PDA

View Full Version : Humanism



B. de Corbin
21 Jul 2014, 16:22
I really dislike the term "anti-theist."

It strikes me of having the kind of negative connotations that one group uses to label their opponents - you know, like "anti-American," "anti-education," "anti-choice," and "anti-life."

A better term, which defines me by what I am FOR, rather than what I am AGAINST is Humanism.

To define:

Humanism, in general, means "an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

"Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore.

Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge.

Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness.

Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world. These ideas, after they have been assessed rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work, often as alternative approaches for solving problems.

Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard human values as making sense only in the context of human life rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death.

Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems-for both the individual and society-and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities.

Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral decision making.

Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists therefore recognize that we live in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of time, that there is no compelling evidence for a separable "soul," and that human beings have certain built-in needs that effectively form the basis for any human-oriented value system.

Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives.

Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about, especially in the interest of protecting the environment.

Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails."

WHAT IS HUMANISM (http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanism)

SeanRave
21 Jul 2014, 16:58
Is Humanism compatible with religion? Or at least spirituality?

MaskedOne
21 Jul 2014, 17:04
Is Humanism compatible with religion? Or at least spirituality?

Going by Corbin's link, this pretty much depends on the Humanist.

On that note, I may find things to bug you about regarding this later Corbin. I want to read more of the link later before tossing out questions.

Denarius
21 Jul 2014, 17:06
Is Humanism compatible with religion? Or at least spirituality?

Ish. It's more of a philosophy or an outlook on life really, like Objectivism.

B. de Corbin
21 Jul 2014, 17:08
A humanist would only have a problem with religion when a religion or religious group claims that their ideology is more important than the effects of their ideology on people.

For example, heaping misery on gay folks because "God don't like queers" would raise their ire.

That's not to say that they don't critically examine religion or religious groups, and notice where things go off kilter. No topic is taboo to a free mind.

SeanRave
21 Jul 2014, 17:15
So a Theist belief system can be compatible with Humanism if it's tenants are similar/not contradictory?

Medusa
21 Jul 2014, 17:21
That is an amazing description of how I feel about religion. If it doesn't affect me, and it doesn't (as a larger whole) affect humanity, I honestly am not concerned about what you believe. But - as many have noticed from a couple of threads - I consider it "affecting me" when my tax dollars are wasted on it. I have...strong opinions about that...
So this is your Hobby Lobby:p

Roknrol
21 Jul 2014, 17:21
That is an amazing description of how I feel about religion. If it doesn't affect me, and it doesn't (as a larger whole) affect humanity, I honestly am not concerned about what you believe. But - as many have noticed from a couple of threads - I consider it "affecting me" when my tax dollars are wasted on it. I have...strong opinions about that...

- - - Updated - - -


So a Theist belief system can be compatible with Humanism if it's tenants are similar/not contradictory?
I suspect that what people consider to be "harmful" may depend on what the individual believes ;) Humanism for me may be vastly different from a Christian Humanist, and while I'm sure that Scientology Humanists are impossible, there is probably someone out there that holds that title :)

Denarius
21 Jul 2014, 17:24
So a Theist belief system can be compatible with Humanism if it's tenants are similar/not contradictory?

From what I've read, humanism is the broad idea that humans have worth and agency. Opposing notions that humans only have value as servants of God.

Secular Humanism, or just Humanism with a capital H depending on who you are talking to, is a specific ideology expanding on that base premise. Usually extolling the virtues of reasoned thinking.

B. de Corbin
21 Jul 2014, 17:26
So a Theist belief system can be compatible with Humanism if it's tenants are similar/not contradictory?

Sure. One could be a Christian Humanist, or any other type.

I'm a Secular Humanist, because I'm atheist.

The key is (at least to me): people have feelings, they suffer pain, they go hungry, they dislike being enslaved, tricked, harmed, etc. The solution to human problems arises from reason, experimentation, and must be based on real world phenomenon. Appealing to "the divine" won't do the work - it takes actual labor.

A Humanist with a religion would feel the same way, but with the belief that good religion requires real actions. It's OK to pray, but don't expect that to carry the day.

volcaniclastic
21 Jul 2014, 17:35
For those interested, I identify as a naturalistic pagan, which is a branch of humanism, and essentially:


Naturalistic Pagans mean by it can be summed up simply:

only natural causes affect the universe; if there are supernatural causes, there is no reliable evidence yet to support that idea.
To clarify what counts as “natural”, we look to contemporary science:

natural causes are best discovered via the current most compelling scientific evidence
In other words, we adopt an appropriate skepticism toward any supposed divine or magical causes outside nature, i.e. super-natural causes, as well as those within nature unsupported by the best evidence.***

While we find little evidence to support most of the metaphysical claims made for deities and magic, we find plenty of evidence for the capacity of Pagan myth, meditation, and ritual to affect psychology. That is why we find Pagan ways powerful. By shaping human minds, they motivate change through human hands.

As a result of our reliance on demonstrable evidence, a few tendencies emerge:

We tend to view deities as metaphorical, poetic, or psychological in some sense, and not as causal agents external to and independent of the individual. Thunder is external and independent, but the personification of thunder as Zeus, for example, is not.
We tend to view magic as manipulating the world indirectly through the individual’s own psychology, for example by motivating her or him to action, and not as manipulating “energies” to produce effects with no known physical causal relation to the individual.
We tend to ground our practices and beliefs in experience, accurate history, and mainstream scientific evidence.
Our focus on evidence as the primary source of knowledge leads many of us to an awareness of, and gratitude for, the long evolutionary process which has resulted in our existence today.
Because our worldview doesn’t include afterlives or hidden realms, we tend to be focused on this body, this life, and this earth, cherishing each moment and improving the world for all life on Earth.

sauce (http://humanisticpaganism.com/what-is-humanisticpaganism-2-0/)

Rhaethe
21 Jul 2014, 21:55
The first thing that sprung to mind when reading through this thread and thinking about humanism and a theist or non-theist belief set and the compatibility (or non) thereof was --

Quakers

There are both theist and non-theist Quakers (yes, there are non-theist Quakers) who, I think, also practice Humanism. Well, I feel they do, and did ... at least when I was part of them.

I am going to go back and do some more reading though, to ensure that my understanding of the philosophy is what I think it is before I actually ... make that declaration.

thalassa
22 Jul 2014, 04:51
For those interested, I identify as a naturalistic pagan, which is a branch of humanism, and essentially:



I'm not that far off from naturalistic paganism in some ways. From a theological perspective, I'm with TH Huxley---I'm agnostic. I truly doubt there are literal and concrete beings capable of independent agency in the universe, and I'm pretty certain deity is all in my head...but I see value in the idea of gods and I don't think imaginary friends are bad when they are managed properly. My practice is still religious though--and its polytheistic, because I also believe that there is something to be learned from myth-as-an-extension-of-humanity and from the experience of our relationship to what humankind perceives as deity---when it is combined with compassion and critical thinking to live in better accord with one another and our surroundings. And I tend to identify with pantheism, mostly as a philosophical outlook.


So a Theist belief system can be compatible with Humanism if it's tenants are similar/not contradictory?

I was raised in the United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the totally different Church of Christ), which has a strong humanist tradition--the were one of the first churches to have women ministers, they supported the abolition movement, they marry homosexuals, and they are strong supporters of any number of social justice issues.

thalassa
23 Jul 2014, 04:10
they have awesome videos (at least some of which are narrated by Stephen Fry)----> https://humanism.org.uk/

B. de Corbin
23 Jul 2014, 07:21
they have awesome videos (at least some of which are narrated by Stephen Fry)----> https://humanism.org.uk/

I enjoyed the videos immensely...

I wonder if the current Pope has Humanist leanings? Wouldn't that be the cat's pajamas?

Roknrol
23 Jul 2014, 07:27
I like the new Pope.

B. de Corbin
23 Jul 2014, 08:21
I like the new Pope.

He excommunicated the entire Mafia.

One wonders why previous Popes never thought of doing that...

MaskedOne
23 Jul 2014, 08:26
He excommunicated the entire Mafia.

One wonders why previous Popes never thought of doing that...

This is possibly the most entertaining thing I've read today.

thalassa
23 Jul 2014, 09:51
I enjoyed the videos immensely...

I wonder if the current Pope has Humanist leanings? Wouldn't that be the cat's pajamas?

He's a Jesuit...so it wouldn't surprise me that there are elements of his beliefs which are in-line with a Humanistic world-view. The Jesuit order has a fairly long history of working with marginalized peoples, and they tend (at least in comparison with Catholicism as a whole) to be a bit liberal. But I don't think he would self-identify as having humanist leanings. As far as modern Jesuits go, he's fairly middle of the road-to-conservative. But there is a Christian Humanist movement (there's a retired Episcopalian bishop that is fairly well known for his writings on the subject, and for stirring up controversy--John Shelby Spong), and there are certain more orthodox and conservative Christian traditions (Catholicism for one) that have ideas and teachings that are compatible with Humanism, but I think in the case of the latter, it would be a mistake to attribute that to Humanism.

B. de Corbin
23 Jul 2014, 10:33
Yeah...

But, honestly, I don't so much care what one calls oneself as much as I care about what their actions show about them. Labels are vastly overrated.

If it acts like a humanist, talks like a humanist, and thinks like a humanist, who cares if it calls itself a boogie man or a tomato?

;)

Heka
24 Jul 2014, 04:33
He excommunicated the entire Mafia.

One wonders why previous Popes never thought of doing that...

What a legend.

PrinceKhanakus_the111th
17 Aug 2014, 13:25
While I find it admirable for its skepticism towards religion and questioning of authority, and think it can be helpful to society in some ways, humanism just seems a bit too optimistic and I don't agree with its belief in all the value and goodness of humanity.

B. de Corbin
17 Aug 2014, 19:41
While I find it admirable for its skepticism towards religion and questioning of authority, and think it can be helpful to society in some ways, humanism just seems a bit too optimistic and I don't agree with its belief in all the value and goodness of humanity.

It is optimistic, but not as you suppose, PrinceKhanakus.... -

It has optimism in the belief that humans CAN chose better.

PrinceKhanakus_the111th
18 Aug 2014, 05:20
It is optimistic, but not as you suppose, PrinceKhanakus.... -

It has optimism in the belief that humans CAN chose better.

I doubt all of them will be willing to do so. Many of them would need to have experienced complex situations in order for them to realize what's the better choice. Getting some people to change isn't as easy as just giving them information and using reason. So I find it rather doubtful that during my lifetime, all countries will grant women, sexual, religious and ethnic minorities, etc equal rights, reason would be more favored throughout the world than religious dogma, third world countries would rise out of the conditions that they face, and so on.

B. de Corbin
18 Aug 2014, 10:22
I doubt all of them will be willing to do so...

Of course not - nothing ever works all the time.

But increase the odds that some will, and you increase the odds that more will.


..Many of them would need to have experienced complex situations in order for them to realize what's the better choice. Getting some people to change isn't as easy as just giving them information and using reason...

Yes, they would need to be guided in ethical behavior.


... So I find it rather doubtful that during my lifetime, all countries will grant women, sexual, religious and ethnic minorities, etc equal rights, reason would be more favored throughout the world than religious dogma, third world countries would rise out of the conditions that they face, and so on.

Nope, I agree, not in your life anymore than it did in mine.

But some will get better, much of the time, though there's some back sliding.

If it is "all or nothing, only," it will often be "nothing."

monsno_leedra
18 Aug 2014, 11:08
I doubt all of them will be willing to do so. Many of them would need to have experienced complex situations in order for them to realize what's the better choice. Getting some people to change isn't as easy as just giving them information and using reason. So I find it rather doubtful that during my lifetime, all countries will grant women, sexual, religious and ethnic minorities, etc equal rights, reason would be more favored throughout the world than religious dogma, third world countries would rise out of the conditions that they face, and so on.

I'd say the problem there is who is defining success and what equality is? Makes it hard to obtain a universal consensus when people can't even arrive at a universal consensus of what success and equality is. At this point in time, and probably any point in time, it will be through applying or imposing ones own standards upon another group and trying to tell them what it is. Once you start defining something based upon enforced or imposed standards then its never success or equality regardless of how much those imposing them claim it will better the group being imposed upon.

Medusa
18 Aug 2014, 16:38
You know I'm an atheist. And some people want to describe me as a humanist. Then I have to remind them not only do I not believe in god, I hate humans. So yeah. Humanism isn't for me.

*sits in the waiting room for Hell.

Seeking a Religion
28 Jan 2015, 11:45
I really dislike the term "anti-theist."

It strikes me of having the kind of negative connotations that one group uses to label their opponents - you know, like "anti-American," "anti-education," "anti-choice," and "anti-life."

A better term, which defines me by what I am FOR, rather than what I am AGAINST is Humanism.

To define:

Humanism, in general, means "an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

"Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore.

Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge.

Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness.

Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world. These ideas, after they have been assessed rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work, often as alternative approaches for solving problems.

Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard human values as making sense only in the context of human life rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death.

Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems-for both the individual and society-and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities.

Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral decision making.

Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists therefore recognize that we live in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of time, that there is no compelling evidence for a separable "soul," and that human beings have certain built-in needs that effectively form the basis for any human-oriented value system.

Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives.

Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about, especially in the interest of protecting the environment.

Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails."

WHAT IS HUMANISM (http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanism)

Im all for Humanism from the standpoint of bettering humanity , however, its obvious when we examine societies over the last few thousand years and especially today in America, we see that Man is simply incapable of managing his own affairs well and maintaining a civil society . High morals, ethics, principles for living seem to be something that is not really valued which has made way for all kinds of societal ills including the harming and premature dying of countless individuals even though the Humanist mantra has always been : ' Engage in any lifestyle you like SO LONG AS NOBODY GETS HURT ' thru the making of Man as his own ultimate authority. As Secular Humanism has become the forefront of American society , it has resulted in an escalation of moral depravity so its clear it hasn't work and isn't working .

Isnt it relatively easy to see that Man left to himself to be his own authority will be his ultimate demise ? I think so. I personally don't think Man was ever meant to be #1 because Man/Woman is too engrained with self centeredness at any cost / narcissistic to the core / and vetos sound morals, ethics, principles under the slightest of inconvenience. One of the Humanist Manifesto affirmations encourage Sexual Relativism 'so long as nobody gets hurt' but I doubt too many Spouses would go along with their Marriage Partner suddenly announcing that they've decided to become a Sexual Relativist because they are in charge .

B. de Corbin
28 Jan 2015, 12:22
Okey-dokey.

anunitu
28 Jan 2015, 12:25
Sits with Duce,and share the cookies and chocolate milk just to pass the time.

habbalah
28 Jan 2015, 12:27
Engage in any lifestyle you like SO LONG AS NOBODY GETS HURT ' thru the making of Man as his own ultimate authority. As Secular Humanism has become the forefront of American society , it has resulted in an escalation of moral depravity so its clear it hasn't work and isn't working .

This is at least the second time you've made a claim of humans being depraved, lacking morality, or giving in to hedonism. I asked for a citation before and didn't receive it. I see no problem with allowing others to live and let live so long as they're not harming anyone. Is it really affecting your life if I'm in the BDSM scene? Or that the gender of my partner makes no difference to me? The more accepting attitude about sex and sexuality makes this world a far more tolerable place for those of us not considered the "norm".

Your argument against sexual relativism makes no sense. It's "as long as no one gets hurt". If my theoretical spouse and I had a closed, vanilla relationship and they suddenly decided they wanted to be poly, that would hurt me because it wasn't what we agreed to. If I suddenly wanted to bring bdsm into the bedroom and they had no interest in it, that would hurt them because it wasn't what they agreed to. In sexual relativism, you seem to be leaving out the fact that consent needs to be present for no one to be harmed.

Total humanism the world over just isn't a logical goal. We all can't be Mother Teresa. I donate money where I can to help causes for groups that are suffering. Does that mean that I think I'm saving the world? Of course not. But the ten dollars I give to each charity a month is still ten more dollars that they didn't have. I do what's in my power to help, which unfortunately due to my health is only monetary at this point, and that's a lot more important and powerful than just throwing up my hands and saying that we're doomed.

B. de Corbin
28 Jan 2015, 12:37
Methinks there are conflicting views about morality tangling hereabouts.

Medusa
28 Jan 2015, 12:38
Sits with Duce,and share the cookies and chocolate milk just to pass the time.

I really need those right about now too.


I'm going to start a bingo.
We get a cookie every time I see the words:
civil
morals
ethics
and some form of women dun the world wrong.

BINGO!!!!!

anunitu
28 Jan 2015, 12:41
Quit tossing those bingo chips in my face,you will put out my eye...

iris
28 Jan 2015, 12:41
I really need those right about now too.

I'm going to start a bingo.
We get a cookie every time I see the words:
civil
morals
ethics
and some form of women dun the world wrong.

BINGO!!!!!

Can I join? I have tea and biscuits.

anunitu
28 Jan 2015, 12:42
Are those snikerdoodles????

iris
28 Jan 2015, 12:47
Are those snikerdoodles????

We don't have those. But I have tuc and chokolate biscuits.

Seeking a Religion
28 Jan 2015, 15:31
This is at least the second time you've made a claim of humans being depraved, lacking morality, or giving in to hedonism. I asked for a citation before and didn't receive it. I see no problem with allowing others to live and let live so long as they're not harming anyone. Is it really affecting your life if I'm in the BDSM scene? Or that the gender of my partner makes no difference to me? The more accepting attitude about sex and sexuality makes this world a far more tolerable place for those of us not considered the "norm".

Your argument against sexual relativism makes no sense. It's "as long as no one gets hurt". If my theoretical spouse and I had a closed, vanilla relationship and they suddenly decided they wanted to be poly, that would hurt me because it wasn't what we agreed to. If I suddenly wanted to bring bdsm into the bedroom and they had no interest in it, that would hurt them because it wasn't what they agreed to. In sexual relativism, you seem to be leaving out the fact that consent needs to be present for no one to be harmed.

Total humanism the world over just isn't a logical goal. We all can't be Mother Teresa. I donate money where I can to help causes for groups that are suffering. Does that mean that I think I'm saving the world? Of course not. But the ten dollars I give to each charity a month is still ten more dollars that they didn't have. I do what's in my power to help, which unfortunately due to my health is only monetary at this point, and that's a lot more important and powerful than just throwing up my hands and saying that we're doomed.


I could easily give you citations as to the destructive lifestyle choices that pervade the U.S. presently, but, Id like to ask you to list 2 or 3 societal ills that show the 'just so long as nobody gets hurt' Humanist mantra bogus . Theres a few, but can you think of just 2 ?


Moral degradation of any society always started with one , two or a small group of people starting it then it graduating to higher numbers till finally it reaches epidemic proportions. Lifestyles especially.


Consent of two people engaging in something doesn't automatically therefore make it right. A cursory look at the consequences to the action should tell you if its a good thing or not. But even before it reaches that point, our Moral Conscience should kick in to tell us, that is, if we don't choose to suppress it so we can get what ever we want. Theres lots of examples in our society where two people have consented, yet the aftermath has been harmful and even led to premature death. So, THAT caveat of Humanism fails also.


Im all for easing the burdens of people whether it be thru financial giving, giving of my time and resources, etc....but just over the last 5 decades it is measurable as to how much moral decline, incivility, anarchy has taken place as a result of Man wanting to be his own authority while snubbing God and his loving protective absolute moral laws (which by the way Humanists expect to be treated accordingly by others, yet demand the right to label them relative when it comes to how they choose to live) .

Medusa
28 Jan 2015, 15:34
Are you a very old person? Just curious.

anunitu
28 Jan 2015, 15:39
An over abundance of control also might be considered dangerous and a breaking of social stability. "Man wanting to be his own authority while snubbing God and his loving protective absolute moral laws" what does this statement actually mean to you SAR? do you mean to imply that you MUST assume a one and only deity MUST exist in order for mankind(Humanity) to have a chance to survive?

Does this mean you distrust humanity of being able to survive on its own?

Seeking a Religion
28 Jan 2015, 15:48
Are you a very old person? Just curious.


No. Just someone who doesn't turn a blind eye to the moral havoc in America and who is counter culture by status. Besides, I can still do 200 lb. on the Tricep machine at the Fitness Center 32 times at one go. So, im not ready for the Depends quite yet but I do know where Walmart stocks them.

- - - Updated - - -


An over abundance of control also might be considered dangerous and a breaking of social stability. "Man wanting to be his own authority while snubbing God and his loving protective absolute moral laws" what does this statement actually mean to you SAR? do you mean to imply that you MUST assume a one and only deity MUST exist in order for mankind(Humanity) to have a chance to survive?

Does this mean you distrust humanity of being able to survive on its own?


I certainly do ! Do you mean that you cant see whats occurring with Man playing his own diety and pretending the Creator doesn't exist ?

anunitu
28 Jan 2015, 15:52
No. Just someone who doesn't turn a blind eye to the moral havoc in America and who is counter culture by status. Besides, I can still do 200 lb. on the Tricep machine at the Fitness Center 32 times at one go.

And so being able to bench a lot makes for better moral ability? please explain "counter culture"...And a question for you...how many times have you faced down death,and walked away...just wondering. I have almost died several times in my lifetime over the years...So I wonder where you derive your absolute wisdom.

Not saying almost dieing gives you wisdom,but it does give one some perspective.

habbalah
28 Jan 2015, 15:58
I could easily give you citations as to the destructive lifestyle choices that pervade the U.S. presently, but, Id like to ask you to list 2 or 3 societal ills that show the 'just so long as nobody gets hurt' Humanist mantra bogus . Theres a few, but can you think of just 2 ?

As you're so interested in science, I'd like to remind you that that's not how science works. You made the positive claim (that is, that there's a failure of our morality in society), so you have the burden of proof to prove it.

Can I think of "social ills"? No. I can think of unfortunate consequences, such as STDs and hate crimes, but every action you do has a possible unfortunate consequence, morality notwithstanding.


Im all for easing the burdens of people whether it be thru financial giving, giving of my time and resources, etc....but just over the last 5 decades it is measurable as to how much moral decline, incivility, anarchy has taken place as a result of Man wanting to be his own authority while snubbing God and his loving protective absolute moral laws (which by the way Humanists expect to be treated accordingly by others, yet demand the right to label them relative when it comes to how they choose to live) .

Half of the time, you are claiming that society is declining, that we're decadent and that the wimmenz and the queers are making everything fall apart.

The other half, you are asking for scientific proof of religion and an objective viewpoint.

So now I have to ask you: where does your stance on morality and how the world should work come from? There's no such thing as an objective moral standpoint, as it varies from city to state to culture to religion to country and so on. If you were raised with these viewpoints, that's fine, but they're still entirely colored by your opinion and not the objective science facts that you're asking for. You claim that it's a lack of God (which god, you don't specify), but challenge us to prove our own beliefs fact. What you believe is no more valid than what I do just because you believe it.

Which is it? Do you have a subjective standpoint that can't be proved by science, or do you have something to prove your viewpoint fact?

anunitu
28 Jan 2015, 16:11
I see humans killing each other,and that at times due to religious differences. people can survive with no gods to guide them,they also at times make their own visions of a spiritual path that does not follow the main belief and still the belief they envision works for them even so.

- - - Updated - - -

Also the question comes to mind, how is it you have the absolute answer to all the worlds problems when it is doubtful you yourself have ever confronted evil in its many forms. Not just in your imaginings and daydreams.

thalassa
28 Jan 2015, 16:30
I could easily give you citations as to the destructive lifestyle choices that pervade the U.S. presently, but, Id like to ask you to list 2 or 3 societal ills that show the 'just so long as nobody gets hurt' Humanist mantra bogus . Theres a few, but can you think of just 2 ?


Moral degradation of any society always started with one , two or a small group of people starting it then it graduating to higher numbers till finally it reaches epidemic proportions. Lifestyles especially.


Please, tell me what these are. I want you to inform me of what these "societal ills" pervading the US are, that are a result of "destructive life cycles" that have never before appeared in human history or culture. Please, open all of our eyes as to this epidemic of immorality that are leading to "moral degradation".

Just one.

Just name ONE horrible thing that has no precedent in human culture until the last 50 years that can be entirely blamed on this post-modernist secular humansim mumbo jumbo you keep prattling on about. Because you are the only person here whose view of history allows them to beleive such revisionism.







Does this mean you distrust humanity of being able to survive on its own?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Seeking a Religion;170870]
I certainly do ! Do you mean that you cant see whats occurring with Man playing his own diety and pretending the Creator doesn't exist ?


Of course you do.

On the other hand, no, I don't. I can't see a single thing that a belief in deity or lack of it has done to curse or cure humanity of any pervasive social ill. The idea that (enter your highly repetitive spam here) somehow this "post-modern secular humanism blah blah blah" is responsible for everything from porn to STD's is laughable at best, but enough to make me want to cry when the person spewing it claims to want something that is historical and scientifically verifiable.

I mean this will all earnestness: Start with learning some history and science.

And in the mean time, the person that can't stand up and do good without god is to the same person that uses their belief in god to do their own will when its convenient...and that's one major character flaw.

volcaniclastic
28 Jan 2015, 18:18
I want you to inform me of what these "societal ills" pervading the US are

Good thing I don't live in the US. ;)

anunitu
28 Jan 2015, 18:25
Its the cold that protects you Vol..the moral badness can't survive the cold of Canada..Lucky you guys...

thalassa
29 Jan 2015, 02:45
Good thing I don't live in the US. ;)

I can only imagine that your social ills happen behind closed doors at this time of year....otherwise they'd freeze off in the below 40...

Oh, the Depravity! The degradation!! ...tastes good with chocolate.

anunitu
29 Jan 2015, 05:24
As quoted from SAR(seeking a religion)




Does this mean you distrust humanity of being able to survive on its own?



I certainly do ! Do you mean that you cant see whats occurring with Man playing his own diety and pretending the Creator doesn't exist ?

Is that an accusation concerning my ability to perceive reality because my view differs from his(I assume it is he)

B. de Corbin
29 Jan 2015, 05:40
Were the Romans post modern secular humanists?

I ask, because from what I know of Roman culture those dudes look about as depraved as anything I can imagine...

Enjoying the spectacle of children being torn to pieces by wild animals must be pre-post-modernist secular humanist depravity.

thalassa
29 Jan 2015, 05:47
I always thought the Romans were exceedinly religious.

B. de Corbin
29 Jan 2015, 05:49
I always thought the Romans were exceedingly religious...

Nah - the Roman Empire was a 2000 year long frat party.

thalassa
29 Jan 2015, 05:54
Nah - the Roman Empire was a 2000 year long frat party.

But with gods (and then with God). Even frat boys go to church now and then... ( I know this from having been a sorority girl).

Also, I like pie. And Theodore Parker.

anunitu
29 Jan 2015, 06:14
What theological version of pie are we talking about,not the decadent banana cream one that leads one into post-modern directions I would hope.

- - - Updated - - -

About the frat boys and church...more likely a place of quiet to get over the hang over,and also sleep without someone drawing something rude on your forehead...

Seeking a Religion
29 Jan 2015, 07:24
And so being able to bench a lot makes for better moral ability? please explain "counter culture"...And a question for you...how many times have you faced down death,and walked away...just wondering. I have almost died several times in my lifetime over the years...So I wonder where you derive your absolute wisdom.

Not saying almost dieing gives you wisdom,but it does give one some perspective.

I was asked if I were an Old Guy to which I responded I can do 200 lbs still on the TriCep Machine ; morality wanst even part of the discussion. Therefore, you presented a non sequitar.

Counter Culture is a common term used to describe Someone who is against the current philosophical Beliefs and LIfestyles because they bring much harm and devastation to others and hence a Nation at large. It is the fallout from Man wanting to be his own irresponsible authority.

I have faced down death a few times starting at the age of 4 when I had serious Rheumatic Fever and continuing into my adulthood .

I obtain my wisdom and truth from The Bible which has never been proven to be wrong , from the spiritual gift of wisdom and discernment bestowed on me by God, and from looking at Gods very nature, character, and Person which is the ultimate truth standard (as Webster states : ' Truth is fidelity to the original ' . The original is the Creator of the Cosmos and us in it.

What is your ultimate truth source ? And is it based more on subjectivity rather than objectivity ?

volcaniclastic
29 Jan 2015, 07:26
Were the Romans post modern secular humanists?

I ask, because from what I know of Roman culture those dudes look about as depraved as anything I can imagine...

Enjoying the spectacle of children being torn to pieces by wild animals must be pre-post-modernist secular humanist depravity.

I love you a little bit.

I always thought it would be neat to go back in time to the Roman Era. They openly worshipped hedonism, chaos, and war (and a bunch of other stuff). I think I'd have a good time in Rome.

Edit: I could really get behind that whole Gladiator thing, you know.

anunitu
29 Jan 2015, 07:35
Truth is dependent on reality being stable,and at times it does seem to remain stable,BUT with time reality can shift just a little bit...For a time the idea that the sun orbited the earth seemed to define reality. Reality for some was a flat earth......as always relative views define reality...and everyone has a different perspective...

Because a book exists,does not make its contents true,not even when its contents are attributed to a deity...

volcaniclastic
29 Jan 2015, 07:35
I was asked if I were an Old Guy to which I responded I can do 200 lbs still on the TriCep Machine ; morality wanst even part of the discussion. Therefore, you presented a non sequitar.

Counter Culture is a common term used to describe Someone who is against the current philosophical Beliefs and LIfestyles because they bring much harm and devastation to others and hence a Nation at large. It is the fallout from Man wanting to be his own irresponsible authority.

I have faced down death a few times starting at the age of 4 when I had serious Rheumatic Fever and continuing into my adulthood .

I obtain my wisdom and truth from The Bible which has never been proven to be wrong , from the spiritual gift of wisdom and discernment bestowed on me by God, and from looking at Gods very nature, character, and Person which is the ultimate truth standard (as Webster states : ' Truth is fidelity to the original ' . The original is the Creator of the Cosmos and us in it.

What is your ultimate truth source ? And is it based more on subjectivity rather than objectivity ?

Are you a troll? Because you've been spouting this nonsense in half our threads.

anunitu
29 Jan 2015, 07:37
My personal opinion of you(SAR),is that perhaps you are wrapped to tight for the internet...perhaps even wrapped to tight for your own good...

Denarius
29 Jan 2015, 07:50
I obtain my wisdom and truth from The Bible which has never been proven to be wrong ,

I can think of wisdom and truth from the bible which has been proven wrong. The bible specifically states, that it is the will of God that Tyre will be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and that it will never be rebuilt. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+26%3A7-14&version=ESV)

It was destroyed by Alexander the Great, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC)) and it was rebuilt and is still settled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon) to this day.

Seeking a Religion
29 Jan 2015, 07:51
As you're so interested in science, I'd like to remind you that that's not how science works. You made the positive claim (that is, that there's a failure of our morality in society), so you have the burden of proof to prove it.

Can I think of "social ills"? No. I can think of unfortunate consequences, such as STDs and hate crimes, but every action you do has a possible unfortunate consequence, morality notwithstanding.



Half of the time, you are claiming that society is declining, that we're decadent and that the wimmenz and the queers are making everything fall apart.

The other half, you are asking for scientific proof of religion and an objective viewpoint.

So now I have to ask you: where does your stance on morality and how the world should work come from? There's no such thing as an objective moral standpoint, as it varies from city to state to culture to religion to country and so on. If you were raised with these viewpoints, that's fine, but they're still entirely colored by your opinion and not the objective science facts that you're asking for. You claim that it's a lack of God (which god, you don't specify), but challenge us to prove our own beliefs fact. What you believe is no more valid than what I do just because you believe it.

Which is it? Do you have a subjective standpoint that can't be proved by science, or do you have something to prove your viewpoint fact?

a. And, what statistics cant you share with us regarding the STD Epidemic which is a fallout from Humanisms affirmation of sexual relativism ?

b. No, not every action carries with it the potential for bad consequences ; we've been given an inherent Moral Conscience to help us choose that which is right to do versus wrong to do. So long as we don't apply our will to suppress that Moral Conscience, then we can expect a life that is filled with protection, wellbeing , prosperity, civility, and be protected from bad consequences. But it means refusing the microwave mentality of getting an immediate pleasure because of an urge and to carefully consider the consequences --- something that our Culture doesn't encourage because our culture including the Mass Media is all about promoting going for the gusto at any cost and....its almost always at great personal cost only its so neatly packaged that its bought hook line and sinker before the consequences hit .

c. If you are a sexual hedonist then there is no better time to be alive with the lack of morals people live by making pleasure their idol. Back in the day, a Man had to work darn at winning the affections of a woman he was interested in --- it usually meant fine dining and endless hours of talking to determine compatibility , trust, and integrity ; today your average 'Man' only need show up on the doorstep to be guaranteed his quest for a copulation . If you hold to a standard of right from wrong and don't suppress your moral conscience, then you see sexual hedonism and other problematic societal ills as never being greater for America than now . Perhaps a local Health Dept. examination of ones crotch for STD's would bring home what im saying since nearly 1 in 3 adult americans currently have at least one STD (Source : CDC, Avert.org , FLC) . Back in the day, there were just a few common ones : Gonnoreah, Sypllis, and Crabs. Today, its estimated there to be over 33 in circulation . 'Just so long as nobody gets hurt' mantra lies to us again.

d. Absolute Moral Laws are something that exist and every human being has them. They don't evolve, they don't come about from what Man decides they are...rather...they are part of the infinite purity and essence of our Creator . While you may desire not to live according to these, we know they are absolute because of your response when you are morally violated by another. Have you noticed that when someone morally violates you, that you act as though there are absolute moral laws , for, you never tell someone whos just been dishonest with you to 'Have a nice day' then walk away. Rather, you protest what he did and typically move to get restitution . Ever notice that when you do something wrong, you try to cover it up so no one else sees ? You wouldn't do this if the action were not absolutely wrong . God has given us all THE MORAL LAW written on our hearts because he didn't want us to harm ourselves, others, and the nation we reside in. In fact, obedience to the Moral Law is required for a civil nation to survive otherwise anarchy results . The Moral Law is NOT my opinion --- it is the reality of everyone of us. The Moral Law is a prescription, and every prescription requires a Prescriber ; that Prescriber is our Creator the very standard of what is really right from wrong otherwise its just ones opinion whether something is wrong or not. If there are no ultimate moral laws, then there is no objective difference between a Hitler and a Mother Theresa...but we know there is . Futher, you couldn't call something 'right' unless you knew there was a higher moral standard to compare it to.

anunitu
29 Jan 2015, 07:54
Please would you put public light to your current religious group or church you belong to,for a seeker you seem to have a great deal of dogma to put forth..

habbalah
29 Jan 2015, 08:04
I obtain my wisdom and truth from The Bible which has never been proven to be wrong

Since you completely ignored my questions again, some minor things from the bible proven false:

the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)
A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).
The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16)

Some more important things:

The bible says the earth is six thousand years old (science says closer to three or four billion)
Soil and fossil records show the Great Floor was not likely and much smaller than the bible stated. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090206-smaller-noah-flood.html)
A great many people in the bible lived over 150 years. Some over 400. (scientifically impossible)
King David collects ten thousand darics for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. (Darics didn't exist until 500 years after King David)
The sun moved around the Earth.
Jesus fasted for 40 days and nights in the desert (he would have died of dehydration (http://blogs.plos.org/obesitypanacea/2011/05/13/the-science-of-starvation-how-long-can-humans-survive-without-food-or-water/))
When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." And when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem. (There is no record of this outside of the bible; no surviving historical texts mention such extraordinary events).

thalassa
29 Jan 2015, 08:04
So, this is how this is going to work...

Welcome to "lets learn about the rules and customs of Pagan Forum"...

We do not welcome spam, trolls, or proselytization.


From the forum rules:

Do not spam the forum with advertisement or nonconstructive material.
Do not troll (http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/weirdwebculture/f/what-is-an-internet-troll.htm), bait, instigate fights, bully, flame, attack or otherwise violate forum rules.
Do not proselytize or preach, regardless of what you do IRL, you are not clergy here or a religious authority. Proselytizing is considered a form of spam at best, and religious bullying otherwise.


From forum etiquette guidelines:



Do not spread drama, which originated in one topic, into another topic or multiple topics. It is extremely disruptive to the forum and not everyone needs to be involved in a dispute.
Do not couch personal opinion as fact. You will be called out by community members (this is your only warning). If you make a claim that is extraordinary (ie. unlikely to be commonly accepted or commonly known by our community) either make sure that it is expressed as your opinion or backed up with a link or citation so that members can find more information.




Trolls get banned. Stop the drama, stop spreading crap all over the carpet, stop necro-ing threads for the purposes of preaching, and stop the religious exclusivism. If you want to share your beliefs, share them...but they aren't objective fact, so stop acting as if they are...if they were, we'd all agree with you. Since we don't, they are obviously not objective or factual.

We've tried to handle this with some levity and without making it a staff thing...but...this is getting ridiculous. Its disruptive and downright annoying.

This is the last warning.

The end.

anunitu
29 Jan 2015, 08:11
The RED,she burns...slinks off into the underbrush to lick my burns...