Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
Conservallectual
Conservallectual's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 70
0
2
7
Conservallectual's avatar
Conservallectual
0
2
7
Secular humanism is a contradiction. Here's why(note: I am neither an atheist or a humanist) :

Humanism: puts humans at a prime moral/social/philosophical importance.

Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.

Here's the problem: In an atheist worldview, why do humans have to be more important than animals? Why aren't monkeys or rats of prime moral importance? Why of all the animals supposedly generated by blind natural processes do humans have to be of any major moral importance? After all, in atheistic worldview, a very good person who does good things like donating to charities, saving people, being kind to others, has the same fate as an evil man who kills everyone he doesn't like, steals whatever he wants, and has lots of hatred - when they both die, they completely disappear. This is the problem with every atheistic world view that claims to have a strong moral code - like communism. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Conservallectual
Secular humanism is a contradiction. Here's why(note: I am neither an atheist or a humanist) :

Humanism: puts humans at a prime moral/social/philosophical importance.

Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.

Here's the problem: In an atheist worldview, why do humans have to be more important than animals? Why aren't monkeys or rats of prime moral importance? Why of all the animals supposedly generated by blind natural processes do humans have to be of any major moral importance? After all, in atheistic worldview, a very good person who does good things like donating to charities, saving people, being kind to others, has the same fate as an evil man who kills everyone he doesn't like, steals whatever he wants, and has lots of hatred - when they both die, they completely disappear. This is the problem with every atheistic world view that claims to have a strong moral code - like communism. 
You have a pretty long list of for and against positions in your bio. Strange to see you still ask questions on what you have already decided you are against.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Conservallectual
One the one hand you overcomplicate atheism.

And on the other hand you present a basic misrepresentation of atheism.

Just the same old dig at non-theists really, just dressed up in slightly different verbiage.

The age old dig, proposing that non-theist lives therefore have no purpose, is baloney.

One could just as easily argue that theistic lives must be so shallow and meaningless, if purpose can only be found within the pages of a fantasy.




Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Conservallectual
What we call morality comes from empathy, this is an inherent  trait and nothing to do with God, religion or an afterlife.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Conservallectual
I'm only an Atheist (not a humanist) but I think it needs to be said: morality is just your feelings. It's an evolutionary advantage to think that they are more than that (i.e. divined by the creator Himself), but they're just evolutionary impulses at the end of the day. Important impulses, sure, but not consistent across groups of people or individuals, and so we're beginning to see that clearly. The theistic notion of objective morality is entering extinction.

Also, humanism is ridiculous. Groups of humans differ genetically to such a degree that treating them all the same is to treat them all poorly. Basic human rights are fine, but universalized doctrine for freedom of speech, immigration, cognitive ability etc. -, especially when you take into account cultural (e.g. religion), is going to make no one happy.
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Conservallectual
One can not possibly know what happens when one dies. Full stop.   Apart from the visual body decays. 
Theists , humanists , atheists allllllll should know this.   
Butttttttttttttttt.
Most Theists know exactly what happens when one dies. ( with unfathomable details )  

Do you know what happens when you die ?

Your post almost sounds like you believe in karma 
Do you?

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
morality is just your feelings. It's an evolutionary advantage to think that they are more than that (i.e. divined by the creator Himself), but they're just evolutionary impulses at the end of the day.
So do you regard someone as immoral that doesn’t share the same musical feelings as you? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5467-what-i-realized
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
So do you regard someone as immoral that doesn’t share the same musical feelings as you?
No, I don't.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
No, I don't.
Okay so define morality, because chalking it up to feelings doesn’t really set it apart from anything (e.g, music).
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Okay so define morality, because chalking it up to feelings doesn’t really set it apart from anything (e.g, music).
Morality: an innate sense of fairness.

The distinction from the broader category of "feelings" is that "feelings" don't have to necessarily refer to an innate sense of fairness.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
Morality: an innate sense of fairness.
Okay, but how often have we seen arguments pertaining to music? Clearly some people feel that talent isn’t being judged fairly.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Okay, but how often have we seen arguments pertaining to music? Clearly some people feel that talent isn’t being judged fairly.
Yeah so that would pertain to the morality involving specific judgements of music, not the music generating morality.

Those people are judging whether the music has been fairly judged, not whether the music is fairly judging.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
not whether the music is fairly judging.
Can you elaborate on this?
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
The music isn't doing the judging. The feeling of the music isn't judging. It's people's innate sense of fairness is judging the music.

You have musical "feelings" and then that is judged.

Music --> I hear music (musical "feelings") -- > That sounds good/bad (innate fairness judgement)

They are different types of feelings, despite both being feelings.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
innate fairness judgement
That was literally your definition of morality.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Yes :)
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
So do you regard someone as immoral that doesn’t share the same feelings as you pertaining to murder?
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
So do you regard someone as immoral that doesn’t share the same feelings as you pertaining to murder?
No because I don't believe morality is objective.

They have a different feeling of morality, but even then one feeling could generate superior utility to the other, so it's more intersubjective in that regard.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
Morality: an innate sense of fairness.
So how does an impartial judge fairness if everybody’s definition of it is inconsistent, inconsistency doesn’t make much sense.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
So how does an impartial judge fairness if the definition is inconsistent, inconsistency doesn’t make much sense.
Yeah I agree that it's a problem. It's compounded by the fact that it's impossible to be impartial.

People could come together to discuss some kind of intersubjective standard, perhaps judging people's morality based on the utility. Maybe they could take an average of the combined moral feelings of people. That's not consistent per say, but it's more consistent than a random person's morality.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Conservallectual
Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.
ATHEISM is simply "not a theist"

it has absolutely nothing to do with "afterlife" or AXIOLOGY or any other ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Avery
Okay so define morality, because chalking it up to feelings doesn’t really set it apart from anything (e.g, music).
Morality: an innate sense of fairness.

The distinction from the broader category of "feelings" is that "feelings" don't have to necessarily refer to an innate sense of fairness.
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Conservallectual
In an atheist worldview,
No such thing. Atheism isn't an epistemology, a moral framework, an ontology, a methodology, etc. Atheists' outlook on life can be shaped by any number of things, but it ain't their answer to 'Do you believe in gods'.

That's where the OP goes wrong. 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
No such thing. Atheism isn't an epistemology, a moral framework, an ontology, a methodology, etc. Atheists' outlook on life can be shaped by any number of things, but it ain't their answer to 'Do you believe in gods'.
well stated
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
-->@Conservallectual
In an atheist worldview,

No such thing. Atheism isn't an epistemology, a moral framework, an ontology, a methodology, etc. Atheists' outlook on life can be shaped by any number of things, but it ain't their answer to 'Do you believe in gods'.

That's where the OP goes wrong.

The OP asks: Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory.

All that is needed is a clear definition of each.

Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognising that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. While atheism is merely the absence of belief, humanism is a positive attitude to the world, centred on human experience, thought, and hopes
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Conservallectual
Personally my opinion aligns in a similar manner as,

zedvictor4           #3
3RU7AL                #21

Though arguably atheists could be grouped into various groups based on beliefs, the variety, number of beliefs, and lack of formal organization makes that difficult I think.

. . .

But for conversation,
Let's say you were talking about a specific atheist/s
Who did not believe in God, an Afterlife, or Objective Morality.
And wanted to follow Humanism.

My view of such, is the divorce between the intellect and the heart, as well as conditioning.
. . .
Also the having of other values.


Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
-->@Conservallectual
Personally my opinion aligns in a similar manner as,

zedvictor4           #3
3RU7AL                #21
SkepticalOne     #23

Though arguably atheists could be grouped into various groups based on beliefs, the variety, number of beliefs, and lack of formal organization makes that difficult.

. . .

But for conversation,
Let's say you were talking about a specific atheist/s
Who did not believe in God, an Afterlife, or Objective Morality.
And wanted to follow Humanism.

My view of such, is the divorce between the intellect and the heart, as well as conditioning.

The OP asks: Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory.

All that is needed is a clear definition of each.

Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognising that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. While atheism is merely the absence of belief, humanism is a positive attitude to the world, centred on human experience, thought, and hopes

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Shila
I 'already stated my opinion that that he was using the word atheism a bit broadly.

But still, ideas, people who claim identities,
Can be roughly categorized at times,
Depending on when and where.

Take the identity of Americans for example,
They can 'roughly be identified by different values, depending on timeframe.

Take Communists, 
They can 'roughly be identified by different values, depending on timeframe.
Though for the Communists as time passes, it becomes required to use where,
As the belief spreads over such distances and numbers, that vast variation occurs.

Anyway,
I like talking with people at times,
And wanted to address his topic for what I thought he 'meant,
Rather than harping on what he 'said.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,736
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
I 'already stated my opinion that that he was using the word atheism a bit broadly.

But still, ideas, people who claim identities,
Can be roughly categorized at times,
Depending on when and where.

Take the identity of Americans for example,
They can 'roughly be identified by different values, depending on timeframe.

Take Communists, 
They can 'roughly be identified by different values, depending on timeframe.
Though for the Communists as time passes, it becomes required to use where,
As the belief spreads over such distances and numbers, that vast variation occurs.

Anyway,
I like talking with people at times,
And wanted to address his topic for what I thought he 'meant,
Rather than harping on what he 'said.
All we read were your  harping opinions.

Personally my opinion aligns in a similar manner as,

zedvictor4           #3
3RU7AL                #21
SkepticalOne     #23

Though arguably atheists could be grouped into various groups based on beliefs, the variety, number of beliefs, and lack of formal organization makes that difficult I think.

. . .

But for conversation,
Let's say you were talking about a specific atheist/s
Who did not believe in God, an Afterlife, or Objective Morality.
And wanted to follow Humanism.

My view of such, is the divorce between the intellect and the heart, as well as conditioning.
. . .
Also the having of other values.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
Yeah I agree that it's a problem. It's compounded by the fact that it's impossible to be impartial.
It’s more than just a problem, it’s enough to cause reasonable doubt. The simple fact that your view of morality contradicts itself is enough to come to the conclusion that it’s nonexistent. Judging by your definition of morality one can have no logical concept of fairness leaving no choice but impartiality. The only way morality makes sense is if it’s objective.