Secular Humanism, my "political" problems with it.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

Just read Humanists Manifesto I and II, and the Humanist Declaration, and it seems to me that it just dances around the fact that it Is a religion.

Infact in the first manifesto it indirectly refers to itself as a religion. It tries to not only tell people what to think, it asserts the idea that humans are the most important thing possible. It is about what's the best for humans, and tolerance, and all that, but the basic nature of this organization breeds intolerance. For the religious, and people that believe in myths. It is an organization that is completely superfluous, and it will just incite politics further down the line. The basic "dogma" of this org. is that of every rational atheist, and more importantly ever rational religion. This organization seems to be nothing more than a hybrid religion, where it denies it's true nature. Any org. that tries to shape someone's beliefs, any org. that has a manifesto, is either very political, or very religious. Secular Humanism is the latter, and for that reason it is superfluous.

I'm not disagreeing with any of it's dogma, infact I agree with just about all of them, but their is something extremely unsavory about a group that takes rationality, and science, that I hold so precious, and exploits it into a cult/religion/organization. It seems that it is a group of people that need to have a "father figure" in their life, so they turn to the human race as their savior. The world is a harsh place, so instead of believing in a god, they believe in humans. While I tend to agree that humans need to believe in humans, and we alone hold the ability to improve our future, I am very skeptical of an organization that sets down beliefs for me. Why do they need tell me what is rational, and tell me anything.

[lazarus]

1. Do you have a link to these "manifestos"?

I'd be interested in reading them.

BTW, from the arguments you've sort of laid out here, political parties could be defined as religions. Maybe we need to thresh the concept out a bit?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

4. You'll understand after you read them.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html
http://www.njhn.org/declaration.html

But political parties do not....

[JNelson6563]

19. have you seen this yet?

I do not see "Secular" on those you post, there is a difference. I found this list of affirmations long after I'd formed my views. I thought it was great.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html

The Affirmations of Humanism:
A Statement of Principles
We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

110. But, I have no problem with their beliefs,

it's just the fact that what they are doing is superfluous. And the very nature of humans, according to them, will negate their purpose. Because the "social animal" that we are, cannot handle a organization such as this, without getting split further apart.

I think you can agree with me, that this society/organization was created to bring us together, and thus allow us to better ourselves. But the nature of a superfluous org. would pull us apart, and create just one more difference between us. Thus negating its efforts.

[Friar]

122. I agree with this

But the links on the original post seemed bogus to me somehow. The essays, manifestos, whatever, seemed to be defining secular humanism as a religion, which it most certainly is not.

[Trajan]

89. You are mistaken ....

You see ? .... Humanism CAN be either RELIGIOUS humanism or NON religious IE Secular Humanism ....

You are offering a religious 'humanist' document, as representative of the SECULAR version, which it is not .....

Mother Theresa was a religious humanist, .... and was quite catholic, I believe ...

I am a SECULAR humanist, and do not possess a religion ....

You are mistaken ......

[Cointelpro_Papers]

111. The problem with your argument,

is that both manifestos, do not limit as to what type of humanism they are speaking to, and the Declaration is called Secular Humanism Declaration. While you would be making valid points if I was somekind of idiot completely misrepresenting secular humanism, but that is just not true. My facts, and logic prossess come from the foundations of Humanism and Secular Humanism.

No where did I say Humanists possess a "religion", I am saying that Humanism is the religion.

So you are mistaken.

[Trajan]

114. What is in a definition ??????

One can pick and choose ANY definition of religion they wish that supports their particular need .....

YOU apparently have a need to define Secular Humanism as a Religion, because it appears to satisfy a personal desire to categorize Atheism, Materialism, and Humanistic Philosophy as religious practices ....

I presume you do so out of anger: to form a 'counterattack' against those worldly forces that negate and minimalise your own beliefs ....

WHICH definition of 'Religion' suits you Cointlepro ? ....

WHICH one aids you in your quest ? ....

YOUR comment "This organization seems to be nothing more than a hybrid religion, where it denies it's true nature.(begging the question fallacy) Any org. that tries to shape someone's beliefs,(kindergarten tries to shape childrens beliefs, ceramics class tries to shape someones beliefs) any org. that has a manifesto, is either very political, or very religious. Secular Humanism is the latter, and for that reason it is superfluous." (superfluous ??? .... )

(You know ? .... I didnt realize just how LAME this whole essay was: .... this is wildly ridiculous set of fallacious assertions ...)

ANWAYS: .... You refer to Secular Humanism as "Very Religious" because it "tries to shape someones beliefs" .....

So: according to YOU: .... anything that tries to shapes soneone's beliefs is a religion ......(Kindergarten is religion ?? ... ceramics class is religion ????? )


Your definition of religion doesnt relate to any standard definition so far explored .... It is apparently a very private and specific definition that YOU use to define what religion is, and therefore has a SEPARATE meaning than that of others ....

With THAT in mind: lets present a specific fallacy: the Equivocation Fallacy ....

Equivocation Fallacy
Equivocation Fallacy occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument.

For example:

>The sign said, "Fine For Parking Here," and since it was fine, I parked there.

>All murderers are inhuman. Thus, no murderer is human.

>Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions. Thus all murder trials are illegal. (Here the term "criminal actions" is used with two different meanings.

>A plane is a carpenter's tool, and the Boeing 737 is a plane. Hence the Boeing 737 is a carpenter's tool.

YOU say that Secular Humanism is VERY religious IE a religion, because it 'tries to control somones beliefs' ... yet MANY persons and MANY groups and MANY organizations can be defined thusly: ... Kindergarten and Ceramics classes already defined thusly ....

YOUR meaning of the word is NOT the standard definition, and you argue that it IS a 'religion', because it meets YOUR nonstandard definition .....

Well, frankly, I find NO one defines Religion as you do ..... the closet we come to that in the standard literature (Dictionaries and Encyclopedae),

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971:
Religion:
1. the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands esp. as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers,

2. the state of a religious,

3a. one of the systems of religious faith and worship, 3b. the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context,

4. the profession or practice of religious beliefs,

5. archaic, scrupulous conformity,

6a. a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one's own, humanity's, or all nature's destiny,

7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance, 7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing.

Even 7a doesnt qualify, since it refers to 'faith' which is NOT a tenet of Secular Humanism ....

Can we correlate "7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing. " ... with .... "ANT org. that tries to shape someones beliefs" .. ??????


That is as close as it gets .... yet it really doesnt correlate in a significant way ...

In the end: .. YOUR definition is homographic to the usual definition: IE "1. the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands esp. as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers," ...

YOUR definition in this context forms an essential Equivocation fallacy ....

JUST because you decide to define Religion in this way doesnt make it so: ... nearly EVERYONE agrees with the STANDARD definition: .... and when someone says "Secular Humanism is a religion". it simply doesnt pass the definitions presented in the literature .... EXCEPT as an metaphorical abstraction to zealous dedication being 'like' a religion, which is again an equivocation ....

BTW: ... WHO the hell is FORCING you to accept Secular Humanism ? ..... NO one makes you adhere to ANY of its precepts ....

Are NOT people FREE to make associations as they deem fit ? .... as LONG as they dont infringe on your rights to life and liberty ?

If something is superfluous, it should be outlawed ? ...

WTF is up with this kind of thinking ? ....

What ever happened to FREEDOM ? ....

Unless you have a nonstandard definition of Freedom, then we will presume that citizens have the right to freely assemble and associate with other citizens per the First Amendment of the US Constitution ....

Your arguments are motivated by nothing more than anger based on fear: .. fear that your world is unstable and false ....

Welcome to life as it is ...




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

[Cointelpro_Papers]

115. You are Mistaken!!!

First of all, if you read any of my other posts, you would see that I agree with most ideas, if not all the ideas of SH, and I am an Atheist. With that said you will also see that I am not working to call SH a religion, I do not need to catagorize Atheism, and that is why I don't like SH, because it does that exact thing. It is superfluous because it has created an organization that tries to set down a set of beliefs for human beings, but the human beings already believe that, so it is superfluous. It is not needed.


"3b. the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context,"
"7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance,"

These are your meanings of the word religion, and SH fits both. So in your own words, if you don't want to be hypocritical SH is a religion. Every definition you provided is the definition of a religion, but within different context, so if it fits one def, then it is a religion. I believe SH puts a belief in the fact that humans are the ultimate, and they alone can shape their environment, so you are wrong. This right here should end the discussion, according to your own definitions it is a religion.

Now you become very personal, from this point on, when I have made an effort to keep this discussion as non-personal as possible. I never once said people couldn't partake in this, I didn't even condemn it per se, but I did say it was a religion, which you have proved. It is superfluous which you didn't even challenge, and it is counterproductive.

I'm not exactly sure where you come off as saying I'm motivated by anger, everything I have said has been proven by me, and even by you. I have left emotion out of it, as much as humanly possible within the context of discussing such a matter.

I have never said the world was unstable, nor false, I have never displayed fear. So this leaves one explanation as to why you said that, which would be that in your zealousy, it wasn't enough to explain logic and reason, which you tried to do, you had to go on and superfluously attack me with unfounded lies. Which often displays zealousness.

As the argument stands for everyone to see it, you have first assumed that I don't like atheists, which is wrong if you look at any of my posts. You have tried to prove SH wasn't a religion with definitions, which SH ended up fitting, so it is a religion. You have not argued superfluous, so as it is, it stands. And It still stands that it is counterproductive. -edit- Oh yeah, you tried to discredit it me with insane observations, that were to say the least combative, and you failed to back up in any way.

[Trajan]

116. Response ....

"3b. the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context,"
"7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance,"

Secular Humanism, like atheism, does NOT adhere to either sacred nor faith belief .... it is NOT a 'dogma' that forms these beliefs, but rational conclusions that can be altered in accord with ANY new and relevent information that might CHANGE those beliefs .....

So: .. Secular humanism fits NEITHER definition ..... it is neither based on 'faith' nor on 'sacred beliefs' .....

I assert your statements are based on fear because they possess the primary hallmarks of fear: .. irrationality and hostility .... Your claims that there is no underlying hostilty can be refuted by reading the thread post .....

Whatever: .... these feelings are NOT based on fear ? .. fine: . have it your way .....

Nevertheless: .. EVERY possible set of beliefs do not qualify as religion ..... otherwise, religion would have NO specific meaning ....

YOU choose to make this connection: .... no secular humanist does .... so: . it suits YOU to say this, which I assume means you wish it to be ... because CERTAINLY the accepted definitions do not provide this definition .....


You are equivocating the term Religion ..... and it is fallacious ...

[Cointelpro_Papers]

118. Okay, the manifesto, and declaration

both say it puts a faith in the humans race, that they alone have the ability to mold their future. And yet SH, has nothing to do with faith?

Sacred: Worthy of respect; venerable.

Tell me, where is it exactly where SH doesn't have a respect for our future, and respect for everbody, and a respect for their beleifs?

You make it seem like I am manipulating SH, to make it fit definitions. But you are the one that brought definitions, and anyone that isn't blatantly denying the truth, can connect faith, and sacred with SH.


Well you call me irrational, you have no proof, and while you call me hostile, you have no basis. I appreciate that you call me fearful, and I say you have no basis behind it, so it isn't true. And then you come on here, and say it's true because i'm irrational, and hostile, but you don't have anything to back it up.

Next, are you going to say I'm religious, gay, and an astrologer? Or maybe you will call me ignorant and ugly. No matter how many words you back up your unfounded lies with, they are still unfounded lies. You have no rational thought process behind them, except for what the status quo would preceive as zealousness. Which is funny, because people usualy get zealous when they are dealing with religions.

I choose to make this connect?

3b. the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances and social practices found within a given cultural context,"
"7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance,"

SH puts a faith in Humans, and our ability to prosper, and SH puts the human race on a sacred pedastile. Hence it fits both definitions. You choose to deny the truth, and since you know your choice is weak, you choose to attack me with unfounded remarks, that really shows your zealousy, and hurts your cause more than anything. And while you choose to preceive hostility out of something that is not, you weren't even sure enough to quote where I was hostile. Minus this thread, because it's borderline, but it is warrented.

[Trajan]

121. Honestly ....

These relationships between words and meaning CAN be not ONLY confusing, but useful to someone who wishes to FORCE relationships where they do not exist ....

Respect ... I respect Yogi Berra, is Yogi Berra sacred ? ...

AGAIN: .... you are equivocating the term 'sacred', since that term is USUALLY reserved for objects of theological reverence, NOT human or earthly 'respect' ...

YOU say Sacred = worthy of respect, where MOST individuals agree: Sacred =

1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>
2 a : worthy of religious veneration : HOLY b : entitled to reverence and respect
3 : of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>
4 archaic : ACCURSED
5 a : UNASSAILABLE, INVIOLABLE b : highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility>

YOUR definition is 2B ..... this is a metaphorical abstract, as before .... "a robber's GUN is sacred to him and his success as a theif" .....

In your argument, you choose a non religious definition of sacred, and THEN declare that 'SH' is religious because it has a 'sacred' veneration of mankind: ... YOU are switching the definition of 'sacred' in the argument ...

THAT is an equivocation fallacy ...

Faith .....

Chuckles ...

NOW what do you want from THAT word ? ....

Guess what ? .. I have NO faith .. none whatsoever ....

The term 'Faith' is reserved for those who MUST believe in something, even though their is no irrefutable evidence that THAT something is existent ....

I HOPE for mankind ....

I WISH for mankind ....

I DREAM that mankind can cure his own ills ....

I have NO faith that mankind will do any such a thing in a universal way .....

Case in point: .... if Faith is belief in things unseen, then one CANNOT say that a hope that mankind can cure mankinds ills is a 'faith', because, as shown by mankinds development of modern sewage systems which defeated MANY common water borne diseases like cholera and dysentery, and by mankind's extensive study of emprical medical data as it develops a more complete and successful medical science, which results in REAL human benefits that can be measured quantatively .....

IF faith is belief in things unseen, but humanistic endeavor reults in things SEEN, then humanistic endeavor CANNOT be faith ....

You are using words like 'faith, religion, and sacred' with non religious meanings to widen the scope of their definition, and then using that widened scope to define specifically non-religious relationships as within the narrower scope of 'religious' ....

You are using the terms NON religiously, than asserting that they define religion .... an equivocation .....

I dont know what drives some to do this, it isnt the first time, and it wont be the last .....

[Cointelpro_Papers]

126. I say sacred means it means worthy of respect?

But I got that definition from my Websters dictionary. So basically you are saying that I am forcing relationships, because you don't like my definitions, not because they are insane, or unfair, but rather because you don't want to admit that SH is a religion.

The problem with your understanding of the facts, is your skewed interpretation of what a religion is. YOu seem to believe that a religion needs to have some kind of god, or higher power. But the fact is that, that is wrong. Western religions tend to have gods, and i believe that is why you are stuck on this, but alot of eastern religions do not have gods. Taoism, and confusionism are both religions, but neither have a god. I even remember seeing in the manifestos that SH, is kinda based off Confusionism, many ofthe same ideas.

You also limit the meansings of words that are most often found in context of religion, to western culture. But I must remind you that Eastern cultures hold things sacred, that are not gods, that are physical things, and they have faith in themselves, in humans, and for these reasons our society classifies them as religion. And in essence that is what SH, so it is a religion.

In our definitions of religion, their were several that didn't refer to gods, or even spirits. Those would be the Eastern religions, and as such my definitions of sacred and faith would also aply to the previously stated eastern religions. So your argument that my definitions are non-religious, are wrong. So your last dying argument, you have given up on trying to prove my definitions to be wrong, when I showed you that your definitions fit what I'm saying. You then went on to say that the definitions you provided, and I provided didn't fit in context, and I have proved that it does.

SH, has a sacred belief in humans, as defined, it has much respect in humans, and that we alone can better ourselves. Much how taoism has a faith in the person too, and holds the body to be sacred, not becaus it is spiritual, or god-like, but rather because it is all we have.

[Trajan]

127. Let's play this game ....

I have a putter that is worthy of respect, it is sacred to me ...

I have faith that it will help me lower my stroke count ...

Therefore: ... Putting is a religion ....


Southern California has awesome waves in places that are sacred to surfers ....

I have faith that my surfboard will help me ride those waves and look awesome doing it ...

Therefore: .... Surfing is a religion ... (it actually kinda is .. )


A Hummer is a powerful motor vehicle that is worthy of respect on the road .... Its strength is sacred to its fawning owners ...

I have faith no one will harm me as I drive it ...

Therefore: ..... Hummer ownership is a religion ....

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

Wow ..... Just about ANYTHING can be defined as a religion using this schema .....

Cmon : . YOU can play too ..... dont be shy ...


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

HERE is the equivocation: ..

You use the terms 'sacred' and 'faith' in reference to ideas, in non religious ways ....

You THEN describe those ideas as religious ...

You switch the meaning of the terms in your argument ....

Hence: .. an equivocation fallacy is committed .....

[Cointelpro_Papers]

128. But your forgetting that it has to be sacred and a system of tenets held

with ardor, according to your definitions, one of the def's you provided. Just because something is sacred or you have faith, doesn't mean it's a religions. However it would become a religion if putting became a system of beliefs, you were devoted to it and it was a value. You would also have to believe in it so to speak, and hold it with extreme importance. And then you would still need to define the beliefs you have of putting, and live your life according to them. And even then it would be more of a cult, but none the less it would fit the def. of a religon. NOw you are just bein childish, which your doing on purpose, but also in that you are saying that i'm saying anything that is sacred or you have faith in is a religion.
SH fits the definition you provided, and so it is a religion. I have proven that to you, and you can do nothing but make insane sarcastic remarks, so we will assume that you cannot further argue this debate.

I have proven that SH has sacred things, and faith, I have proven that what it holds sacred is within the context of a religion. I have proven that an org. with sacred beliefs, and devotion is a religion, and I have debunked your sarcastic remarks that according to me a love of a putter is a religion. YOu have since reduced the argument to nothing more than sacrastic remarks, and condescending behavior.


"7a. a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness and faith, a value held to be of supreme importance, 7b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing."

I have shown you, which you did not refute that the context of ideas within this debate, is held in a religious context, through real life examples. I have shown you why these ideas, which have already been proven to be of a religious nature, are fitted into the definition of a religion, and I have shown you how this definition applies to SH. I have not switched the meaning of anything in this argument, and your whole argument is based on denying definitions that you provided.

[U4ikLefty]

129. How does his surfer analogy not apply???

You say: However it would become a religion if putting became a system of beliefs, you were devoted to it and it was a value. You would also have to believe in it so to speak, and hold it with extreme importance. And then you would still need to define the beliefs you have of putting, and live your life according to them. And even then it would be more of a cult, but none the less it would fit the def. of a religon."

I live in So California where many of us surfers devote their entire lives to chasing good surf. They move to the beach, get work that lets them surf as much as possible. There is a surfer's code of conduct (like don't steal another surfers wave, litter the beach, etc.). They also believe that surfing brings them closer to their creator. Oh no, I'm a religious freak!!!

That settles it then, nuff said, end of discussion...I have proven surfing is a religion. Woo-Hoo, I want my tax-exempt status PRONTO!!!

[Cointelpro_Papers]

130. Hmm, I think some people would consider it a religion,

but that's them. I've heard many people in the mid west say surfing is like a religion out there.
Surfing isn't a set of beleifs, and this is another attempt at digging out of a hole, so I won't hold it against you.

[U4ikLefty]

133. But wait, if a Catholic & a Jew BOTH can be humanists

how can it be a religion? They have different "sets of beliefs" yet they can be Humanists. You cannot be a "Catholic-Jew" or a "Christian-Satanist", but you CAN BE a Jewish-Humanist. How is that?!?

I was only using the surfing analogy to show how ridiculous it is to compare Humanism to a religion. You have proven nothing except your unwillingness to accept the truth about Humanism...but I won't hold THAT against you. ;-)

[Az]

134. Religion or Philosophy

Humanism as a general term refers to a philosophy. Those who gather together and form a group called Humanism have by some definitions created a Religion though they will see themselves more as a social ethical organization. Those that combine Humanist philosophy with religious traditions are Religious Humanists.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

136. you Cannot be a catholic-jew or a Christian Satanist,

because the two creeds won't allow for it. Catholics, believe in jesus, jews don't believe he was a profit, so you cannot really believe both at once, so you are either one or the other. Christians worship god, satanists worship the devil and that is why you cannot be both.

But Humanism doesn't interfere with other religious beliefs, so you can be both. The difference is, that in one you would have to be holding to contradictory veiw points at the same time, and humans usually can't do that. But Humanism does not contradict Jewish beliefs, so you can be both.

But what about all the other stuff I have proven, does that mean nothing to you? I have proven that under the definition provided by someone else Humanism is a religion, and now you have moved onto, far stretched loopholes.

[U4ikLefty]

139. ding ding ding...you got the right answer

"But Humanism doesn't interfere with other religious beliefs, so you can be both."

Why??? Because it is NOT A RELIGION.

Oh yeah, just because you claim victory doesn't make it true. So save your gamesmanship & all that "I have proven" garbage. You have only proven your inablility to admit that you are WRONG!!!

[Cointelpro_Papers]

140. Who told you that in order for something to be a religion

it has to interfere with all other religions? It interfering or not interfering with other religions is completely irrelevant. You can be in more than one religion, you can be in as many as you want, but generally humans have one set of beliefs, so if their are many religions that fit your beliefs, then you can be in all of them. The problem that you are showing us, is not a problem of the nature of religion, but rather humans desire to have unique veiwpoints, and to be in one religion. And the problem you descibe goes even further to show that our society has not seen a religion/organization like SH yet, so where religions were previously contradictory, they have now started to overlap.

I'm claiming victory, because I have proven fact through definitions, which infact show that SH is a religion. The argument was that SH wasn't a religion, because it didn't fit the definitions, which implies that if it did fit the def, then it would be a religion. I have shown that it fits the def., and for the sake of not being hypocritical, it should be admitted that it is a religion. But if you want to pursue less conventional matters of showing it's not a religion, I will continue to argue with you. Maybe I haven't won to you, but I have won the debate, it was limited to proving SH to be a religion or not, through definitions, and I have undeniably done that.

Humans have never been confined to one religion, but society has set a status quo to be in one religion.

[U4ikLefty]

141. You prove nothing but your ad-nauseum approach to argumentation

To be a religion, SH would have to meet ALL the requirement of conventional religion, otherwise you are just playing semantic games.

Here ya go:

Religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God; while theology is objective, and denotes those ideas which man entertains respecting the God whom he worships, especially his systematized views of God. As distinguished from morality, religion denotes the influences and motives to human duty which are found in the character and will of God, while morality describes the duties to man, to which true religion always influences. As distinguished from piety, religion is a high sense of moral obligation and spirit of reverence or worship which affect the heart of man with respect to the Deity, while piety, which first expressed the feelings of a child toward a parent, is used for that filial sentiment of veneration and love which we owe to the Father of all. As distinguished from sanctity, religion is the means by which sanctity is achieved, sanctity denoting primarily that purity of heart and life which results from habitual communion with God, and a sense of his continual presence.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

145. Well your dismissal of eastern religions is pretty ad nauseam

But I was forced into it being superfluous, you weren't.

Once again, the same argument I used last time still applies, and you just seem to forget it, and say nothing against it. Yo MUST agree that Taoism is a religion, and that Confusiousism is a religion, and you also MUST also agree that neither have a god, or any type of deity, but rather they put emphasis is on the human means of progression. So from this you MUST see that SH is a religion, or atleast having a Deity or God is irrelevant to being a religion

But, sense These religions aren't "conventional" to you, I guess you can just deny it, and dismiss half the world. But then again SH isn't conventional. And there in lies the problem, you are comparing SH with conventional(western) religions, and I am comparing it with EASTERN and WESTERN religionS. Granted it is not like Western religions, infact it is pretty much the exact opposite, but comparison to other religions is not a criteria in being a religion. I am suprised that someone that defends SH, I'm assuming you are a SH, would be so small minded, as to limit religion to only those found on our hemisphere. And to not see that how an organization compares to other religions is extremely irrelevant, as to it's status.

A religion does not require a god!!!! I thought I already proved that.

[Trajan]

135. Pffffffffffffftttttttttttt ....

Equivocation Fallacy .... as plainly described ....


Pffffffffffttttttttttttt .....

[Cointelpro_Papers]

137. Is that you conseding?

Or is this assumption another Equivocal fallacy?

I'm pretty sure i've proven what was needed, in order to accomplish the task I set out to accomplish. I have proven SH, by the definitions you provided, fits being a religion. You called it Equivical, and I debunked that by going on a point by point bases, and proved it to be unequivical.

[Trajan]

144. THAT is the sound ...

Of your arguments being jettisoned from the transom .....

They are unsound and without foundation .....

WHY would I need to concede when I have won the day ? ....

Get a grip, man .....

Your losing it ...

[Cointelpro_Papers]

146. Unsound and without foundations?

I would expect you to be more weary when dealing with such harsh words. But when your argument has been debunked, you have to retain your honor/pride in some manor.

Note that this "unsound and without foundation" was a response to to telling you about Eastern religions.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

147. Unsound and without foundations?

I would expect you to be more weary when dealing with such harsh words. But when your argument has been debunked, you have to retain your honor/pride in some manor.

Note that this "unsound and without foundation" was a response to me telling you about Eastern religions.

[Maple]

2. Are you forced to believe or accept

any of it?

Or is it your free choice?

Then it's acceptable.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

5. It's very vague about that.

It talks about individual choice, but then it lays down a manifesto, and beliefs that Secular Humanists have.

[Maple]

9. Well they don't

and you know it.

A lack of belief, is not a belief.

Whatever somebody writes about it.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

10. You're misrepresenting Secular Humanism.

It's not just about atheism, it's about a set of goals/beleifs, to further human society. Atheism is a lack of belief, but Secular Humanism is not atheism.

[rman]

23. a set of goals/beliefs does not make a religion

It seems that according to your definition, any organisation or movement with some set of goals/beliefs is a religion.
Then the only 'correct' (non-religious) organisation or movement would be one without any goals and beliefs.

Atheism is about lack of *religious belief* (belief in a god), not about absence of any kind of 'belief', goals or guiding principals.

Are you religious or atheist? I'd guess atheist since you seem to oppose religion. But if you are an atheist then i wonder if you do live by lack of any kind of 'belief' (guiding principals).

[Blue_Chill]

34. Um you should look at this

<snip>TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.<snip>
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

Yes that does read "religious humanists"

So what were you saying about it not being a religion?

[rman]

124. apparently there are also non-religious humanists

or the specification "religious humanists" would be redundant.

It looks like this humanism accomodates both religious types and atheists. Both do have goals in common.
That does not make humanism a religion.

[Friar]

123. how dare you assume

that only religious beliefs provide "guiding principles"? Bah. This is an old argument and I won it hands down 30 years ago.

[rman]

125. i assume nothing of the sort

.

[JNelson6563]

31. a subtle difference

between a Humanist and a Secular Humanist.

I only quickly glanced at the links you posted this morn and a couple of others but if I recall correctly, I saw somewhere in there, an article about Intelligent Design. I can assure you, that is not a secular argument.

There has been talk of merging the two or eliminating the differentiating "Secular" on the one, lest it offend, those who are humanists that choose to be Secular do not like the idea.

I don't blame them.

Julie

[WhataBildeberger]

45. atheism is not "a lack of belief"

that's NEGATIVE atheism ("I do not believe that there is a god."). Positive atheism, on the other hand, stresses the positive belief that THERE IS NO GOD. It's an important semantic distinction.

Secular humanism is distinct from religious belief in that there is no aspect of the metaphysical involved. The same cannot be said of any religion.

[Terwilliger]

107. you should ask Az

he seems to think that atheism means "without" a belief.

To say there is no god does require a little proof.

[Walt Starr]

113. Actually, you're wrong

To say there is no god does require a little proof.

This statement is patently false. The claimant with the initial positive assertion is under the burden of proof in logical discourse, ergo, those who claim there is a god or gods are required to logically prove the claims, not those who deny the existance in the absence of evidence to back up the claim he/she/it/they exist.

[Terwilliger]

119. no

to say "There is no god" is a statement of fact...you'll have to prove it.

[JHB]

25. They're also about the only "religious dogma" that were published...

...with dissenting opinions. Both Humanist manifestos i & II were published with commentary by the signatorees, comments from humanists who signed it but reservations they had with it, and comments by humanists who did not sign it as to why not.

The cluster of philosophies that constitute the general views of "secular humanists" have evolved over time, from Humanist Manifest I back in 1933(ish), manifesto II back in the early 1970s, through today. Some people have felt compelled to try to define exactly what those views are (thus the manifestos and such), but it's an exercise in herding cats.

It's hardly an exclusive club.

[Terwilliger]

3. like the christian church?

I really dont know about this Secular Humanist org...I thought people were secular humanists because they were, not because they belonged to a group

[Cointelpro_Papers]

6. Exactly,

so don't you agree that the organization would be superfluous, and counter-productive, based on the ideas of SH

[Terwilliger]

7. it seems redundant

but these are folks (in my limited reading of your links) who seemed to start out religious.

They had to come up with something else for people to believe in.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

8. Precisely

[lynndew2]

13. I think there is a creater...but not one that is at all involved ...

in organized religion. I was brought up in a catholic(mother) household...but my father was protestant. I went to catholic school thru 5th grade. That was enough to make me dismiss catholic..lol. But I do think there is something greater then we are and that we also are not the only universe. I would never presume to tell you what to believe or not too. I am just saying that I used to be agnostic but as I see more and more of the wonders and how everything works in conjunction so well. I think something greater then any human brain had to put some thought into the precise things produced in the big bang. And I doubt it happened in the 1st try..hence..more then one universe. OK. I am new here so I just wanted to weigh in on this. Thanks and good luck!!

[Blue_Chill]

37. No not like the Christian church

But a religion just the same.

[Az]

11. Secular Humanism

Sec Hum is an attempt to bring together the collective knowledge attained in the pursuit of philosophy, ethics, and society. Its focus is humans for that reason that humans are the most efficacious means of achieving progress within the sphere of influence we posses. It is assumed that those that wish to survive both as an individual and a species will agree to these tenants. Suffice to say that in the absense of another species or entity that we can interact with in a sophisticated way we are going to have to deal with humans. This does not in any way imply a bias or hatred of any other species. It is simply an acknowledgement of both our own limitations and the other species around us.

As to the other factors held within the Sec Hum manifesto it is simply the tenants that they have been able to best determine are suited to progressive growth for us within the context of our enviroment. It is a flexible system open to modification upon the discovery on new factors. It is not a dogmatic system. It is not an authoratative system. It is simply a collection of knowledge laid out as best able to at this time.

It is its flexibility that sets it apart from the other religious (though not all) structures so common in this world. There is a reticence within the atheist/humanist/apostate community to use the word religion to convey the idea of their gathering together in social grouping. This is self destructive. The word religion does not necissarily require divine worship. It does not require dogmatic beliefs. It is not necissarily mystical. Religion simply refers to a gathering of individuals of like or similar mind for the sharing of life, guidance, and social community.

There are some that are so suspicious of any collective effort to explore such things that they decry such gatherings as controlling or the same as dogmatic religion. I would suggest that these people are reacting to associative feelings they have towards more authoratarian groups.

We are social creatures. This is biology. It is natural for us to gather together to forge a path through this life. Being part of a group does not mean giving up your individuality. Some groups are more demanding of your individuality and will bleed it off. But this is simply not true of all groups.

In the end Sec Hum does not believe that all must belong to them. Simply put if its not a fit for you then no problem. Nor does this mean that they want you to stay away. There are no walls. They do not tell you how to think. They offer a voice that is greater than an individuals in which you can share. If you agree with the ideas they champion then join their voice. If you don't then don't. That is the key difference between Sec Hum and a dogmatic religion. It does not claim to have the absolute truth nor does it insist that you are wrong for not agreeing with them.

[rudeboy666]

12. Separation of Church and State?

Granted, your Sec Hum message sounds very nice. However, you can't deny that 'secular humanism' is an ideology that is being implemented by modern American societal institutions i.e. the Supreme Court, ACLU(who I agree with 99.99999999%)...Even the most 'suspect'(Jefferson, Lincoln, Paine, etc...)individuals in American history recognized the religious nature of American society(thus, any Freeper could easily pull out a religious quote from said individual).

The point is that 'secular humanism' could be just as oppressive as any religious ideology. In fact, it is sometimes MORE oppressive than the religious ignorance that it supposedly tries(part of its mission) to eliminate.

Don't believe me? Just peruse the history of 20th Century Marxist(and NAZI) explicitly atheistic experiments for some food for thought.

[BonjourUSA]

15. I don't live in oppressive society !

France is a secular country. It's the best form of state, I think.

[Az]

20. Freedom is an inherant aspect of the system

It is not a dogmatic system such as Marxism. There are doctrinal systems such as Marxism and Dogmatic religions which impose their beliefs and seek to correct (sometimes drastically) any objectors. In fact such systems seek to destroy any interlopers that encroach on their territory. Sec Hum advocates tolerance. It realises that not all are at the same place philosophically and that it only can speak for those that voluntarily associate with then.

Being atheistic does not propel a group into evil actions. That is simply prejudice speaking. Nazism (treading close to Moores Law here) was not atheistic. Take a look at Nazi regalia some time. It is rife with religious (specifically christian) symbols.

Do people expect atheists not to search for systems and ways in which to work together and make the world a better place? I am bothered by the notion that only those that have a belief in god are allowed to gather together and find ways of living together in peace and harmony. Atheists are not simply animals running around wild. We have a desire to be part of society. We have a desire to come together just as theists do. Please check your own biases and prejudices before you criticise others.

[Damndifino]

76. The Nazis were NOT atheists.

The notion that Nazism was atheistic is a misconception which is frequently brandished (with bizarre logic) in attempts to discredit atheism.

National Socialism rejected Judaism (obviously); it also rejected Christianity, because it is Judaic in origin, even though many Nazis remained openly Christian. Officially, Nazism attempted to revive pre-Christian nordic paganism. Much Nazi symbolism was derived from this source (e.g. the swastika, the lightning-bolt SS runes). Himmler was enthusiastic about paganism, and the headquarters of the SS contained a small pagan temple at which senior members carried out rituals. However, pagan religion never caught on (it may not have helped that Hitler wasn't very interested in nordic heritage beyond issues of race), and Nazi Germany remained essentially (though for some denominations tacitly) Christian.

[Blue_Chill]

36. Az I love you buddy

but it's a religion. Flexible, tolerant, whatever you want to think of it. Its a religion.

As proof I offer this from Humanist Manifesto I:

<snip>
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.<snip>
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

[Terwilliger]

39. from Az's post

In the end Sec Hum does not believe that all must belong to them. Simply put if its not a fit for you then no problem.

That wouldn't apply in your religion. For you, conversion is necessary. People must believe as you do. For the Secular Humanists..."if you believe the way we believe, fine...if not...fine"

yeah...if I were religious I'd rather belong to Secular Humanism than the sky fairy house of worship

OnEdit: from another Az post

...Dogmatic religions which impose their beliefs and seek to correct (sometimes drastically) any objectors. In fact such systems seek to destroy any interlopers that encroach on their territory. Sec Hum advocates tolerance. It realises that not all are at the same place philosophically and that it only can speak for those that voluntarily associate with them.

[Blue_Chill]

43. Ooh Ooh Ter comes out swingin! Bout time you showed your true colors!

That wouldn't apply in your religion. For you, conversion is necessary. People must believe as you do. For the Secular Humanists..."if you believe the way we believe, fine...if not...fine"

hehe! Actually religious Humanist are openly hostile towards other religions. They claim to not give a damn what others believe but we all know that's BS.

yeah...if I were religious I'd rather belong to Secular Humanism than the sky fairy house of worship

Ooh look at the hate in your tone. Poor lost soul.....

:D

[BlackRhino]

50. Boy oh boy... SOMBODY's full of themselves, today!

Secular Humanism is not a religion. Period. Nothing you have quoted proves or even hints otherwise.

You have failed. Please move along.

[Blue_Chill]

54. If you say it it must be true

They refer to themselves as "religious humanists" in their own manafesto and yet here you are stating that it doesn't matter.....because you said so.

Who was it it that is full of themselves again? :eyes:

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

68. Humanist Application + Religious Tradition

Merely implies that one approaches the issues of humanisn through the traditions of a particular religion. Thus individuals such as Rabbi Sherwin Wine are perfectly able to represent both Judaism and Humanism( http://www.shj.org/ ).

Religions that survive over time evolve. They pick up traditions and teachings that contain wisdom and value. Thus someone can approach them not from a divine aspect but rather as a miner sifting for nuggest of wisdom contained within. To discard such a collection of wisdom seems a crime to me. But to hold to it absolutely seems a mistake as well.

[Walt Starr]

69. This is precisely the point I've tried to make

Take me, for example. I consider myself a Humanist Pagan. The philosophical views of Humanism melds nicely with my religious views of Paganism.

[Terwilliger]

63. my true colors?

because I dont believe in fairy tales, I'm full of hate?

You folks spring forth from the concept that there's no possibility that god doesn't exist. Do you see the self-hatred contained in that?

[Blue_Chill]

67. Yes your true colors

because I dont believe in fairy tales, I'm full of hate?

Not it's actually because of the words you select and the over all tone of your last post. Your bleiefs mean exactly nothing to me.

[Terwilliger]

100. same to ya, guvna

[Az]

41. I do not oppose the religion label

It is not a religion in the same context as the more well known theological religions. That is it is not dogmatic or autoratative. But it is a collection of individuals gathered together in a shared view of the world.

From www.m-w.com

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Definition 4 covers the function of Sec Hum. Many Sec Hums will deny this definition. The confusion stems from the limitations of our language. We are familiar with the historical conotation of religion implying all the divinity and authority it carries with it.

Sec Hum is an organisation of people of like minded ideals gathered together to promote their ideas. It is not the same as the religions of old but to deny some similarity is simply an emotional response. There are many within the atheist/humanist society that have been burned by religions and thus reject any association with such systems. Yet such gatherings of humans is perfectly natural. It can and has gone awry in the past but it is our nature to come together in social structures. If we do not deal with this we deny ourselves.

[Trajan]

94. Blue Chill ... This is RELIGIOUS, NOT SECULAR humanism .....

Cointelpro made a mistake by mis-attributing it as 'Secular Humanism' it is in FACT "Religious Humanism" being described ....

It is regretable that Az has not recognized the error here yet ....

Humanism comes in two basic forms: ... Religious and NON religious (Secular) humanism .... Mother Theresa was a RELIGIOUS Humanist, and is very much a catholic ......

The 'manifesto' offered by Cointelpro when he started the thread is a RELIGIOUS humanism document ....

This is NOT a product of a secular humanist organization ......

[Walt Starr]

95. EVERYBODY SHOULD READ TRAJAN'S POST!!!!

This is what I've beent rying to say all along!

This is not the manifesto of Secular Humanism. Humanism has application to religions, ergo, religious Humanists can be Catholics (Mother Teresa), Jews, Hindu, Muslim, Pagan, etc. etc. etc.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

77. Non the less, I left religions

long ago, and I'm not going to join another one because it claims to be progressive. Any religion breeds intolerance, and if you cannot see that, it's too bad. The basic dogma of Jesus is tolerance, but look where that has taken us, it has created more intolerance than anyother institution in the history of the world.

I guess it really does break down to whether or not you need a group of people to hold the same beliefs as you. The beliefs of sec hum. is held by many if not all rational atheists, and any pagmatists, I just think it is superfluous. It brings politics into something so pure, and dephiles it.

[ulysses]

14. this doesn't quite scan for me

Any org. that tries to shape someone's beliefs, any org. that has a manifesto, is either very political, or very religious. Secular Humanism is the latter, and for that reason it is superfluous.


If secular humanism is a religion, why do you have a political problem with it? If it's a religion, but secular humanists aren't trying to proselytize to you or restrict the rights of non-secular-humanists, why do you have a problem with it at all?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

78. Because it is superfluous,

and that is the worst anti-virtue. It takes something that is logical, and rational and turns it into a damn religion, excepts from the manifesto basically say it's a religion. And with any organization politics are involved, which even further restricts the goals it works for through a gauntlet of politics.

It takes the voice of the individual and makes it irrelevant.

[Walt Starr]

81. Okay, so don't become a Secular Humanist

Problem solved, everybody is happy.

[Lexingtonian]

16. I'd beg to differ

Just read Humanists Manifesto I and II, and the Humanist Declaration, and it seems to me that it just dances around the fact that it Is a religion.

I believe they say, and I think it's fair, that whether Humanism is or is not religious is their unresolvable internal dispute. They've tried to split it into Secular and Religious aspects, but they admit it's not sound. The problem is epistemologically undecideable.

In fact in the first manifesto it indirectly refers to itself as a religion. It tries to not only tell people what to think, it asserts the idea that humans are the most important thing possible. It is about what's the best for humans, and tolerance, and all that, but the basic nature of this organization breeds intolerance. For the religious, and people that believe in myths.

Well, for something to be true there must be things that are not. I don't think intolerance is a necessary outcome of Humanism. The central dogma of humanism does not need to be taught anyone. The humanist's task is simply to expose the counterdogmas or rationalizations (myths) that permit its violation as wrong.

It is an organization that is completely superfluous, and it will just incite politics further down the line.

If you have people who wish to be helped in some way and the belief involved is relevant, then an organization needs to be formed. If you have a belief completely worth living by, it will be worth dying for, and a politics is inevitable.

The basic "dogma" of this org. is that of every rational atheist, and more importantly ever rational religion.

This is not true. The insight is basic in human experience but not itself rational. It can be denied by dogmatic rationalists, and it is. Try Hobbes or Nietzsche.

This organization seems to be nothing more than a hybrid religion, where it denies it's true nature. Any org. that tries to shape someone's beliefs, any org. that has a manifesto, is either very political, or very religious. Secular Humanism is the latter, and for that reason it is superfluous.

Well, if you and I believe in Liberalism, is DU superfluous in practice? Or just in Utopia?

I'm not disagreeing with any of its dogma, in fact I agree with just about all of them, but their is something extremely unsavory about a group that takes rationality, and science, that I hold so precious, and exploits it into a cult/religion/organization.

If I understand all you have said correctly, your own beliefs have a name you think is Atheism and I suspect is a variety of atheism called Scientism. Scientism becomes something of a cult/religion/organization itself and difficult to bear was my experience in a prestigious grad school in a science. Among older scientists there is a kind of priesthood and bishops and the occasional Pope. (The very best don't subscribe to it.) In its most severe versions scientism becomes a variety of occultism. Some people respond to the whole phenomenon very badly and, if they stay in a scientific environment, go to bizarre seemingly opposite extremes such as Creationism.

It seems that it is a group of people that need to have a "father figure" in their life, so they turn to the human race as their savior. The world is a harsh place, so instead of believing in a god, they believe in humans.

If you ever really fall in love, or you have children, maybe the belief will seem more warranted then. It's the responsive personhood and her/his insights that count, the political function ("figure") becomes quite incidental (though many people can't live, and some can live but not articulate, the distinction). That is why some very sensible people value their abusive or felonious or dull parents/children/spouses deeply in ways others find incomprehensible.

And if you live long enough, perhaps you too will come to see your life as people have historically done, as an individual link in a chain of human consciousness and memory that you desire to be the most precious consciousness and memory that can be attained. We are born alone, grow in individual ways, and die alone. We commonly huddle together as piglets or puppies do for warmth, or have the togetherness of passing ships using semaphores, or passengers in the same train compartment.

But it's the soulmate sort of togetherness that we find so rare and rewarding that it counts as other things do not. Once you truly know it, you cannot forget it and will always try to find your way back to its kind, and that will in time compose to you the real story of your life as an assemblage in time of moments of such callings and revelations. Because no criterion holds up, the status of religious or secular cannot be placed on these events, and as the underpinnings of all serious humanism they can't be ignored. James Joyce memorialized such a moment in his life- the hours or day he fell in love with Nora- as Bloomsday and wrote the novel 'Ulysses' around it.

The harshness and ongoing failures of people is a truthful observation. But it is not the whole truth and certainly not the only truth.

While I tend to agree that humans need to believe in humans, and we alone hold the ability to improve our future, I am very skeptical of an organization that sets down beliefs for me. Why do they need tell me what is rational, and tell me anything.

Gerard Manley Hopkins once received a letter in which a reader (he was a poet and a Jesuit priest) asked his advice on how to reachieve and maintain faith in Man and God. Hopkins wrote back simply "Give alms."

The semi-academic explanation of that anecdote: humanistic-type solidarity with Mankind as a value and its experience is not 'rational' as you use the term; it can't be worked out from abstract principles a priori. Just as the joys of sex or love or the nobility in tragedy. It's all a matter of wise investment of the human Self in others' lives and Selves in various forms in the present moment. Doing that is constituted of events- encounters-, and encounters demand situational thinking and situational insight.

The evidence the humanist needs/depends on is thus necessarily in human insight and witness, in reports back from those who paid the fare and tolls and went there. And what the report back from that place is, that we know from some exalted lives such as Gandhi's. Hopkins summarized all that for his reader in two words. The Humanists are just not as succinct.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

79. Funny, Hobbes, and more importantly Nietzche

are two of my favorite philosophers. This organization seems to be denying the foundations of the human being, as does every other religion. Humans are not a social creature, humans have a will to dominate, and will to power. We are forced into institutions by our society, and we are all better for it, but it is not the nature of the human.


DU is not a religion, and does not have a manifesto, or even a set of beliefs. We work with our beliefs at DU, and it seems SH many times works in Spite of their beleifs.

I don't beleive in this Scienctism, the very fact that you try to put me in a group, goes back to another topic. And the very fact that rational people become SH is my problem with it. It is just another thing to seperate people, and that is what it does. It takes the beliefs of thousand/millions of peoples, and makes a religion out of them, summarily seperating people that would otherwise not be separated.

Don't really know where your going with this a priori stuff, Kants a good philosopher and all but... doesn't it also go that all knowledge originates from a priori, so indirectly whatever you said stems from a priori knowledge.

Any group that classifies us has not done us a favor. It's main goals are for humans to work together, and to help humans, but at the same time it has seperated us, when we didn't need to be seperated. Any true bleiever in the human race, in rational thought, should IMO see this.

The very nature of this organization is counter-productive to what I precieve as it's main goal, which would be to breed tolerance, and bring us together. It has set down a foundation by which you, me should believe, and has inherently tried to mold all humans to their bleiefs. IF it is true, humans are social creatures, then won't this organization breed resentment, and hatred. If humans are social then all humans will want to be in an Org. and since this one seems to represent rationality, and non-metaphysics, shouldn't everyone want to join it. Hence it has indoctrinated humans, and made them mold to this intity.

[Az]

82. Social creatures

I am wondering where you are deriving your notion that humans are not social creatures from. All research I am familiar with suggests that we are very much social creatures. There is a biological impetus built into us that rewards us when we cooperate and disuades us when we strike out against our own.

Within these created social structures there can be struggle from dominance. This is natural. But if the struggle becomes destructive to the society as a whole it is typically culled. So yes there is struggle but within the norms of social behaviour. There are anomalies that arise. Psychopathic Personalities. These individuals lack any sense of connection with their fellow humans and only strive for individual power. They may rise far as our modern artificial social construct of corporate mentality supports such depravity, but within social structures based on human needs they are monstrousities.

As to the gathering of individuals with a goal of promoting human values within our society. With no voice championing human ideals (as opposed to divine) such matters will be lost to the wind. With no effort to bring forward reason and rational thought applied to the human condition the voice of religious belief and fanaticism will reign unchallenged. There has to be a voice for those that cherish such things. It is not going to be perfect. It is goind to make mistakes. But it is going to try to keep the torch lit.

Humanism is not exclusionary. It tries to include all humans. Just because some humans do not share their views does not mean that they are excluded. Yes Humanists believe that there are delusional teachings in the world. They wish there to be fewer such teachings but are not going to deny a person their humanity simply because they possess such beliefs. Humanists want this to be a better world for all humans, not just Humanist Humans.

[JNelson6563]

17. Interesting

I read a very good article about how some assert Secular Humanism is a religion. Though, if I remember correctly, the author seemed to feel this assertion generally comes from believers.

Julie

[no_hypocrisy]

18. Your observations are very perceptive.

Since their inauguration, the Humanist Manifestos I & II have generated debate amongst humanists are far as self-definition. Is humanism a defacto religion or a philosophy? Nobody has come up with an absolute answer. It depends from which viewpoint you wish to debate. It seems religious if you want to recognize the inherent spirituality. It also seems like a philosophy when it is the basis for organizing your life and that of society. It's a tough call. But at least it is an alternative to religious dogma wherein one accepts tenets as facts without question. At least humanists will try to discover all sides to an argument before making a decision or accept something as a fact.

[BonjourUSA]

21. This discussion about "Secular Humanism" is absolutely surrealist !!

Secularism is for us a daily struggle. And when I read your posts (Secular Humanism is a religion or not) I'm sick !!

[JanMichael]

24. As a card carrying (it's true, there's a card!) Secular Humanist...

...I'm just a tad bewildered by this thread myself.

[robbedvoter]

49. The Creationists battlecry! That and "Burn Darwin at the stake"

Amazing forage here - amazing "politics is religion cuz God told me so" logic!

[msmcghee]

22. Secular humanism challenges the God meme

The God meme attaches itself very strongly to the emotions of many of those who hold it. That means the holder feels good when he or she spreads the meme to others (evangelize) and makes them feel bad when they see any challenge to the dominance of their God meme in society.

Secular humanism acknowledges that a belief in supernatural causes can lead to all kinds of destructive behaviour - like unjustly criminalizing activities that are seen as unGodly, forcing children to pray in public school, using tax money for religious purposes and even wars where people are killed for holding the "wrong" God meme.

When most Christians are confronted with a rational philosophy like secular humanism that implicitly recognizes irrational behaviour as dangerous - they will have an emotional need to attack it. They will devise any arguments they can to discredit it and will have a need to tell others about the "danger" they have discovered in our midst. It is an emotional response - not a reasoned argument - as this thread vividly shows.

Simply pointing out how this works will often be seen as an attack on the God meme - and can cause an emotional counter-attack. If you are getting angry from reading this post then you are infected by the God meme. I am not attacking you although I know your emotions are telling you otherwise. I think it is important that people recognize how this works. The more who understand it the less damage to society will be caused by God memes and those who carry them.

http://www.geocities.com/margimcghee/index.html

[Az]

28. An understanding of how memes associate themself

is necissary to counter such memes. The human mind collects or rejects memes based on how they comply to the emotional weighting of their existing collection of memes. Thus unless a meme can overcome the current emotional weighting of a system it will at best be relegated to the mental dustbin.

The trick to overcome such memes is to build up an array of other memes that become interlocked and collectively overwhelm the older memes present in the system. This is accomplished by providing a continual flow of logical reasonable information in a trusting capacity that does not directly trigger the defensive memetic structure of the existing memes. Eventually an event will happen that will challenge the older memes and may lower the emotional reliance on these. At this time the individual will look to the other resources their mind has within and here is where the newly laid memes will find their foothold. Thus raising the emotional reliance on the new memes they may be enough to begin to challenge the older memes or at least initiate a reshuffling of emotional weighting.

[msmcghee]

30. Again, I am impressed with your understanding of . .

. . this process. You've obviously put a lot of thought into this. I'd appreciate any links you might have that would direct me to other sources that you have found that discuss this emotional mechanism at work.

But I'd also like to see a paper or article from you some day that summrizes your thoughts on this.

B-) Margi

[Liberal Veteran]

26. Look at it from this viewpoint....

Is it any surprise that a set of philosophical ideals and ideas sounds a lot like religion?

Once you take all the trappings of mysticism away from a religion (the invisible man in the clouds, the miracles, etc...) you are left with a set of philosophical ideals and ideas.

I guess the big difference is that secular humanism appeals to the inherent goodness of humans and logic as a basis for it's philosophy instead of "Because God said so".

[Mountainman]

27. My reply to you

I just read the manifestos you are talking about and I get the sense that what they are saying is that they see the maintenance and improvement of the quality of human existence to be very important and that they reject any religious practice or belief that does harm to that idea. They reject the concept of prayer to a god and the idea of a god intervening into human affairs.

I don?t have any trouble with someone humanism and I agree with the idea that improving the experience of human existence a good thing but I unlike humanism, I believe that there is a god with whom I personal relationship. I cannot define or describe that god but my experience tells me that god exists. So with that I want to respond to your posts.



"Just read Humanists Manifesto I and II, and the Humanist Declaration, and it seems to me that it just dances around the fact that it Is a religion."

When I hear someone say that humanism is a religion I think of the right wing attempts to place religion in public schools by saying that the schools teach humanism which they say is a religion so therefore Christianity should be taught also as a counter balance to humanism. I think this is a stealth attempt by fundies to put religion in to public education and I am suspicious of your posts for that reason.





"Infact in the first manifesto it indirectly refers to itself as a religion."

Here is what I read and I think you are wrong when you say it refers to itself as a religion. It says ?religious humanists? not humanism is a religion. I am again suspicious of your motives here.

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.




"It tries to not only tell people what to think, it asserts the idea that humans are the most important thing possible. It is about what's the best for humans, and tolerance, and all that, but the basic nature of this organization breeds intolerance. For the religious, and people that believe in myths."

Again I disagree. The manifesto tells people what HUMANISTS believe. It does not attempt to tell anyone what they should believe. It says that human existence is most important and that it rejects religious practices that does harm to human existence. The manifesto says nothing about being intolerant of religions; only that humanists disagree with their teachings if they have dogma that us harmful to human existence.




"It is an organization that is completely superfluous, and it will just incite politics further down the line. The basic "dogma" of this org. is that of every rational atheist, and more importantly ever rational religion. This organization seems to be nothing more than a hybrid religion, where it denies it's true nature. Any org. that tries to shape someone's beliefs, any org. that has a manifesto, is either very political, or very religious. Secular Humanism is the latter, and for that reason it is superfluous."

I don?t see where there is any organization. I don?t see any dogma. I don?t see where it denies itself at all. Humanists don?t try to shape anyone?s beliefs. Humanists come to their ideas mostly by introspection. They don?t join some organization and then adopt its belief system. People joining an organized religion do that.
Here again I am suspicious of your motives since as above you are trying to say that humanism is a religion with dogma etc.




"I'm not disagreeing with any of it's dogma, infact I agree with just about all of them, but their is something extremely unsavory about a group that takes rationality, and science, that I hold so precious, and exploits it into a cult/religion/organization."

There is no humanist dogma. This is your idea. There is no cult/religion/organization. Again these are your thoughts. You have created a straw man here.




"It seems that it is a group of people that need to have a "father figure" in their life, so they turn to the human race as their savior. The world is a harsh place, so instead of believing in a god, they believe in humans. While I tend to agree that humans need to believe in humans, and we alone hold the ability to improve our future, I am very skeptical of an organization that sets down beliefs for me. Why do they need tell me what is rational, and tell me anything."

They are telling you what THEY believe. No one is telling you what to believe. Just as any organized religion, you can take it or leave it. It is up to you to decide what you believe.




Every thing you say here reminds me of the right wing talking points used to get religion into public education. What does it matter to you what humanists believe? Why does it threaten you? I think you are part of an organized attempt to get religion into public schools.

[lapislzi]

29. It's AN answer...not THE answer

As a sometime student of existential philosophy, I know that existential thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries worked hard to define a belief system that didn't involve out-and-out nihilsm. One of the results of that quest was the Humanist Manifesto of the 1930s. By its own admission, it's an evolving document. We humanists (note small H) want to make the world a better place. No one else is going to do it for us...no point in waiting on the sky god. At least that's how I see it.

Of course, if you're uncomfortable with the doctrine, don't join. There is as much politics in atheism and humanism as there is everywhere else. You can be a humanist and not subscribe to the manifesto. I just happen to think that the philosophy is a lot more sane than anything else out there.

My $0.02.

[Kazak]

32. Try Unitarian Universalism...

No Dogma, no creed...a nice mix of theism and non-theism.

[jonnyblitz]

33. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell tell me it's a religion so it must be so

you are in good company... :puke:

[Walt Starr]

35. Ayup, my reaction precisely

Seems like the COINTELPRO is working.

[Blue_Chill]

38. You should try reading

<snip>
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.<snip>

http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html


Please note the term "religious humanist". Thanks.

[Walt Starr]

40. As opposed to non-religious humanists

Humanism is a philosphy which can be applied to any religion or no religion at all.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

64. hmm...wouldnt removal be simpler?

is this a consequence of the new software?

[BrettStah]

74. You're misunderstanding that quote...

The phrase "religious humanist" does not indicate that all humanists are religious... rather, they are referring to a subset of humanists that are religious (Christian, Jewish, etc.). Other humanists are not religious. It's like taking the phrase "red car" and thinking all cars are red...

[Walt Starr]

75. Well said!

The red car analogy is SPOT ON!!!

[Blue_Chill]

84. You are misunderstanding secular humanism

You can't be both Catholic and Humanist. In fact the manafesto itself is calling for a change in religions or a creation of one that follows the humanist rules outlined in said document.

Thus a Religious Humanist follows a religion that is humanism and not any other.

[BrettStah]

86. That's your opinion...

Many people (probably 99% of them) who are Catholic, Jewish, or of another specific religion do not adhere/believe 100% of their religion's dogma. (And similarly, not all humanists believe 100% of the "manifestos" you've linked to.) There are many Catholics who practice birth control, for example. Or get a divorce. Or eat meat of Fridays. And some Muslims drink alcohol, don't pray 5 times each day, etc. And some Jews work after sundown on Fridays. It doesn't mean that they don't consider themselves Catholoc, Muslim, or Jewish.

So, to make it clear... not all humanists are atheists... got it?

[Blue_Chill]

88. Read post #83

There's a lot more to it then simply not agreeing with some of your religions beliefs.

[Az]

87. Multiple groups

Humanists and Secular Humanists are not the same thing. There are a number of Humanist organisations. Paul Kurtz and the Secular Humanists are just one of many attempts to organise the various numbers of humanists. The Secular Humanist group headed by Paul Kurtz is the one that wrote the Humanist Manifesto. Guess what. They do not own the humanist set of ideals. Thus any group or individual can associate with humanist ideals in any way they wish to.

You may be confused by the lack of voice from the nontheist communities. This is simply because it is difficult to organise those that reject dogma. If you do not like Kurtz and companies take on Humanism there are other groups to consider. That is of course if joining together with other like minded individuals to make this a better world is to your liking.

[Blue_Chill]

91. Ok then I recognize

that my statements in this thread only apply to the Secular Humanist group headed by Paul Kurtz.

I will investigate the others and draw my opinions accordingly.

[robbedvoter]

42. OK, COINTELPRO! I demand tax exempt status and some $

from the faith based thingy you cooked up with our tax money. The American Humanist Society (at one time chaired by Isaac Asimov), needs faith baised dollars to spread its message to undeserving poor of different faiths - how do you like them apples? We'll throw them some soup, convert them to our "religion" on tax payer money - just like those other religions you don't have a political problem with!

[Blue_Chill]

44. How do I like them apples? I love them

In fact I want it SH declared an official religion. I have my reasons.....

[Walt Starr]

46. There is but one way to have something "declared" a religion

The organization itself must seek such a decalaration.

Just because you do not like a movement does not give you the right to have it "declared" a religion for whatever devious reason you concoct.

An organization is a religion because adherents to the movement itself decide it is a religion and for no other reason.

To give you an example, the COS (Church of Satan), under Anton Zsandor Levay sought 501c(3) status recognition for being a religion. They were granted it and the tax exempt status that comes from that recognition and immediately began paying income taxes. All they wanted was the recognition from the governemtn that Satanism was, in fact, a religion but felt it hypocritical to desire tax exempt status for being a religion.

I have a lot more respect for the COS (even though I do not adhere to the belief system expressed by them) than I ever will for any so-called "Christian" church that receives religion welfare under the so-called "faith based initiative.

The point, however, is the COS had to seek recognition as a religion. It is not bestowed upon an organization, the organization must seek it.

[Blue_Chill]

52. Walter

If you want to discuss which of our religions should be respected in PM's otherwise keep it civil.

[Walt Starr]

57. I kept it civil

Now you are being the one uncivil about this.

edited to add:

BTW, when did I ever say anything about which of our religions should be respected? I expressed that I have more respect for the COS (which admittedly is not a lot of respect) than I do for so-called "Christian" ( "so-called" because I cannot consider these churches to be adherents to the Christian teachings) churches going on the public dole for religion welfare (which is to say, I have absolutely no respect for such an organization).

I do not believe your church is applying for welfare (aka "Faith Based Initiative")!

[Az]

60. Again the language/legal issue

The law that supports church state seperation is specific. The language is open. Yes by some definitions Sec Hum is a religion(as is COS). But for the intent of the law it is more rigidly applied. Thus just because the state employs a method similar to a group that can be considered a religion under some application of the definition does not make it an entanglement of church and state. In the movie The Contender the nominee makes a speech about Democracy being her religion. This is viable under the definition of religion. It does not mean that Democracy must be kept seperate from Government though.

[robbedvoter]

47. I know them: you want to convert my kids in public schools

You want your superstition to supercede science (Adam & Eve as opposed to Darwin). But can the kiddies And maybe some potion class after the "old man in the sky" class? And a little Budhism, Islam too? Can the kids have a choice between your old man class and say - Harry Potter reading clubs?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Az]

56. Blue, this is turn the cheek time

Many atheists are only familiar with dealing with rabid fundimentalists of the religious right variety. Here is you opportunity to show them that not all theists are the same.

[Walt Starr]

58. Many are given opportunities

Unfortunately, so often they allow the stereotypes to be played out.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

93. I never turn the other cheek

That's a Christian thing. I am not a Christian.

[robbedvoter]

90. OK, you Blue Chill are an apple - prove the contrary TO MY SATISFACTION

Seriously, tell me what's your delight in declaring SH a religion? Can you do that without climbing the separation of church and state wall? I didn't think so.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Chill]

96. Answer post 53 before asking me anything else

thanks.

[BonjourUSA]

65. Example

In France, we have two types of schools: public and "private".

The parents are completely free to choose one or the other type of
school

On all the French territory, schools must respect the same syllabus defined by the ministry. All the diplomas are national.

Public: 85 % of the pupils. Completely free. No religious
teaching. All signs external of religion prohibited (veil, kippa, cross…). In the school syllabus: History of all the religions (the most important ones). The state pays teachers.

"Private" : Catholic, Protestant, Jewish... under contract with the state. Same school syllabus that state education. Religious teaching and practical free. Even diplomas required for the teachers. Receive State subsidies to pay completly the teachers, in part to maintain the buildings. A financial participation of the parents is required (often low).

There are also "private" schools which are completely financed by the
parents, no religious. They represent only 0,5 % of the schools. They receive the dunces of which the parents have enough money. These schools have low level.

[Az]

48. Ah, but now we unravel

The meaning of religion in the wall of seperation. While a school of philosophy could be considered a religion it is not the sort of religion specified by the constitution. That is it espouses a school of thought but not the authority to mandate it. This is where our language fails us. The threat to democracy from religion comes from religious institutions that contain a teaching of dogmatic authority. These churches are the ones that sought to oppress the people. They seek to force others to their view. They mandate right and wrong.

By the loose definition of religion a political party can be considered a religion. This is clearly not the intent of the seperation clause. Thus we must examine specifically what the aim was and legislate according to that. Just because Sec Hum and Secular government have similar ideals does not mean that Secular government violates the seperation clause any more that a group claiming to worship reason would make reason a violation of seperation.

This entangling of ideas is why many Sec Hums reject the term religion. Unfortunately our language is a bit more flexible than law or individuals would like.

[Liberal Veteran]

59. Why don't you tell us your "reasons".....

Or would you prefer we guess?

[Liberal Veteran]

61. Usually the reason an outsider wants something declared...

...as a religion is so they can either:

a) Prevent public schools from teaching anything that might offend their particular faith.

b) Demand equal time for their own dogma in public schools.


Which poison is yours?

[Cocoa]

70. you are one intense 17-year-old

I remember when I was 17 getting into a HUGE fight with my best friend because he was making fun of Hulk Hogan. A couple of cracks, I can take, but Andre just wouldn't stop, I was on the verge of either punching him in the face or breaking down in tears.

[rexcat]

71. Secular Humanism is NOT a RELIGION

Religion: 1. belief in a superhuman (or supernatural) power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. 2. Expression of this belief in conduct and ritual.

On the other hand secular humanism regards the universe as self-sufficient and undesigned; it regards human beings as a unique product of the operation of physical laws. If there is to be a meaning to our lives, we must supply it ourselves, applying our powers of observation, reason, and compassion to discern the common moral decencies.

Secular humanism is a eupraxophy, a non-religious philosophy if life that provides a cosmic outlook and a commitment to values. Democratic and secular humanism holds that constitutional democracy is the best known means for protecting the rights of all people, including the non-religious, to form worldviews and live out their life commitments in a free ad mutually respectful way (as noted by the Council for Secular Humanism).

I see nothing that would constitute “religion” (dogma or what ever you want to call it) in the secular humanist community, unlike that found in the religious community. We in the SH community strive to understand the world using the power of observation, logic and the scientific method. In the religious community the world is viewed using superstition and “faith” as the basis of understanding (if something is not understood then a god had to be responsible).

[Philosophy]

72. I disagree with you and the original post

First of all I disagree with the original poster's illogical contention that secular humanism is somehow a "replacement" religion for some other presumably truer religion that humanists don't want to admit is true. There is no such true religion.

However I also disagree with you - secular humanism does elevate certain ideas beyond the realm of skepticism by its perported emphasis on rationality, among these being the preeminence of humans, and the presumption (without logical demonstration) of the existence of absolute morality, values, and freedom. With their refusal to question these they only irrationally limit themselves and in effect create their own form of pseudo-religious dogma.

[JNelson6563]

101. a couple of items:

However I also disagree with you - secular humanism does elevate certain ideas beyond the realm of skepticism by its perported emphasis on rationality, among these being the preeminence of humans, and the presumption (without logical demonstration) of the existence of absolute morality, values, and freedom. With their refusal to question these they only irrationally limit themselves and in effect create their own form of pseudo-religious dogma.

In the Affirmations I posted above I find points that undermine your statement here:

Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

Seems to me to be a live and learn sort of view, not a live and our view remains the same no matter what sort of view.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

This indicates they understnad discoveries are yet to be made.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

This seems to contrast sharply with the closed-mindedness you assert.

To check out the rest go here:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html

You may find it interesting.

Julie

[Philosophy]

131. Still

There are normative standards...

It's assumed without evidence that such ethical standards, and thus absolute morality, must exist.

I disagree.

[rexcat]

104. Secular humanism does not elevate

anything beyond the realm of skepticism. One of the major philosophical points of secular humanism is there are no absolutes in our society . Values and morals are ever changing in our society. This has been the case from the beginning of our species to the present day. We secular humanists question and reevaluate our moral values on an ongoing basis as our life experiences expand over time. This is one of the major differences between secular humanists and people of “religion.” It is much easier to be "religious" becuase one does not have to think about moral values. Religious people just accept what is given to them and they move on. There is a certain amount of laziness built into religion. Maybe that is why most people subscribe to religion.

As far as absolute freedoms, not! We are social beings who depend on one another to survive. Without cooperation we cannot survive as a species. Survival of the species is what drives our need for moral values, not some superstitious being in the ethers of the universe. As societies change so do our moral values but there must always be constraints placed upon us if we want to continue as a species (i.e. cooperation).

[Philosophy]

132. But it does in this sense:

We are social beings who depend on one another to survive. Without cooperation we cannot survive as a species. Survival of the species is what drives our need for moral values, not some superstitious being in the ethers of the universe. As societies change so do our moral values but there must always be constraints placed upon us if we want to continue as a species (i.e. cooperation).

This is what I am talking about - why must the survival and dominion of the human species be the preeminent goal? What is the rational basis for deciding this? Is it not conceivable that there are other more worthy goals? Just something to think about. ;-)

(Don't worry, I'm not a fundy. O8) Quite to the contrary - I'm working on developing a new philosophy that is rational beyond even humanism. :think: )

[Cointelpro_Papers]

109. I find it interesting to find embeded,

such a quote, as if I have left the forum, and am not here.

Now, it's all and well to call me illogical, if you can back it up. But as you have left it you have done nothing but slung the word "illogical" at me, and proved your inability to articulate.

[Az]

73. Language is a tricky thing

From www.m-w.com

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

This can be construed to apply to many things including Secular Humanism and Democracy itself. The trouble here is our limited language and a bit of history. Religion has become the realm of dogmatic authoritative churches. These typically include belief in supernatural entities and other factors.

So what is the problem with gods and democracy such that a wall of seperation seemed like a good idea. It is not so much the belief structures itself but rather the competition between dogmatic entities claiming authority over morality and ethics.

It was the conflict between various major dogmatic religions that brought about the necessity of church state seperation. The world was tossed into continual conflict between the various world powers as represented by the various churches.

Society does not stand still. Languages ebb and flow. It is important to be aware of these changes particularly when laws and rules are written in them.

Thus seperation of church and state, the establishment clause, et al, these are meant to apply to structures which seek to mandate a moral/ethical view upon others. The rise of psuedo religious structures that mirror or borrow the reasoning behind Secular government does not invalidate the government nor does it inpinge upon the seperation clauses.

[Beacho]

80. Blue Chill, your favorite quote

"TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life."



I've read at least three posts where you imply that this quote 'proves' that secular humanism is a religion. However, when I read it, I see that it is addressing the positive of those that believe in metaphysical realities. It has nothing to do with the stated beliefs of the secular humanist, but addresses the concerns of religious humanist.

What gives?

[Blue_Chill]

83. What gives?

the statement that a humanist that abides by the manafesto can also be religious is a lie. In fact the entrie manefesto is describing a religion and asking current religions to change to meet the given criteria.

Examples of incompatability:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural

We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking

Now examples of the new religion they seek to create:
Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.


So you see what is being described is NOT current religions at all, but instead the creation of a new one. This is why I state that Secualr Humanism is a religion.

[BonjourUSA]

98. Why to make simple whereas we can make complicated?

I feel that by reading some posts.

Secular Humanism is simple, I believe : a government lead a policy for the general interest, for all the components of the nation without coercions coming from the heaven or anywhere else. This general interest is founded on values described in the post #19

God doesn't bless any more America, but Allah, Bouddha or anyone else either. Nobody swears on Bible in a lawsuit, no more on Coran or any holy book. The President doesn't swear in front of Christian God because he's the President of all citizens. Schools teach no religion or all religions…

Simple no ? Where is the religion in there ? Where is the atheism in there ? But, Wouldn't it be the true freedom of conscience?

[Trajan]

97. Cointelpro ? ....

This is NOT secular humanism ..... but a definition/manifesto of religious humanism ...

from : ...

What is Humanism?
by Frederick Edwords
Executive Director, American Humanist Association
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is humanism?
The sort of answer you will get to that question depends on what sort of humanist you ask!

The word "humanism" has a number of meanings, and because authors and speakers often don't clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain humanism can easily become a source of confusion. Fortunately, each meaning of the word constitutes a different type of humanism -- the different types being easily separated and defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So, let me summarize the different varieties of humanism in this way.

Literary Humanism is a devotion to the humanities or literary culture.

Renaissance Humanism is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the middle ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood.

Cultural Humanism is the rational and empirical tradition that originated largely in ancient Greece and Rome, evolved throughout European history, and now constitutes a basic part of the Western approach to science, political theory, ethics, and law.

Philosphical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism and Modern Humanism.

Christian Humanism is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "a philosophy advocating the self- fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles." This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism.

Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scien- tific Humanism, Ethical Humanism and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion." Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories.

Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy.

Religious Humanism emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian- Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense.

-snip-

So : do you see the difference ? ...

RELIGIOUS Humanism is formed on a theological basis, whereas SECULAR Humanism is formed without a theological basis ....

Secular Humanism is as religious as a cookbook ....

Here is the Secular Humanist declaration: ... http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/declaration.html

-snip-

Secular humanism is a vital force in the contemporary world. It is now under unwarranted and intemperate attack from various quarters. This declaration defends only that form of secular humanism which is explicitly committed to democracy. It is opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values or espouse rule by dictatorship.

Democratic secular humanism has been a powerful force in world culture. Its ideals can be traced to the philosophers, scientists, and poets of classical Greece and Rome, to ancient Chinese Confucian society, to the Carvaka movement of India, and to other distinguished intellectual and moral traditions. Secularism and humanism were eclipsed in Europe during the Dark Ages, when religious piety eroded humankind's confidence in its own powers to solve human problems. They reappeared in force during the Renaissance with the reassertion of secular and humanist values in literature and the arts, again in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the development of modern science and a naturalistic view of the universe, and their influence can be found in the eighteenth century in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment.

-snip-





ALSO from : .... http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html


What Is Secular Humanism?
Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

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

How Do Secular Humanists View Religious and Supernatural Claims?
Secular humanists accept a world view or philosophy called naturalism, in which the physical laws of the universe are not superseded by non-material or supernatural entities such as demons, gods, or other "spiritual" beings outside the realm of the natural universe. Supernatural events such as miracles (in which physical laws are defied) and psi phenomena, such as ESP, telekinesis, etc., are not dismissed out of hand, but are viewed with a high degree of skepticism.


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

Are Secular Humanists Atheists?
Secular humanists typically describe themselves as atheist (without a belief in a god and very skeptical of the possibility) or agnostic (without a belief in a god and uncertain as to the possibility). Secular humanists hail from widely divergent philosophical and religious backgrounds, ranging from Christian fundamentalism to liberal belief systems to lifelong atheism. Some have achieved a comfortable secular humanist stance after a period of deism. Deists are those who express a vague or mystical feeling that a creative intelligence may be, or was at one time, connected to the universe or involved with its creation, but is now either nonexistent or no longer concerned with its operation.

Secular humanists do not rely upon gods or other supernatural forces to solve their problems or provide guidance for their conduct. They rely instead upon the application of reason, the lessons of history, and personal experience to form an ethical/moral foundation and to create meaning in life. Secular humanists look to the methodology of science as the most reliable source of information about what is factual or true about the universe we all share, acknowledging that new discoveries will always alter and expand our understanding of it and perhaps change our approach to ethical issues as well.

-snip-


AS anyone can see: ... The various types of Humanistic schools are QUITE different .....

Cointelpro's version is NOT secular ...

[Cointelpro_Papers]

105. Hmm, everything I said still stands,

I think the Secular Humanism Manifesto, will tell you what it is. Although their are many types, I am not speaking about the individual per se, but rather the organization that these realms fall in.

[Trajan]

99. Dead Silence .....

100 posts of argument, posted on false pretenses ......

Ehem ....

WHERE did everybody go ? ......

I am reminded of Don Quixote, jousting with windmills ......

Chuckles .......

[robbedvoter]

103. I'm reminded of...COINTELPRO. Leave the flamebait on

our porch and leave to enjoy the resulting pandaemonium.
Remember COINTELPRO? For those youger members, Nixon created an operation for sabotaging liberals (Abby Hoffman was a notable target). They used to show up at events and boo (the live equivalent of trolling on the net). Or pose as liberals and try framing dissidents with drugs and other sorts of entrapment tecniques. I found amazing that our friend took that handle - maybe to challenge our historical knowledge.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

108. Hmm, I'm not exactly sure what you're refering

too as flaim bait, and I'm pretty damn sure I stayed and argued, and talked with everyone. Funny that you can find everything I've said to be flaim bait, simply from one persons vague discription of humanism, in which he did nothing but tried to discredit me by semantics. Although I did say secular, I was as you know refering to the Humanist organization, which happens to have the handle of being Secular. The manifesto's are secular, and the declaration is secular. Although many other Humanisms are within the org., I did not misrepresent any of them.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

106. Sorry Trajan,

I would have answered sooner, but I only get on during the late night, and occasionally during the afternoon. I didn't see your post untill just now.

[MrPrax]

117. Not Windmills...Just Hard To Argue

I read your original post and if most people did, then a lot of bandwidth would have been saved...the diference between secular and religious is a valid
But I am cynical in that I always thought 'secular humanism' was an phoney legalist invention of 'religious conservatives' to suggest that the Law was favouring one 'religion' over another in cases of separation of Church and State...
Apparantly the freedom from 'religious instruction' in public spaces is in fact a 'religious creed'
Or in others words, Liberals are a religion too
Go Figure

[BonjourUSA]

102. American people has a Messianic culture,

I'm thus not sure that this discussion is relevant before very a long time... If this culture changes!!

[opihimoimoi]

112. OH OH< some bad checks here. They bounced

"Seek the Truth and ye shall be rewarded"

"Spread Falshoods and Ye shall be remembered"

"Seek to build, not destroy, and Ye shall be worthy of the Gates"

Come, we go lap bar, mo fun

[U4ikLefty]

120. The "Secular Hunmanism is a religion" mantra is used by the Birchers

When I was a stupid little teen-RWer I had a booklet on the evils of Secular Humanism right from the John Birch Society...I still have it somewhere. It was about how "they" are infecting your schools trying to "indocrinate our children".

I remember coming up with that "SH is a religion" crap to a friend. His response was, "so if it's a religion, how do they worship or pray?." Uhhhh....I had no response. Do you???

[Cointelpro_Papers]

138. Well, I don't want to be accused of anything, so I will start out by sayin

that I am an Atheist, and I agree with most of the things SH stands for. But with that in mind, taoism is a religion, what do they worship, Confusionism is a religion, what do they worship. The definition of religion does not have pray nor worship in it. It is western society that prays and worships, not eastern. I would have said this to you, a religion does not require prayer, nor does it require worship, but the status quo of a western religions do.

[U4ikLefty]

142. Well, if SH has no god(s) & they don't worship or pray (rituals)

then how are they a religion???

You can bring up Taoism & Confucianism, but we're not arguing that issue here. The issue is whether SH is a religion and of course it is not. It is an ethical system...not a religion.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

148. Hmm, we're not going to argue the issue of eastern religions?

Why, does that interfere with your idea of a religion?

[U4ikLefty]

143. The horse is dead so I'll leave you with this link to enlighten you

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cherry_18_1.01.html

Have fun, maybe you can comfort your fears of SH by Emailing them for answers to your questions. If you are truly curious, you will be able to get all you want from these folks, but if your puprose is to argue then you will continue this pointless thread. I'm out!!!