Humanism

[Polycarp_fan]

Humanism feels too much like Christianity-lite to me. I will respect anyone just because they can breathe and fall under the category of human.

Ok then.

http://answers.org/apologetics/atheism1.html

Have a nice day.

 

[David Brider]

You know what they say, the devil wears prada.

Naah, the devil wears George at Asda.

David.

 

[Verv]

So, just to bring this back to the topic of the thread, you believe that Humanism is part of a larger conspiracy meant to disenfranchise christians of the government, educational system, and to marginalize christians? If I extended this and said that the objective of the humanist conspiracy was to enslave christianity and promote satanism, would I be correct?

The humanist is very critical of Christianity... why wouldn't they want to see Christians disenfranchised?

BTW, I think Christians should also not bring their religion into the government.

My difference, though, is I think that anti-Christian sentiment shouldn't be cultivated in public schools and universities.

I think that humanists unwittingly end up serving Communist goals.

If humanism is unknown satanism, I'm a transhumanist, what does that make me?

A trans-Satanists.

Come on, you were asking for it.

In a broad sense anything that is selfish and self-serving is satanism.

Rational egoism of Ayn Rand is basically justifying our bestial instincts and Satanic to the core.

Other ideologies are just Satanic bcause of their end goals.

When Jesus came to Apostles, they stopped their lives and followed Him. They continued to do so after Christ's death and Resurrection. Whose goals where they serving?
Christianity has a long history of emphasizing obedience, from Christ and the earliest Church fathers on.

They were serving Christ's goals.

Just sayin, yo.

Yeah, and in serving Christ's goals I am serving the opposite of what most people want.

 

[sidhe]

Yeah, and in serving Christ's goals I am serving the opposite of what most people want.

So, you're servant to "those who agree with me", not "all"? Is this one of those Orwellian word redefinitions?

Liber CXI says to love everyone, in my tradition. No exceptions, no redefinitions, to accept and love everyone. It also says to mind your own business. Thing is, you go to any Thelemic forum, and you'll see vicious, cruel, fighting (dudes, "Like brothers fight ye" is not a justification for flaming) and people being busy-bodies about other people's lives and ideas. So, yeah, it's not unique to Christianity, but is taking a word with a specific meaning and changing it to mean something else to make it easier to follow really an admirable goal?

For instance: I've heard someone make the case that "loving the sinner" means "correcting them, pointing out their error, and convicting them". Now, if it was someone you loved, you might express your disapproval, but wouldn't it mean still hanging out with them, drinking with them, eating with them, etc.? I know you're down for that, Mr. Verville - I hope so, at least, as you owe me a beer (don't argue, accept it) - but some take that, then link it up with the "unequally yoked" verse to toss their non-believing friends aside ASAP if they don't convert.

 

[ragarth]

The humanist is very critical of Christianity... why wouldn't they want to see Christians disenfranchised?

I disagree, while a Humanist may not believe in God, that does not mean a Humanist needs feel that others shouldn't believe in God. Transhumanism is an off branch of humanism in that technology is added to the ideas of humanism. I not only have a belief in humanity's capacity, but a belief in humanity's capacity to transcend what it is to be human via science and technology. I still believe that diversity is valuable, and a narrowing of the spectrum of beliefs by the elimination of Christianity would be against that belief. Therefore, while I might be critical of Christianity, I am only critical of it where I'm invited to be so, otherwise I believe you have the right to believe what you wish.

A trans-Satanists.

The devil with the blue dress blue dress blue dress
The devil with the blue dress on!

In a broad sense anything that is selfish and self-serving is satanism.

Rational egoism of Ayn Rand is basically justifying our bestial instincts and Satanic to the core.

Other ideologies are just Satanic bcause of their end goals.

I agree that Objectivism is a bit self-serving. I disagree with the premise that the most effective objective is a self-serving interest. Rather, I believe that both self and society need to be weighed in equal measure when making decisions. We are social animals, if we serve ourselves to the detriment of others it only serves to hurt us and others. At the same time, diversity and individualism are core strengths to society, so serving others to the detriment of ourselves only serves to hurt ourselves and society. Therefore, I value both self and society as concepts that are deeply intertwined though opposing ends of a spectrum of responsibility.

 

[Minty]

Started in England of course. The Brights I here they call thmselves now?

WooHoo Go England

Naah, the devil wears George at Asda.

David.

Naaaaaah, the devil wears Primark

 

[Maren]

WooHoo Go England

Naaaaaah, the devil wears Primark

I thought the devil only wears the best (like Armani, Hugo Boss, etc.).

I do believe the devil is in charge of the factories where the clothes are made that are sold at Primark and Asda (Wal-Mart's stores in England).

 

[Polycarp_fan]

WooHoo Go England

You mean it still exists?

From infidels.org: The Background of Religious Humanism:

In 1918, Roy Wood Sellars published The Next Step in Religion, in which he specifically pointed to religious humanism as "the next step." In Sellars' view, humanism (this-worldly) was sharply contrasted with supernaturalism (other-worldly). He wrote: "Humanism always flourishes when peace and contentment are abroad, and humanism is the deadliest enemy that superstition has to meet."

The next step to the mark of the Beast?

 

[Sitswithamouse]

WooHoo Go England

Naaaaaah, the devil wears Primark

Noo noo noo.
Forget your Asda and yer primark he wears Marks & Spencer.
For the mature shopper, Come on he is getting on abit.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Noo noo noo.
Forget your Asda and yer primark he wears Marks & Spencer.
For the mature shopper, Come on he is getting on abit.

You have the best username on these boards.

Hope that's not considered a derail.

 

[Verv]

So, you're servant to "those who agree with me", not "all"? Is this one of those Orwellian word redefinitions?

Liber CXI says to love everyone, in my tradition. No exceptions, no redefinitions, to accept and love everyone. It also says to mind your own business. Thing is, you go to any Thelemic forum, and you'll see vicious, cruel, fighting (dudes, "Like brothers fight ye" is not a justification for flaming) and people being busy-bodies about other people's lives and ideas. So, yeah, it's not unique to Christianity, but is taking a word with a specific meaning and changing it to mean something else to make it easier to follow really an admirable goal?

For instance: I've heard someone make the case that "loving the sinner" means "correcting them, pointing out their error, and convicting them". Now, if it was someone you loved, you might express your disapproval, but wouldn't it mean still hanging out with them, drinking with them, eating with them, etc.? I know you're down for that, Mr. Verville - I hope so, at least, as you owe me a beer (don't argue, accept it) - but some take that, then link it up with the "unequally yoked" verse to toss their non-believing friends aside ASAP if they don't convert.

Haha, well, I should say one thing:

I am 24 and I do not know what I am doing, really, other than starting a semester of college on 30 march...

I will have to get back to you on this a lot, later.

You disarmed me.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

And this BS-filled article proves what exactly?

It proves what your response would be.

I expected nothing less and nothing more.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I disagree, while a Humanist may not believe in God, that does not mean a Humanist needs feel that others shouldn't believe in God.

Here from the Humanist Manifesto II. Reaffirmed in III and 2000:

Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful.

They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul."

Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context.

There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.

That's about as athesim as it gets.

Transhumanism is an off branch of humanism in that technology is added to the ideas of humanism. I not only have a belief in humanity's capacity, but a belief in humanity's capacity to transcend what it is to be human via science and technology. I still believe that diversity is valuable, and a narrowing of the spectrum of beliefs by the elimination of Christianity would be against that belief. Therefore, while I might be critical of Christianity, I am only critical of it where I'm invited to be so, otherwise I believe you have the right to believe what you wish.

Your invitation is always waiting for you.

 

[ragarth]

Here from the Humanist Manifesto II. Reaffirmed in III and 2000:

That's about as athesim as it gets.

Your invitation is always waiting for you.

I'm sorry, I lost my card for the 'EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY' group and got banned from the 'EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY' meetings here in town. The local #4077 thinks I'm too much of a softy. Did the 'EVIL CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY' group do the same to you? I haven't heard word of whether you were at the two group's cooperative luncheon last week or not.

 

[andross77]

My thoughts on humanism is that it doesn't work because it puts man at the center of the universe rather than God. Since we are deceitful, lustful, weak, lying, and mean, this philosophy will only lead to destruction.

It sounds good though. IF ONLY mankind was actually inherently good. Then it might be seem reasonable.

 

[andross77]

I'm sorry, I lost my card for the 'EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY' group and got banned from the 'EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY' meetings here in town. The local #4077 thinks I'm too much of a softy. Did the 'EVIL CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY' group do the same to you? I haven't heard word of whether you were at the two group's cooperative luncheon last week or not.

Why do you mock a quotation from a credible source? It is from the American Humanist Association. It spells out some of the logical outworkings of the humanist worldview. Just because you want to view it only at the surface doesn't mean that this worldview isn't depressing and hopeless.

 

[ragarth]

Why do you mock a quotation from a credible source? It is from the American Humanist Association. It spells out some of the logical outworkings of the humanist worldview. Just because you want to view it only at the surface doesn't mean that this worldview isn't depressing and hopeless.

I don't mock. It was a statement that there is no conspiracy to destroy Christianity. Claiming that a single group controls all Humanists is like me saying that all baptists, protestants, and brethren are really just Catholics who don't know it.

Now, where in that quote do you see anything saying 'religion must be abandoned'? I personally can believe that God does not exist without believing that you must believe that God does not exist. Do you believe in God, without believing that you must make others believe in God? That quote was a statement of belief, not a statement of spreading belief.

Further, his quote was *not* credible. For one thing, notice how he failed to inform you that there are 3 versions of the humanist manifesto. He's quoted versions 1 and 2 but has conveniently forgotten to quote the third one that happens to not make statements explicit to any single religion. I'll provide you a link:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php

Note the statement: For historical purposes, see preceding Humanist Manifestos: I and II.

So in conclusion his argument was crafted to create the false impression of an anti-christian agenda by 1) taking a quote out of context (a statement of belief is not a statement of evengelism) 2) stereotyping an entire group by assuming they are all part of a single organization (baptists are not catholics, but they are all Christians) and 3) Providing innacurate and out of date information.

Now, in response to your comment that this world view is 'depressing and hopeless' that's about as accurate as me saying that giving God all the credit for everything good that befals you is a sad and dystopian. Afterall, you're ascribing your strengths, your accomplishments to a myth and that harms you. Further, to believe that Humanity is inherently evil is sick and twisted.*

*note: I don't believe this, but it is equivalent to what you're saying about Humanism. I personally think everyone has a right to believe what they wish.

 

[andross77]

Exactly, so you shouldn't have a problem with my response. i'm just believing how i wish .

I don't see how humanism DOESN'T call for an abandonment of faith? If you truly only believe in material things that you can see and touch, therefore no God or miracles or anything supernatural, then all those that do believe in those things are living in a fantasy realm of make believe and believing false things that are unecessary and even harmful to others.

Don't you want to stop this ignorance? Or do you not care about the billions of people in the world that are believing these lies? If humanism doesn't call for a spreading of the truth that the supernatural is false, it's a pretty conceited worldview.

P.S.- to the mods: i wasn't calling this poster conceited, just the worldview. please don't warn/ban me thanks.

 

[Garyzenuf]

I don't see how humanism DOESN'T call for an abandonment of faith? If you truly only believe in material things that you can see and touch, therefore no God or miracles or anything supernatural, then all those that do believe in those things are living in a fantasy realm of make believe and believing false things that are unecessary and even harmful to others.

So whats the difference with you beliving this about Humanism, and me feeling this way about Christianity? I myself and many others here and IRL would put the 'G-d, miracles and supernatural' into the same 'fantasy realm of make believe' you're ascribing to Humanism, when in fact you pointed out yourself that 'Humanists believe in things you can see and touch' ie; not fantasy.

*

 

[lawtonfogle]

My thoughts on humanism is that it doesn't work because it puts man at the center of the universe rather than God. Since we are deceitful, lustful, weak, lying, and mean, this philosophy will only lead to destruction.

It sounds good though. IF ONLY mankind was actually inherently good. Then it might be seem reasonable.

Did not God create us as such? It is like kids who love to play in the mud. They have a chance to be clean, they are inherently clean, but they are always dirty, and giving them a bath doesn't help for much time at all.