the past, the word "human" was a word for members of the tribe and others were not thought to be any more human than wolves and bears and sometimes even less so. The definition of humanity has grown as we have gained bonds of recognition of commonality that transended those of the tribe. At one time the bonds that expanded our notion of humanity were those of religion and now we chafe at the limitations of religion in this. Yet what in the end is "humanity"? It is an idea and a belief in something greater than ourselves and in this it is not fundamentally different than any religion. Shall genetic boundaries, whether greater or smaller than the biological species, which after all are largely coincidental, be the limits of this idea and belief that we will one day have to chafe at as well? I think the chafing has already begun.

I just finished watching Avatar and whether we ever deal with aliens does not change the fundamental questions that are posed there. It and many many other stories that we tell each other in our media suggest that definitions bounded by biological species and shape prejudice will never be enough. As old definitions fail communicate anything real or believable anymore the meaning of words must change, and it is in our own hearts, mind and will that we give new meaning and direction to the things which motivate us like the ideas and words which are the structures and building blocks of the human mind. I think that in the final analysis, the bond that gives "humanity" meaning is that of a trust, that we can have value in the eyes of others, not for what can be taken from us but for what we are.

Now, it is the nature of living organisms that we metabolize -- consuming the substance of our environment to make it part of our own structure. So what is the boundary that we will make the between the evironment we use/consume and the community which make ourselves a part of? In the end it is a question of value and identity. What will we value above all else and what is our own identity? Are we a tribe, a religion, a biological species? Are these the limits of what we are, or are we something more than this? I think that all the stories we are telling ourselves point to the fact that we are collectively deciding that we ARE more than these things -- that we have to be -- and thus that we must find a way to be part of a community that is bigger than any of these things. I think it is because what we value most are the substance of community where we learn to love and respect one another. I think that substance is not of one of organic chemicals but rather one of the ideas, beliefs, values and commitments we choose and that it is these that really make us what we are. So the question is only whether we can find in the diversity of our ideas, beliefs and values, the bonds of trust that will give real meaning to the word "humanity" and thus define the community that we want to be a part of.

[Brad]

And by the way, I don’t think I’ve EVER heard any atheist / freethinker / secular humanist speak with this sales-pitch style, and I think the reason for that is probably that one can’t SELL evidence and reason, while on the other hand anyone can simply talk about those things honestly and sincerely.

A close-to-equivalent atheist version of the used-car-salesman "pitch" is the host of "The Thinking Atheist" podcast (http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/).

I'll give a listen to this "Thinking Atheist" on a road trip some time soon, and given your post, NHB, I anticipate being at least somewhat appalled.
In any event, I, too, thought of an exception to my remark that you quoted, which is that ex-Pentecostal preacher guy who does the crude and often sex-obsessed "Living After Faith."
Maybe a rule might be that you can take the Pentecostal preacher out of the pulpit, but you can't take the pulpit out of the Pentecostal preacher?

Nevertheless, I'll stick by the general idea that reality - sooner or later - sells itself. I think this has at least a good bit to do with the fact that most advanced nations exhibit declining religiosity overall in modern times. Also, the fact that there is a very small percentage of secular speakers and teachers who employ the speech patterns of carnival barkers and talk radio hucksters, while there is and has always been a very considerable percentage of such folk on the religion side, is just one more of countless bits of evidence that the theological beliefs underlying religion are almost certainly simply mythological / psychological smoke and mirrors.

So we can laugh or be annoyed at all such speakers, religious or non-religious, no?
On the other hand, should we ever find someone claiming to be a free-thinker, atheist, or humanist who is also wearing a pointy hat, speaking in Latin, or standing behind a curtain with a smoke machine nearby, we'll really have to do something...

P.S.
Hey Ant, thanks for the thumbs up - much appreciated!

[Drone]

To get back to the thread topic, can anyone explain where Emery was going with the idea that as long as we have limited knowledge we will inevitably sin? This is strange to me. In fact, the opposite seems to be true: if someone performs an action that causes harm, but they had no way of knowing that it would cause harm, don't we understand that they were not morally responsible?
It seems like there is an equivocation here. An action that causes harm is not always morally wrong. Also, an action can be morally wrong without causing any harm. For example, Emery and I are at a New Year's party. I'm drunk out of my mind, and he is sober. We both get in our cars and drive home. I make it home safe. Emery's car, however, has an unknown defect in the brake system. On his way home, his brakes fail and he kills a nun on her way to feed some homeless orphans. Now, Emery has done great harm, but only because there were facts he did not know; namely his faulty brakes. I, on the other hand, have done no harm, but have still acted irresponsibly and in fact immorally.
With that in mind, what was Emery trying to say on the podcast? Does he think that Christianity counts an action as sin just because it has harmful, unforseen consequences? That is not true. Does he think that God has a secret set of instructions that we are supposed to follow in every situation, and then he punishes us for not knowing about these arcane rules? That if also false. What, exactly, is the argument here?

[Keep The Reason]

Yes, very much the kind of actions that result from this mindset. He certainly wasn't much of a Christian either... but why do you say he wasn't much of a humanist? It sounds very humanistic to me. If he really thought that the master race of humans was what was best for humanity and that it was necessary to eliminate the 'cancerous' humans (Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholic Priests, etc) because he viewed them as critically dangerous to the survival of what he considered the only real valuable humans (Aryans,) then how is that not humanism? Isn't part of the humanists creed to "free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community." Isn't that exactly what Hitler trying to do, no matter how misguided he may have been?

No, he was trying to do it for some humans at the cost of others who were humans as well. This is self-contradicting. if you are a humanist, all humans are your concern. When you pit some humans against others in order to empower one group over others, you're no longer a humanist by definition. You're just an asshole.