ForumGarden

At least they're pro-life.





Fifteenth: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b)seek to elicit the possibilities of life not flee from it; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for a few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

Accountable;775604 wrote: At least they're pro-life.


Jester;775620 wrote: Well I dont think so... the humanist movement 'evolved' quite rapidly and now they have an association, here is the web site and a portion of what it is to be a humanist:



http://www.americanhumanist.org/publica ... ter-9.html



So they do desire to protect all human life, so long as your not a human baby.



This inclines me back to my question and possibly expand it... As humans depending only on ourselves, which one of us gets to demand the others? Which one of us gets to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? Which one of us humans gets to make the rules?



Doesnt this logically lead us back to the leadership by strength and power ot exert force?, or the most pursuasive charasmatic person gets to rule? Or do we toss names in a hat and randomly select who gets to be king?
Tombstone, we have GOT to get a sarcastic smilie.

Jester;775631 wrote: Over all the idea that we are alone and without a creator seems very obvious to me to be a lie.

As I said before, the universe must have a first cause, everythign we understand has a first cause and the basic component of our finite minds is to establish a first casue or a beginning to everything we deal with. Birthdays celebrate the annual occurance of our beginning... basicly man seeks the history if the beginings of most things they care for. Its Human nature to wonder how we got here. Two of the most diametricilly opposed ideologies exists based on beginnings, creation and evolution.

My thought process: With the universe, through most mianline science studies man has brought back our origins to a single extreme explosion that began the world (big bang theory) But this theory is based on the exisitance of substances and a causative factor for the explosion... my question is where did this material come from? What was the catalyst? It is no wonder at all to me that the theory of evolution has become a fact through the 'preponderance of the imperical evidence' which really traces is back to this fact the big bang... but that does not explain our origins fully. What it does do is remove any diety from the process, and thats the goal, since it cannot be proved that God does not exist, the humanist places himself as god, and trusts in his own existance.

Which is fine, if thats what you want to do. But in order to do that you have to accept under 'blind faith' that at one point there was nothing and now there is something.

I have two thoughts on that, the first is: Who cares? If someone wants to reject God please feel free to do so. You dont have to try to remove form society's belief in God too, just live your life.

My other thought is that man seems to want to trust in something, which the humanist does, they trust in science and human reasoning to justify thier rules of life, in order to bring to the masses a rule and accept it, they must back it up so the majority will see the benifit of following that rule. Along those lines its my experience that man is incapable of justice, at best we can be 'fair', the problem is what is fair to you and what is fair to me, is subjective. This ideology brings in a multiple layer situational ethic of manipulated facts to justify the basic selfishness of all human reasoning.


Jester, the first cause argument is a little self-defeating. We can always ask the same questions about God. Where did God come from? Granted one response is that God existed forever. Which contradicts the initial premise that everything has a first cause. The other response is that God did not exist forever, making the answer a non-answer. All it does is push the question back a notch ... it doesn't explain anything.

As far as humanism goes, I'm not sure it's the nefarious view you are trying to make it out to be. Assuming there is no God, humanism is the natural rearrangement of priorities to deal with that starting point. For example, a theist might say that stealing a car is wrong because it offends God ... a humanist might say it's wrong because it offends their fellow man. I don't think it turns man into God though ... since there is no God in that view.

It's worth noting too, that in the Christian thought, the idea of God and religion are usually conflated ... but not all religious viewpoints make the assumption that God exist ... or make even use of the concept. Theravada Buddhism is one example ... you'll see a lot of overlap between it and the view of humanism.

Jester;775776 wrote: Agreed. Which makes me ask the question, who gets to determine the rules? If there is no supernatural rules that are above man to the humanist, who is the higest man who gets to set the rules? Is it the smartest man, the most pursuasive man? The strongest man? Someone has to lead, thats human nature.


IMO the ethics of an action would be determined by all the people affected by the person's action.

If you don't like something, for example, that adds to the reason for others not to do it to you. I'm not sure there needs to be a concept of a concrete rules that dictate behavior ... as long we respect others and we obtain consent on questionable matters.

For example, if I'm not sure I can take someone's car, I could ask them. In most cases they'd say no ... in a few cases they'd say it was okay. No rule can really define what's best for all cases though IMO.

I'm not really sure that I understand the idea behind this thread. Is the point trying to be made that all those who do not seek a divine answer to the world we find ourselves living in, (or the events that often seem to overwhelm our ability to understand), are involved in some form of conspiracy? It would seem somewhat fatuous for people who profess Christianity which has been one of the most successful organized religions, cast iron into almost every Western Institution over the past 2000 years to accuse non-religious people of trying to create a conspiracy around their own non-religious beliefs.

Its been my experience that most people who are atheists are that way because of personal conviction and also an examination of the evidence available to them, not because they have been brainwashed by anyone. If there is any conspiracy I would suggest its one among the so called "pious" to make sure that political leaders will be elected by a well-groomed religious electorate who will re-introduce religion and its observance into all aspects of Western society, and undo the process whereby people have been given the freedom to make up their own minds about what they choose to believe personally. That process has been going on in the Middle East for decades in the name of Islam, unfortunately many Christians seem to want the same thing.

Jester;775827 wrote:

...

The ideology of a diety in religion most often places mutual respect in the heart of the individual as a norm, making that the basis of human learning in relation to others. Since this is already in the human species, as the 'conscience' then the humanists have a base to work with to self determine the rules in a group as they relate to others.

But if God did not place the conscience in us as our basic moral code then the humanists wouldnt have this base and mans society would collapse and humanity would cease to exists based on the greed and selfishness of mans basic nature.

The humanist is able to deny diety conscious level, but not able to reverse whats already created in them, The level at which they argue agasint a diety is evidence of that, they have to keep denying Him, its a process of convincing oneself that what is inside them and inate does not exist.

...


That's an interesting observation (linking morality and survival) and I think many humanists would agree with that point. One could use that observation to explain the non-theistic basis of morality as well, assuming a model evolution.

For example, let's say there are two societies that follow two different sets of societal rules. One sees some action as good (like mutual respect), the other sees the same type action as bad. Arguably, one group would be more likely to propagate these societal rules .... if following a different set of rules increases the chance of collapse of one society vs the other.

So, ethical rules (or what we consider ethical behavior) would naturally be selected for, given your observation. "Bad" ethical rules will naturally extinguish themselves ... and the society with it.

On the other hand, if it is the case that some sort of action, if widespread, would *not* lead to the decay and destruction of the society, we may question whether it is really a moral issue, but just a case of conflicting preferences. In this case, I think a society that tries to enforce a "correct" set of preferences will do more harm to the people than good ... could stifle creativity and kill morale.

fuzzy butt;775628 wrote: ahh here we go

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/ ... _1.01.html


Thanks for the post fuzzy butt. I am a Secular Humanist.

I think also that some of the allegations about a "humanist" circle around senior members of the Nazi party in Germany are outrageous. Who precisely were these humanists and do you have any evidence of such a claim? The Nazi's were not atheists, they were animists and simplistic pagans, who had some cockamamy beliefs about the sacred nature of the Teutonic race, the soil of Germany they inhabit, and the old Norse gods of Europe. Sorry, thats religion, not the absence of it, its just an example of how beliefs based on the mystic can easily be turned to the purposes of evil.

Himmler was a well know mystic and occultist and held occult meeting in the dungeon of the Castle he used as his home and headquarters, Hitler was also a mystic, for all his supposed rationalism his core beliefs were all based on a halluncinatory view of the world, Jews, the Cabbal, Zionism, Christianity, Catholicism that were in essence mythological. He took little parts of rationalist philosophy such as Nitzche or the discredited ideas behind Eugenics that suited his hate-driven vision of mankind. The soviets also, for all their professed rationalism were famous for not accepting scientific findings that did not suit their narrow political vision, which is why Soviet biology was nonsense (because it was based on Party mantra's about the nature of socialism), while their engineering and physics was world class because it was based on actual science.

Galbally;775890 wrote: I think also that some of the allegations about a "humanist" circle around senior members of the Nazi party in Germany are outrageous. Who precisely were these humanists and do you have any evidence of such a claim? The Nazi's were not atheists, they were animists and simplistic pagans, who had some cockamamy beliefs about the sacred nature of the Teutonic race, the soil of Germany they inhabit, and the old Norse gods of Europe. Sorry, thats religion, not the absence of it, its just an example of how beliefs based on the mystic can easily be turned to the purposes of evil.

Himmler was a well know mystic and occultist and held occult meeting in the dungeon of the Castle he used as his home and headquarters, Hitler was also a mystic, for all his supposed rationalism his core beliefs were all based on a halluncinatory view of the world, Jews, Christianity, that were in essence mythological. He took little parts of rationalist philosophy such as Nitzche that suited his hate-driven vision of mankind. The soviets also, for all their professed rationalism were famous for not accepting scientific findings that did not suit their narrow political vision, which is why Soviet biology was nonsense (because it was based on Party mantra's about the nature of socialism), while their engineering and physics was world class because it was based on actual science.


The Nazi Thing is just one of the 10 Myths attributed to Secular Humanists.

This myth is addressed in the post by fuzzy butt.

Hitler was also of course a Wagner fanatic, and a lot of his ideas about Germany and its destiny come from his infatuation with Wager. Particularly Wagner's 19th centiry masterpiece of the Ring cycle operas, which are all entirely mythological and play the same role in German literature that Lord of the Rings or previously something like Beowulf or King Arthur and Camelot does in English literature, its all about man, the Gods, and fate, and the relationship between them all, its a million miles away from Richard Dawkins, so lets get that straight at least.

Jester;775915 wrote: Excellent Thanks for speaking up Lon!

Please take no offense, I hold nothing against you for your position. May I ask you some questions?




Ask away, no problem.

Jester;775912 wrote: No direct point really, I just wanted to throw it out and let folks comment, agree, disagree, want to add an experience... Im open!


Well that is the purpose of us all talking here, so I accept that completely of course, along with the right to counter erroneous viewpoints or facts.

I believe this may be a true statement--------all Secular Humanists are atheists, but not all atheists are Secular Humanists.

Lon;776019 wrote: I believe this may be a true statement--------all Secular Humanists are atheists, but not all atheists are Secular Humanists.


Erm, well actually I would say that plenty of secular humanists are not atheists. In America Humanism and Atheism seem to be regarded as the same thing, in the same way that socialism and communism are considered the same thing. Humanism is the study of man and the intellectual consequences of that, Atheism is the belief that there is no god and reality is just something that exists without any divine cause or purpose. They are very different things.

Galbally;776039 wrote: Erm, well actually I would say that plenty of secular humanists are not atheists. In America Humanism and Atheism seem to be regarded as the same thing, in the same way that socialism and communism are considered the same thing. Humanism is the study of man and the intellectual consequences of that, Atheism is the belief that there is no god and reality is just something that exists without any divine cause or purpose. They are very different things.


That's why I hedged and said may. I was just really going by the fact that most of the well known "Secular Humanists" also happen to be atheists, at least the ones that I have read about.

Jester;776069 wrote: Thanks, but let me know if you feel put on the spot or I get too personal.

Did you ever recognize or belived in a God? Do you have any religious upbringing? And when did you finanlly accept this veiw of being a Secular Humanist?


Jester, I am 73 years old and until I retired 17 years ago never had the guts to say that I was a Non Believer, Atheist, Agnostic or anything other than a go along with the crowd non church attender. The reason? My real feelings were for the most part not Socially Acceptable in the atmosphere in which I worked and played. A situation that I believe, many politicians (if they were truly honest) could understand. Could you imagine a politician running for any office, saying he didn't believe in a god.

I attended the Baptist and Methodist Churches with my older sisters when a youngster and was baptised in both churches at different times, one to make a grandmother happy, the other to make a aunt happy. As a young teen. I was once again baptised in the Presbyterian Church in order to continue playing basketball for their church team (a requirement). About the same time I gave up believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, I began to question what I was hearing and reading about this nebulus person we call god.

As Dr. Spock said on Startreck "It's Not Logical" I have never been interested in arguing my non belief. I have no desire to convert anyone to my non belief and am quite content to let people believe what they may. I do however hold a major concern against the extreme element of any faith that at the point of a sword, wishes to convert.

I delight in the present sunset that I am viewing and will delight in the morning sun as it rises, and I do so without being awestruck as to a god having created it.

Jester;776078 wrote: Thanks Lon, that I can fully understand. I too have no desire to convert anyone to my beliefs. I am always here to offer why I believe the way I do to anyone that would ask but I dont bust it over anyone head.

So if I can ask, did God ever really mean anything to your other than a fairytale?

And do you think the church (take your pick) had any moral influence over your upbringing?

Do you consider yourself a spiritual being in any form, or only phsyical?


No, god never did have any more meaning to me than did Santa Claus. When my grandmother told me that god "was an all knowing god", I thought to myself, well, he would know why I feel the way I do.

I consider myself to be a pretty moral person (ah yes, I have sinned) and feel that my morality, my sense of right and wrong, justice and fairness, comes from observing people that I admired and admire, some believers, some not.

No, I do not consider my self to be a spiritual being in any sense of the word.

Jester;776586 wrote: Let me cut to my point Lon and if you would give me your opinon on it.

My opinion is that all morality comes form God and is built into the heart of man (our conscience) I do not believe that.That conscience isnt a moral standard, in that it says dont do X or XX or XXT etc. But in us is built a very sensitive system of intuitive standards that cause us guilt when we are in an activity that we percieve as agasint this basic set of intuituve standards and conversly they casue us contentment when we operate inside those standards.

There is a basic selfishness inate in humans, I do not believe that we tend to operate and do those things which we desire even though they may casue harm or hurt others internally by messing with thier sense contentment.

I dont deny we have the capability to do good things inside us in our basic nature, but I do belive that we utilize the good things we are capable of as a means to satisfy ourselves, (basic selfishness)

This is what I believe is the basis of our 'Free Will'.

Above all that, I belive God operates in the soul (different from conscience)

Our Souls is the part of our body that is made up of a combination of our 'intellect', our 'will' and 'emotion'.

If we reject that God exists, or deny his authority over our lives, we become desensitized to God, in essence we fail to see Him, or recognize anything in this world comes from Him or is created by Him. The only time we see God then is in the pure motivation of actions by someone else that God is aloud to live in by that persons will.

So taking that ideology (which is in my own words and thoughts in general and not from someone else or a philosophy other than my own readings in the bible and relationship with God and my own experience)

Can you speak to where morality, or good standards, or basic societal laws in general come from, if there is was God and no moral standard from him?


Your last paragraph is a challenge to my Non Beliefs and would subsequently result in each trying to defend what they believe or do not believe. As to where the question of morality comes from, try doing some readings other than the bible.

I am happy for you to find comfort and solace in your faith and a reason for all things being.

I find comfort and solace in my non belief and have a different view as to the causation of all things being

If I were to ask most believers why they believe as they do, the responses would be pretty much the same. Likewise, if believers were to ask why non believers think as they do, the responses would be similar.

Having said that, I feel no need to further participate in this discussion, but appreciate your comments.