Secular humanist feel that religion is really a negative thing because it gives you rules to follow therefore you never really follow your deepest desires. The one thing Christians and secular humanist have in common is that they both look for the good in everyone that no one is truly bad. Atheistic Existentialism is very different from Christianity in almost every way. Christian feels that we as humans have purpose and are on this Earth to follow whatever path God has for us. However, Atheistic Existentialism sees humans and even themselves as nothing but matter and to me it is completely sad that they have no faith or feeling of value.
On the other hand, Boethius also states that humans do not have free will. If God is omniscient then he already knows all of our choices, past, present and future regardless of whether we have even thought about them yet. This concept would suggest that human’s do not have a choice in their actions or the consequences of them, as, as some philosophers believes out future has already been predetermined. If this is correct and humans have no control over their actions then it would be wrong and unfair for God to punish someone, who had no choice but to do what God had already predetermined. If the Calvinist approach to predestination is true then there would be no need to hope of pray for anything as you cannot change your position, and God has already chosen who he will save before you are born.
These questions were asked by a man called Epuicurus, who lived between 341BC and 270BC, yet they still have not been answered. I feel this is the perfect example that God does not exist because if God truly existed he would make it possible, especially for those who are skeptical, either by demonstration or by sound logical argument. He would know exactly what it would take to “open the heart” of every non-believer. Yet for more than two millennia the greatest philosophical and scientific minds of humanity - presumably inspired by God - have offered nothing more than circular and illogical arguments. Furthermore he is completely illogical.
Micheal Jones PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning Prof. Kathleen Andrews June 13, 2013 Giving: Is It Our Moral Obligation? “It is better to give than to receive”, many of us are familiar with this statement but few live by this golden rule. In today’s society it is everyman for himself. The weak are left to suffer with no hope of being rescued. We live in a world where we expect people to assist us in our time of need although we refuse to help those who truly need our assistance.
The author concludes that the person who has no faith in religion could watch religious debates go on and never be affected, either positively or negatively. The other conclusion is that a person who has even the smallest amount of faith in a religion should dive head first into that religion because of the promise of infinite reward. All other religions should be denounced because they are in conflict with his chosen religion. The author did not sufficiently support the premise of disbelief in faith and or religion. He states that if one does not believe in a religion then one can gain nothing from religious debates.
Antigone, on the other hand, has what Creon lacks. She knew that she had to bury her brother, regardless of what every other person was telling her. She believed that divine laws were the laws people needs to follow. Antigone takes the long view of things, warning Creon “Nor could I think that a decree of yours-- / A man—could override the laws of Heaven/ Unwritten and unchanging”. The laws of the gods regulating the life of man “are eternal; no man saw their birth”.
Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” Analysis: Fredrich Nietzche's influential quote adduces that humans have lost faith in God. The saying goes by “God is dead,” and people look at it through a literal perspective. However, the quote explains that the controversy of whether Christianity is real or not, due to the substantial evidence against the religion, to which is looked upon as theoretical. Nietzche postulates that humans' efficacy in this world is useless, for he perceives the idea of life to death, without the recognized afterlife. Despite the great possibilities that God might not be real, humans hold on to the idea; therefore, humans will have something to give faith to.
Kant believes that this cannot be reached in one lifetime, suggesting that there is some kind of afterlife that allows us to reach the Sunnum Bonnum. We are obliged to promote it, so there must be a God who can apply this, intervening into the universe in a good way; this is postulating the existence of God. b. “Moral awareness has nothing to do with a God.” Moral awareness is knowing right from wrong, for instance in our society, knowing that killing someone is wrong, a bad thing and being nice to someone is right, a good thing. I agree with the statement in the question because we grow up learning, we don’t already know it, it is not an innate moral awareness that we have.
Graffin claims that he is not a fundamentalist. He even goes as far to accuse some of his fellow atheists of having a fundamentalist view towards their disbelief- the same view that they disapprove of in religions. Graffin claims that faith is not restricted to religion. Graffin’s naturalist worldview stresses his faith in creativity, individualism, and interpersonal relationships. He asserts that no one worldview contains all of the answers to life- not his naturalist view or natural selection’s Darwinism.
Flaws Within the Flawless As an inherently flawed element, human nature will continuously battle with right and wrong, and failure will persist without guidance. Dostoevski highlights this conclusion in his work The Grand Inquisitor. According to the Grand Inquisitor, the most important aspects of our human nature are the inability to handle freedom and a yearning for a miraculous being. In his approach to governing these aspects, the argument he defends that Christ’s rejection of the temptations has permanently hindered human nature may appear true. However, the Grand Inquisitor’s rejection that the nature of man has potential to change when we accept Christ as our savior highlights the weak link in his argument.