i aologise if this tread annoys some of u indirectly.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RpxEbY6PI&search=i%20will%20survive
Take the tension off...
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:Good manners is a good virtue is a truism and I'm sure it didn't come from your mum.
Actually it is a profound mystery because Augustine die die believe those are the only two things.
How many years have you read the bible? Tell me honestly, before last sunday, have you thought of it?
She also taught me alot of other things which she learned from other people but she didn't always quote the person or source every single time she does that.
So shall i discount whatever she's taught?
I shrudder to think what the world will be like if every child were to demand from their parents their 'sources' before they are deemed qualified to speak in the first place.
And notice i used the word 'believe'.
Did i ever so much as to claim that no one else had said this before and that I came up with all this?
And yes fyi I've always thought that these 2 are very important and I've also heard of this somewhere before but i didn't know who first said it until Dr Tong mentioned it last sunday.
But I'm sure Augustine wasn't the first too to thought of this before.
Well I just think that it's amazing that we're even having this conversation.
First we had someone insisting we go into jewish roots and now this.
I knew sgforums had some interesting people but nothing prepared me for this.
Honestly, I think you're just barking up the wrong tree.
No wait, you should discount what I just said because I don't know the person who first came up with the term 'barking up the wrong tree'
Well now, shall we just focus on the thread itself rather than get sidetrack meaninglessly again. -
A common, and valid point...Originally posted by stupidissmart:Serial killer getting off the same treatment as a person conducting good deeds all his life. Then wat is the moltivation for doing good deeds and punishment for performing deadly sins. The people who continuously seek to do good deeds try so hard and get so far. In the end it doesn't even matter. Why waste the effort ? No wonder the threadstarter felt that christians r performing badly. Because it doesn't matter.
But it only holds if we think we are earning something or getting anywhere by being nice and good, which I happen believe (by virtue of being a monotheist and a Christian at that) we are not.
I will not deny that people might be calculated to think of Grace in such a way (and have I not?), such is it's scandal. However, people who are truly come to see what it cost and what it mean would realize that this way of thinking is folly.
But then again the alternative is a strict accounting by the absolute rules, by which no one can pass. And having that kind of law is even less motivation to do good at all then one that gives us a choice of the scandal of forgiveness.
The alternative system is to take a humanist point of right and wrong, but I've found this system to be even more arbitary and subject to personal whims. Ultimately it in itself cannot be said to be consistent without destroying any objective concepts of good and evil itself. Taken to it's logical conclusion, humanistic morality ultimately says that the serial killer is no more right or wrong then the saint, but in the way that it says that there was never a right or wrong to begin with.
Christianity says the very same thing with the opposite intention, that there was such a strong right and wrong that something needed to be done about it or all would be wrong.
And that's my point of view. -
Save the statement for yourself please.Originally posted by Mystix:
She also taught me alot of other things which she learned from other people but she didn't always quote the person or source every single time she does that.
So shall i discount whatever she's taught?
I shrudder to think what the world will be like if every child were to demand from their parents their 'sources' before they are deemed qualified to speak in the first place.
And notice i used the word 'believe'.
Did i ever so much as to claim that no one else had said this before and that I came up with all this?
And yes fyi I've always thought that these 2 are very important and I've also heard of this somewhere before but i didn't know who first said it until Dr Tong mentioned it last sunday.
But I'm sure Augustine wasn't the first too to thought of this before.
Well I just think that it's amazing that we're even having this conversation.
First we had someone insisting we go into jewish roots and now this.
I knew sgforums had some interesting people but nothing prepared me for this.
Honestly, I think you're just barking up the wrong tree.
No wait, you should discount what I just said because I don't know the person who first came up with the term 'barking up the wrong tree'
Well now, shall we just focus on the thread itself rather than get sidetrack meaninglessly again. 
-
But then again the alternative is a strict accounting by the absolute rules, by which no one can pass. And having that kind of law is even less motivation to do good at all then one that gives us a choice of the scandal of forgiveness.
I beg to differ There r many alternative present, such as simply using the legal system of human as a basis to judge people on their afterlife status. Given god's "omnipotent", he could easily gauge the amount of wrongs the person had commit and then punish/reward him accordingly. I think I have gone through a possible system just shortly before and it is an easy and fair system tat discourage people from committing wrongs to others. However instead, god do not gauge the magnitude of wrongs but bluntly just classified everything, no matter how small as deserving a punishment worse than the death penalty. It is unfair, illogical and foolish without reaching any meaningful objective. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:Save the statement for yourself please.
-
Your replies are like a crescendo then drop off sharply.Originally posted by Mystix:
You wrote more and more upon taunted and then your final reply is just one emoticon. -
well..this is the part where u have to get the facts right and find out the reason behind these answers..Originally posted by cannonprinter:Hey.. pls explain this, some christians told me i will go to hell if i dont believe in god.
Oh ya.. they also mentioned that if u believe in other religion u go to hell too.
So hell is a popular place for non believers of god?
A person who does not do evil and does good deeds will also go to hell because he dont believe in god?
Everyman sins. thats human nature, we are not god. but do one have to believe in god in order not to go hell? or is it just some people who put it this way? after all, the bible is written by man themselves, rules are also made by man.
I'll put it in an easier explanation for u...juz like a carpark with onli 1 way in...and u wan to enter it..no matter how u circle outside looking for another way in or try other ways...u will not get in..the "carpark" is Heaven..the onli way is through God...but i'm a man...i follow what Man has written in the Bible in accordance to God's word..so i have faith..
Hell is not the popular place for non-believers..explanation..u're either in the carpark..or not in the carpark...u're either white or black.. -
I'll put it in an easier explanation for u...juz like a carpark with onli 1 way in...and u wan to enter it..no matter how u circle outside looking for another way in or try other ways...u will not get in..the "carpark" is Heaven..the onli way is through God...but i'm a man...i follow what Man has written in the Bible in accordance to God's word..so i have faith..
So u acknowledge hell is solely for non-believers Since they do not have "faith" they r not in "carpark" therefore they r in hell. -
Ok Here goes...What i can Say is that..you cant be so Biased... A bad apple in a company does not affect others... It goes the same for everywhere... For instance : The Terrorist Osama Bin Laden... He too is a Muslim...But just because he done acts of terror around the world...Dosent mean all Muslims are Terrorists... There will be a Certain good few left... I just want to know why...Do you people have to be So Biased if a Few people in a organization does something bad and you of all people have to blame everyone in it !
Why is it because...A Person who finds flinging around or playful around with girls in a society is morally not right to him... and the person thinks that way...you People have to Criticize him...Or hurt the particular person... Not everyone Thinks like you...There are people here in this world are also old fashioned...
-
And about your friend that avoided you... How do you know she avoids you because you didnt go church... Please stop assuming...Sometimes it just makes an Ass out of you and me...
-
as a fellow christian i would like to thank you for standing up for our faith. Many catholics have slaughtered and condemn that particular thinking, but thanks to you i would know how to reply nowOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:If I may so state my own point of view on the serial killer question, I do believe that the problems stem from our own viewing and judgement of the deeds of man, as opposed to viewing them from the way God might see it.
Of course in no way I am saying God sees our sins in such a way, but I might be tempted to think that as much as we think there is a big difference between a minor sin like telling a small lie and going around killing people, actually no such difference in the eternal sense exists.
Yes, killing people is a more serious sin because it is indicative of a more fallen and corrupted condition then a person who lies now and then, but the (Christian) concept of salvation from corruption is not interested in the severity of the corruption, but that the corruption in any form is redeemed. The severity of the corruption in a sense, is irrelevant.
It only seems unfair to us because we fail to see how serious our own minor sin is in the eyes of GodÂ… and ultimately all sin is really against God. In short, all fall equally short of God in the sense that we are always infinitely short of perfection. In that respect you and the serial killer stand on the same ground.
Sometimes we mistake our feelings for justice, it may feel unfair that the criminal that truly repents on his deathbed be forgiven and not the person who has lived a life of minor sinsÂ… but I suspect that we have a flawed concept of justice. If we really wanted God to practice the justice He without mercy or compassion and by the bookÂ… all of us deserve to die, and die totally.
So the question remains, what exactly separates the serial killer from us? I don't think there is any reasonable separation in the eyes of God except that we are all sinners and require saving.
The supposed 'unfairness' is a human conceptÂ… and if we think about itÂ… really unfair to God. He extended a Grace that He could keep by all means and paid for it by such bloody meansÂ… and now we have us sinful humans demanding He dispense this grace in accordance to this sin and that in this way or another? HmmÂ…
No I don't think the person who accepts God on deathbed lies to himself, and this is not because he has managed to earn any favour but simply because we have a God that is willing to hear even the cries of a person who has no intention but self-preservation to turn to Him. In fact in many cases we realize we don't turn to God with pure or selfless motives at all, but He chooses not to turn us away.
Really I suspect it's all about what God chooses to do, and very little of what we have to say about it. But I think it's alright to find the concept of salvation and redemption difficult at times, we'd expect to find some difficulty in understanding it if it was of Divine and not human creation and standards.
To the tread starter: its the same for every religion. -
yeah, u will go to hell no matter what unless you've accepted christ, at least for the christian perspective, but catholics say that all non christians will go to heaven because they're innocent and being a catholic makes it harder to go to heaven, which in a sense makes it rather ironic, because it will just make non-believers remain longer as free-thinkers so they don't have any obligations and end up eventually in heaven, while many catholics from birth find it hard to accept their situation and eventually act like non-believers, at least from some examples i've seenOriginally posted by cannonprinter:Hey.. pls explain this, some christians told me i will go to hell if i dont believe in god.
Oh ya.. they also mentioned that if u believe in other religion u go to hell too.
So hell is a popular place for non believers of god?
A person who does not do evil and does good deeds will also go to hell because he dont believe in god?
Everyman sins. thats human nature, we are not god. but do one have to believe in god in order not to go hell? or is it just some people who put it this way? after all, the bible is written by man themselves, rules are also made by man.
so its really up to you to choose what to believe -
so its really up to you to choose what to believe
Yah lor. If christian r right then u go to heaven. If christian r wrong and jews r right then u go to hell. If muslim r the right one then only muslim go to heaven and the rest to hell. In fact the right one may be scientology, Jehova witness or even mormons and the rest have to stick with hell. So it turn out to be guessing game where nobody have any clues and if u guess the wrong one, god send u to hell for eternity. Wat a dilemma -
For once I agree with you! You have just described the philosophy of absolute truth. However, it is not a 'guessing game' like you suggested.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Yah lor. If christian r right then u go to heaven. If christian r wrong and jews r right then u go to hell. If muslim r the right one then only muslim go to heaven and the rest to hell. In fact the right one may be scientology, Jehova witness or even mormons and the rest have to stick with hell. So it turn out to be guessing game where nobody have any clues and if u guess the wrong one, god send u to hell for eternity. Wat a dilemma -
I do not find it a dilemma; rather it seems to me to be the way of things no matter how one may try to see it. It may very well be that we were wrong all the while, and that is a risk anybody wanting to adopt any exclusive belief set has to take. I am perfectly alright with this way of things.
But I know what it sure beats, it sure beats deciding not to do anything about everything simply because we cannot be absolutely sure if something is right or not. And this 'dilemma' is hardly restricted only to people of faith- it seems to me all men of non pluralistic belief stake everything on their particular worldviews.
The 'risk' or 'dilemma' it seems, is an illusion that one tends to see in others but not oneself. In any case it seems better then wanting to assume that everybody will be right in the end, which is as good as saying that truth (as well as that very statement) does not matter at all.
As much as it may be physiologically comforting, its something I would rather live without. I would rather live with the fear and trepidation that comes occasionally wondering if the Muslims, the Buddhists, or even you could be right in the end.
In any case if any belief set demands a rather exclusive set of rules, it seems to me the logical response would be to investigate it for what it says, as opposed to rejecting or balking at the fact that it seems too exclusive... which is just cosmetics to me. If the truth is that exclusive, all our balking at how everybody else could be wrong would not really matter in the end. -
I personally there's no point to this arguements.
Thread starter points out the bad ass of some church goers which doesn't even care about faith.
Replys are all about defending the rights and the wrong.
For once, even though I'm Antheist,
its clear, that people who pledge their faith to whatever religon,
stay true,
if not there's no point on doing :
" hey I'm a Christian/Bhuddist/Taoist/Hindu and i just kill/rape/steal forgive me!"
Thats just crap.
Just majority the acts are seen liek that doesn't mean we can keep pointing out faults. Let this rest people,
There is no point to arguing. -
I'm afraid I can't support your point of view. While I agree with you that there needs to be a humanistic system of crime and punishment for practical purposes in human society, one only needs to look slightly deeper to realize that all practical systems of crime and punishment appeal to something that all men agree should be [I]beyond[/I] there mere fancies and consensus of men.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I beg to differ There r many alternative present, such as simply using the legal system of human as a basis to judge people on their afterlife status. Given god's "omnipotent", he could easily gauge the amount of wrongs the person had commit and then punish/reward him accordingly. I think I have gone through a possible system just shortly before and it is an easy and fair system tat discourage people from committing wrongs to others. However instead, god do not gauge the magnitude of wrongs but bluntly just classified everything, no matter how small as deserving a punishment worse than the death penalty. It is unfair, illogical and foolish without reaching any meaningful objective.
In any case by admitting that there is good and evil that needs to be appealed to one immediately suggests that the human standard of judging people is invalid- We do not come up with the terms by which we are judged, we are trying on the other hand, to perceive (often dimly at times), some absolute an unchangeable law that has been in place since we managed sentience. And it is the assertion of anything wanting to give value to anything that this system matters to all menÂ… of course men tend to disagree over the exact nature of this system, but nobody was ever in dispute to if it exists.
For certain reasons, I will have to support the Christian model of ultimate crime and punishment over yours. For certain reasons:
Firstly I suspect that this notion of 'minor' and 'major' sin is more of a humanistic perception then actual realityÂ… at least for various monotheists like me will tend to view it this way. One of the cardinal beliefs in Christianity is that the ultimate objective of God for humanity is for them to achieve His plans for them to complete perfection. In such a system even the slightest blemish is absolutely unacceptable, like how even a drop of poison renders an entire cup undrinkable.
You asked about what objective is there is such an exclusive system, I might suspect it has something to do with the notion that God's idea of what makes a good man is radically different from our own, and his appropriate punishment from what seems a minor sin in our eyes is completely just because it was never a minor sin to begin with. While we are satisfied with being good enough, it seems that God tends to exert that man can never be satisfied until he is perfect. That will be a pickle for some of us.
The 'minor' and 'magnitude' nature of it was an arbitrary concept we tend to place on things to get a size of their scale. The truth as Christians like to see it as, even we cannot pay for our most minor of sins, because they were never minor to begin with. Their seemingly innocuous nature insulates us from realizing that they were potent enough to render our entire existence in jeopardy.
Of course this only works if you accept the Christian view of sin as absolutely serious, I understand why people who do not accept this will find the Christian idea exclusive and unfair. But I hardly think it's inconsistent, and in fact if One were intending perfection for us nothing but the harsh, absolute system will suffice.
And what's more the system may be hard but there is an easy wayÂ… but not everyone might take it because it tends to be humbling and involves many painful changes. But there's too much material in that to write in one post. -
Anyway I do feel Sekundes put it correctly, the actions of the believers do not determine the validy of the belief system.
-
Hmm, I kinda agree and disagree with this statement. Agree because of some bunch of people would claim they are practising the 'true' or 'truest' form of the faith, and for all we know, they are just manipulating doctrines to serve their own interest.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Anyway I do feel Sekundes put it correctly, the actions of the believers do not determine the validy of the belief system.
Disagree, because of the very same issue. What is the real belief system of a particular faith? We will probably get different answers, in this context, from the Catholics, the Methodists, the Charismatic movement etc..
There is this sort of inter-relationship between the message and the message we receive that makes this whole business very murky... -
state the f*ckin so-called terrorists' religion before you come battling against sins we all commit. And don't you know; we have to carry our surrounding neighbours' balls because we're (our govt) are intimidated by those sh*t. one fine example would be m'sia and indo. ungrateful f*ckers.
they're the ones who really should be condemned.
they hate christians and catholics and want the whole world to be of one religion. That's even worse. If you think i'm spouting nonsense, go take a look at the f*ckin' crap book which copies exactly from the bible!
pathetic! -
I do not find it a dilemma; rather it seems to me to be the way of things no matter how one may try to see it. It may very well be that we were wrong all the while, and that is a risk anybody wanting to adopt any exclusive belief set has to take. I am perfectly alright with this way of things.
I think it is really a dilemma, because people r forced to make blind choices of great important in the absence of evidences. If they choose the wrong one, not because they purposely want to, they r punished eternally without mercy. And tis illustrate the unfairness and how ridiculous the whole system is about. People r punished eternally or saved largely depend on wat they guess and no other.
But I know what it sure beats, it sure beats deciding not to do anything about everything simply because we cannot be absolutely sure if something is right or not. And this 'dilemma' is hardly restricted only to people of faith- it seems to me all men of non pluralistic belief stake everything on their particular worldviews. If tis idea is from a benevolent and infinitely intelligent being, then it makes no sense because its actions speak otherwise
Having said tis, I need to correct your statement tat it beats deciding "nothing". For me, things have already been decided and it is tat christianity desn't make sense and it is likely to be wrong If u believe tat there may be one religion tat is right out of the few thousands on earth, then certainly the method of elimination is an effective way. Lets face it. The best way to find out if a religion is real or not, is to ask critical questions about it and see if its answer makes sense. Does the doctrine of christianity make sense ? Hardly. Does it have evidence tat led to its truth. Hardly. Has it actually been show to be wrong. Plenty. Does it have contradictions. Plenty. Wat is the point of following the wrong religion ?Firstly I suspect that this notion of 'minor' and 'major' sin is more of a humanistic perception then actual realityÂ… at least for various monotheists like me will tend to view it this way. One of the cardinal beliefs in Christianity is that the ultimate objective of God for humanity is for them to achieve His plans for them to complete perfection. In such a system even the slightest blemish is absolutely unacceptable, like how even a drop of poison renders an entire cup undrinkable.
Then can u explain why do god in the OT laws stoned murderers while people who hit another get to pay only a fine If all sins r equally deadly, then god should prescribed the death penalty for all offences. The consideration of the magnitude of an offence is already made since moses time. Strangely after the NT, the magnitude of offence becomes irrelevant and giving a frown is as severe as klling a person.
Another point i wanna raise up is u claimed tat god want men to obtain complete perfection. However christians. like non believers, never obtain complete perfection too. Yet god still close an eye and let them in. Isn't tat a sign tat god doesn't really care whether men obtain "complete perfection" in the first place ? If he really care and need to enforce on tis principle, then whether u r a christian or not it doesn't matter and god judge people according to how much they sin. Isn't tat contradition here ? On one hand u claimed god greatly emphasis on men being "perfect" yet on the other hand he don't really care how much sin u have and sent christians to heaven. Did god manage to carry out his plan of men to obtain perfection ? He seemed to fail when he send jesus over.
Lastly, if we do not use humanistic peception as a benchmark, then how do we know wat actions are considered as sin or not ? Wat do u rely on to see if a particular action is sinful or not ? -
what the fark is a terrorist's religion?Originally posted by trendz:state the f*ckin so-called terrorists' religion before you come battling against sins we all commit. And don't you know; we have to carry our surrounding neighbours' balls because we're (our govt) are intimidated by those sh*t. one fine example would be m'sia and indo. ungrateful f*ckers.
they're the ones who really should be condemned.
they hate christians and catholics and want the whole world to be of one religion. That's even worse. If you think i'm spouting nonsense, go take a look at the f*ckin' crap book which copies exactly from the bible!
pathetic!
The IRA used to bomb London, and we all know abt the strife in Northern Ireland. So using your logic, terrorists' religion is Catholicism? -
That's exactly my point SIS, that those who reject the Christian notion of the seriousness of sin would find everything about the Christian perception of it unfair. There is no point arguing about the rest of the issues when already we diverge on the starting points.
And of course one this is not to say that Christians tend to separate the issues of sin and atonement further. The punishment of sin in its various forms is a stopgap measure and justice but it (in our perception of the issue anyway) does not solve the ultimate question of corruption that is actually the main issue at hand. I suspect the question of we sinning is not so much as important as we can eventually [I]cannot[/I] sin again.
As to why God chooses to close one eye to Christians, I do not think He does. It is stated quite clearly that Christians like all other people would have to account for their sins in the end. The difference it seems, is that the Christians believe that they have something to tide over this judgment while the rest do not. I do not believe any Christian finds salvation by virtue or merit.
Is this system unfair? It is only if we could save ourselves, by which I am not tempted to think was ever possible... which is where we diverge in opinion in the first place.
But it comes to mind that if there were two men, one with a debt of 10 dollars, and the other with a debt of a hundred. In any case both are unable to pay off this dept but they are offered a new scheme that writes off their debts without them having to pay it off. The man with a hundred dollars agrees to go under this scheme and the one with ten decides to try making it the old fashioned way. Is this scheme unfair to the guy with ten dollars in debt? I dunno, but I am not sure it's a fair argument.
It comes to me as a question of choice, as opposed to Christians are better so they make it. Christianity never said that it's people made it because they became of better or more worthy stock, and I don't think any Christian is under the obligation to answer to that remark. It never made that promise, but it did promise that it was the way.
It is a system that is exclusive and narrow, but the last I checked it is not a system of [I]elitism[/I]. Anybody can qualify for it, not the best of the best (thankfully). I'm not sure how the argument of it being unfair because people with more merit might does not get in as opposed to lousy humans who are Christians work, because it is the Christian perception that no human merit would ever suffice.
At the very least even if one disagrees, Christianity cannot be said to be internally inconsistent on their stand on this issue. And it is on this basis that the issue should be debated, not on the smaller and further points that have gone on two very different schools of thought. -
Lastly, if we do not use humanistic peception as a benchmark, then how do we know wat actions are considered as sin or not ? Wat do u rely on to see if a particular action is sinful or not ?
I'm not sure about other systems, but I cannot think of any other particular philosophical school of though that has such an unbroken record of failure in determining morality as humanismÂ… at least humanism in it's purest of forms.
The problem is that humanism says that we humans should determine what is right and wrong for ourselves, but the cardinal issue is that this concept of right and wrong would have to apply to all men in order for it to be objective.
And here is where we get our pickle, in the humanistic view we get our concepts of good and evil from our own perceptions of reality, but it turns out that different people end up getting very different perceptions of what is right and wrong. I'm not saying this is an issue unique to humanism (it appears in monotheism and other school of thoughts as well), but the difference is that the basic premise of humanistic perception saws off the very own plank it is sitting on while other systems could at least blame it on a muddled perception of a transhuman standard.
The thing is that one humanist might think it is right and good for us to eliminate the weaker members of our society or prevent them from breeding because ultimately it is for the better good of our species. Another humanist would react in horror and say that such an idea is a great evil. So as expected we get an argument.
But the interesting this is this: while they may argue who is right and who is wrong among themselvesÂ… they have in one fell stroke eliminated their very own grounds for humanistic perception of morality. Essentially by the very act of wanting to argue that his particular perception is [I]better[/I] then the other, he is saying that somehow the other guy's humanistic perception is invalid.
But on what grounds? Considering that humanistic perception of morality claims is that particular humans should decide in their own eyes what is right and wrong, but the real issue is [I]whose[/I] view ought to be the law, and why should everyone else follow it. By the very act of arguing that one's view of morality ought to be imposed and apply to the other they have already unknowingly admitted that us people should not be the sole decider of what is wrong and right, they are in fact, sneaking in a system that says that some higher morality, beyond and not created by man applies to everybody and that everybody ought to observe it.
Humanist A thinks it's alright to cull our weakest for this is the greatest good, he thinks this standard ought to apply to all men. Humanist B thinks that the greatest good is to show compassion for our weakest. Considering both men come from a school of thought that says that the sole judge and creator of morality is the human perception, one starts to wonder how they can even start to claim that ones own particular perception is stronger then the otherÂ… unless of course, there was something to perceive in the first place.
Of course Humanistic morality tends to ignore this little fact, but it is a fact on which they try to make many of their arguments stick. But this fact in essence destroys any logical basis for the Humanistic perception morality.
There are more manly and logical alternatives to humanistic perception that do not involve monotheism, atheistic dualism, polytheism, naturalism and the like. But lets not fool ourselves with the notion that man can decide what is wrong and right for himself and think that is consistent with the laws of logic. It falls quite quickly under scrutiny, and it seems that people hold to it not because it is actually logically valid, but because it seems 'fashionable' and 'brave'.
The logically fallacy of humanistic perception falls on it trying to assert that it creates something with its perception (ie. Morality), but other schools of though (not solely monotheism) say that there is Something to be perceived, and the important this is that this Thing is perceived properly. Be it atheistic or not. But that's too much material to cover in one post. In any case humanistic perception cannot claim to be the benchmark (it's cardinal flaw), for other schools can somewhat hold logical validity by saying that they appeal to the benchmark, but at not it.
In any case SIS, I do not think you are much of a humanistic perceptive person. At least your behaviour and ascertains would be inconsistent with that philosophy. I'm not sure what you would call your particular brand of thought though.