A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto

Phat writes: Christianity is not fully supportable by or through evidence. Christianity is a tested belief. A belief validated through scripture, the experience of believers, and countless testimonies that corroborate each other despite having separate incidents and locations.

Word Salad with absolutely no meaning.

I am a Christian. I support my position based on what is actually written in the Bible.

So far you have failed to present a single Apologist that seems to believe what is actually written in the Bible.

Phat writes: Supernatural manifestations are one of the clearest signs that point to the reality of God's presence among us.

Then present that evidence and the evidence that shows it is a supernatural manifestation.

Phat writes: Though you claim to be a believer, you lean more towards their side than you do the apologists, not all of whom lie and misrepresent anything.

Then present the evidence that shows an Apologist actually supports what is really written in the Bible and does not just make up shit to explain that the Bible does not mean what it actually says?

I will start a new topic. This topic should focus more on the criticisms and reviews of Secular Humanism. As everyone following my posts knows, I did present an apologist on behalf of secular humanism-Bart Campolo. I have been listening to his podcasts, and am beginning to lean a bit towards the idea that God can and will use other religions to bring his people to Him. As everyone may know, Barts Father was an evangelist--Tony Campolo.
Here is a good podcast which he has done:
Listen to "428: High profile deconversions and secular 'churches'" on Spreaker.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tonight I listened to another podcast by noted secular humanist Bart Campolo. It appears that they too think the world might end. AZ Paul3 and I have discussed apocalyptic teachings before. Tangle, pay attention. You always think that it is the Charismaniacs who squawk about the world ending, but the secular humanists discuss it also---as well as bringing up some positive outlooks in the midst of it all.

quote:

---

The earth is in trouble and nobody seems to care. That's the observation of Josie, 15, who called the podcast after hearing more and more about humanity's biggest challenges during science class:

---

Listen to "407: How to cope with coming apocalypse" on Spreaker.

There's very good, objective reasons why the entirety of humanity should be discussing how we're affecting our planet and then rolling our sleeves up to do something about it.

That's totally different to fundamentalist idiots telling us that god is going to bring about the end of the world next week because of gay marriage or some other such bollox supposedly written by near cavemen thousands of years ago.

Phat writes: ... noted secular humanist Bart Campolo.

Who's noting him?

I was thinking the same thing. Never heard of him. I think fundies can not conceive of the idea that no one speaks for atheists or atheism. What ever this guy has to say has nothing to do with what any other humanist or atheist has to say or what they think. These are his viewpoints. There is no humanist or atheist dogma.
Phat is on his apologist kick and he seems to think his view that Ravi the shyster kicked Sam the misogynists' butt(these are not personal attacks against them, it is reasonable conclusion based upon verifiable evidence). It has no bearing on anything. All a humanist apologist can do is defend their own belief set.
He also seems to be obsessed with the "Four Horsemen". This is a media created designation. I know of no one in the atheist world that considers these guys to be leaders of any sort. The only thing I have in common with Sam Harris is that we both do not have a belief in a god. I don't care about anything he writes or says as it has no effect on my belief set.
Here is a difference between believers and nonbelievers. Believers let and expect apologists determine what they believe. Seemingly they have no confidence to make their own decisions or to even read the plain text of their religious tomes. Nonbelievers will listen to defenders of atheist and humanism, but do not and will not adjust their beliefs to what is said and written. Facts and data drive our belief set, not word salad.

Nonbelievers will listen to defenders of atheist and humanism, but do not and will not adjust their beliefs to what is said and written.

Oh, let's not go that far. We're not obstinate ideologues. We do learn and mature. Especially when we're reading Daniel Dennett. What we don't do is adopt every tennent they spout without considerable thought. Whereas religionists are prone to accept and adopt any tennent their favored nutjob decides to spout just because they spout it.

Ok, so a bit pedantic.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Agreed. Much better than how I put it, but that is the meaning I was actually trying to express.
We listen, learn and mature. What we don't do is take what they say and accept it uncritically.

Human's are only around to create Artificial Intelligence. This is because the Creators could not directly create anything in this simulation we live in. It's time for a better explanation of life than religion can give us. Humans might want to stop this process of making life only livable for rich stupid people.

Phat in August of 2016 writes: Everything that I have read from Biblical Christians (who critics call conservative, uninformed, and in a realm of fantasy versus reality) indicates that the world will, by and large, reject all forms of organized religion due to the fundamentalist oppressive nature of its tenets and will embrace a form of belief in the human-animal and our collective potential known as secular humanism. What does the evidence show us regarding international relations, global finance, the steady decline of the United States both morally and financially, and the rise of false religion the world over? Are the secular humanists right? Are religion and ancient beliefs threatening a logical and rational future for our planet and ourselves? Or are the Christian literalists right? Are we all doomed to a bleak future by our actions of rejecting God and seeking to deify ourselves as the ultimate source of wisdom and logic?

Note that this was shortly before Donald Trump got elected. The world changed after that.

jar, in 2016 BT (Before Trump) writes: Speaking as a Christian and Theist, the evidence seems to show that overall, membership in some religious organization is still relatively common and strong but where is the problem if religions were abandoned? (...)the evidence shows us that international relations have never been as peaceful and cooperative as they are today. Nor is there any evidence of a decline of the United States morally or financially. The most common false religion today seems to be "Biblical Evangelical Fundamentalist Christianity" perhaps followed at a great distance by Radical Fundamentalist Islam.

Has your perspective changed any since the Trump Effect clouded the intelligence of the media-at-large? At best, I argue that international relations have soured a bit, though the dictators and populists seem to have loosely united throughout the globe.

The End Timers are oddly silent as long as they are making money, and the apocalyptic pronouncements have not focused on leaders such as Mr. Trump. The evangelicals consider him to be a savior type of leader sent by God. This has continued to puzzle me and sets a red light off in my head. Yet I myself get angry if the prospect of actually having to live through times of scarcity is even suggested. I fear I would become an irrational populist reactionary myself---and that is unsettling.