TimB - 23 February 2012 02:48 PM

I like this quotation as a description of humanists:

“As empiricists, we find and follow the evidence.  As monists, we reunite humanity back together into one, body and brain permanently together again.  As naturalists, we look to this world to learn, discover, and also for solutions to our problems.  As humans we see humanity as it really is, one species, one of the Great Apes, united on a single planet.  When humanity suffers, so do we.  When humanity succeeds, so do we.” 

If that is what a humanist is, I don’t mind being called one.

I don’t like quotes without knowing the author. Whose quote?
Also, be careful with the term monist - wiki has three VERY different meanings. I presume here the intended meaning is physical/material monism.

traveler - 23 February 2012 03:10 PM

TimB - 23 February 2012 02:48 PM

I like this quotation as a description of humanists:

“As empiricists, we find and follow the evidence.  As monists, we reunite humanity back together into one, body and brain permanently together again.  As naturalists, we look to this world to learn, discover, and also for solutions to our problems.  As humans we see humanity as it really is, one species, one of the Great Apes, united on a single planet.  When humanity suffers, so do we.  When humanity succeeds, so do we.” 

If that is what a humanist is, I don’t mind being called one.

I don’t like quotes without knowing the author. Whose quote?
Also, be careful with the term monist - wiki has three VERY different meanings. I presume here the intended meaning is physical/material monism.

I took it from a post by Jump_in_the_Pit, (post #12 in this thread).  I am not familiar with the term “monist’, but I took it to mean what the statement implies to me (one having a wholisitic view of oneself as opposed to an abstract concept/s of self as separate from one’s physical self.)

I could look up the term “monist”, but if it has 3 very different meanings, it might be better to abandon the term altogether, as it would probably just lead to confusion in most conversations.

Anyway, I thought the quote sounded nice, but maybe that term “monist”, makes it crap.

Laws that hold free societies together are rooted in humanistic principles; only 7 of the Ten Commandments can be applied to civil laws.
Yet you see the snipers on these discussion groups firing away relentlessly at suppporters of universal human rights, hoping to discredit them in favor of their own prejudices and religious beliefs.

LeRoy34 - 22 October 2012 11:30 PM

Laws that hold free societies together are rooted in humanistic principles; only 7 of the Ten Commandments can be applied to civil laws.
Yet you see the snipers on these discussion groups firing away relentlessly at suppporters of universal human rights, hoping to discredit them in favor of their own prejudices and religious beliefs.

Welcome LeRoy34,

Perhaps this is what sets CFI apart from other fora. Ideas and propositions are first considered, then argued, and finally resolved (or not).
Skeptical inquiry and probing is not intended to be firing away relentlessly. That comes later, after the proposition has been critically analyzed and found wanting…...

LeRoy34 - 22 October 2012 11:30 PM

Laws that hold free societies together are rooted in humanistic principles; only 7 of the Ten Commandments can be applied to civil laws.
Yet you see the snipers on these discussion groups firing away relentlessly at suppporters of universal human rights, hoping to discredit them in favor of their own prejudices and religious beliefs.

Welcome, Leroy.  I was wondering which three of these six you would consider could be applied to civil laws?
===
I “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

II.  “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.  thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them:  for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my Commandments.”
 
III.  “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

IV. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:  But on the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God:  in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, not thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates:  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them is, and rested the seventh day:  wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

V. “Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God has given thee.”

X. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”
===
IV.  Seems to mean police, fire personnel, and emergency people must not work, but wives are not given that day off.  And the cows aren’going to be very happy if they go an extra day without being milked.

X.  Says not to covet.  Covet means envy.  Do you want to make it a civil offense if someone envies someone else’s good fortune?

Occam

George Carlin has explained how the 10 Commandments can be edited and “refined”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpL2m6XJhQw

Welcome, Leroy.  I was wondering which three of these six you would consider could be applied to civil law

Oh, oh, Occam, you caught me saying the opposite of what I intended! I ask pardon to all visitors of the thread for the confusion.

I meant to say “only 3”, not seven: You shall not murder. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (or face libel or prejury charges).
===

No problem, LeRoy; we all mis-type at times.  However, while most say it’s “Thou shalt not murder” I believe it’s more properly translated as “Thou shalt not kill”.  That sort of wipes out war, self-defense, and even accident.  I’d hate to see a civil law that asked for the death penalty for a woman who stabbed a man who was trying to rape her.  So now we’re down to two.

And my favorite is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”  Example:  I really like my neighbor.  I see him smash the window of a car that’s often parked blocking his driveway.  The police ask if I saw anything.  I say, “No, I can see into my neighbor’s living room and he’s been sitting there all evening long watching television.”  I didn’t give false witness AGAINST my neighbor, so I didn’t break the 9th commandment. 

One out of ten.  Not too good a batting average, wouldn’t you say?

Occam

Very good, Occam.  Now if you could just give up the concept of possessive individualism, you wouldn’t have to support any of the 10 commandments.

Hey, I said I was a socialist, not a communist. 

Occam

Humanism can not be defined with scientific or religious para meters.

English is not my first language so expect huge grammar errors now

Would it be fair and reasonable to see many Secular Humanist organizations
as a kind of NGO’s on Human Rights activism but that during their time
these organizations have added features that sometimes make them
a bit more than just political activism?

Before there where Secular Humanism there existed Religious Humanism
and they where atheists in a formal way too. But they somehow saw
humanism as a religion??? I have not read up on it but something did happen.

Paul Kurtz and others realized that the religious right in US could exploit
Humanism it it declared itself religious and that way using law to make
schools see evolution as a religion. Yeah I know it sounds crazy but
religious right is very good at twisting words that way and see even science
as a religion.

So where that not the reason that Secular Humanism got created
to once for all show that Humanism where not a religion but atheist
and secular.

So the word humanism has many meanings and is difficult to get consensus
on what definition is the right one?

Another important thing. IHEU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Humanist_and_Ethical_Union

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is an umbrella organisation
embracing humanist, atheist, rationalist, secular, skeptic, freethought and Ethical Culture organisations worldwide.

Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, the IHEU is a democratic union of more than 100 member organizations
in 40 countries.[2] Julian Huxley (the first director of UNESCO) presided over the founding Congress of the IHEU.
...

In 2002, the IHEU General Assembly unanimously adopted the Amsterdam Declaration 2002

so what does that Amsterdam Declaration 2002 say about humanism and humanists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Declaration_2002

The first paragraph says this:

Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy
of the individual and the right of every human being to the
greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others.

Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity including future generations.

Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on
understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

I dared to make this one bold for to get your kind attention to it

Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity including future generations.

Now remember that very many Humanist orgs the world around has unanimously agreed
upon this. Not having English as first language I had to look up the word unanimously.

unanimously

Unanimity is agreement by all people in a given situation.
When unanimous, everybody is of the same mind and acting together as one.
Though unlike uniformity, it does not constitute absolute agreement.
Many groups consider unanimous decisions a sign of agreement, solidarity,
and unity. Unanimity may be assumed explicitly after a unanimous vote or
implicitly by a lack of objections.

Ah okay so maybe some did hesitate to fully agree on a duty of care to all humanity

I am not even sure what it really refers to but I find it rather interesting.

Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity including future generations.

Would it derail this thread too much to ask what does it means for us personally?

It is very inclusive. It does say that every humanists have that duty.
or is that my poor English that fail to get the grammar? is it only a nice
spin being without any backing or substance? Does it mean practical things?

Care as in care about the dying or the sick or the lonely? Or are each of us
totally on our own and can not expect any other humanist to care about us.

Should I read it to mean that each individual humanist only have a duty to care about himself?
and his off springs maybe?

Any individual humanist cannot possibly take care of all humanity (and future generations).  If we have that duty, then it makes sense to me that we each start, (within the parameters of our own abilities), with caring for ourselves, our family, our friends, and then care for or advocate for others to the best of our ability and understanding.

TimB - 27 October 2012 09:11 AM

Any individual humanist cannot possibly take care of all humanity (and future generations).  If we have that duty, then it makes sense to me that we each start, (within the parameters of our own abilities), with caring for ourselves, our family, our friends, and then care for or advocate for others to the best of our ability and understanding.

Is it then my lack of knowledge about grammar or some logic built in
that makes me misunderstanding that text.

So exactly what does that text say? Does it say this:

Humanists has a duty to care for ourselves, our family, our friends,
and then care for or advocate for others to the best of our ability and understanding.

That is not what my poor English read into that text?
Did they not realize that it is easy to misunderstand it.

Or do you tell me them where too much into idealized thinking something.
Them promising too much. Or is your take on it very individual and them
would disagree with your interpretation and them support my reading?

I feel totally lost reading you.

FredW - 27 October 2012 09:55 AM

TimB - 27 October 2012 09:11 AM

Any individual humanist cannot possibly take care of all humanity (and future generations).  If we have that duty, then it makes sense to me that we each start, (within the parameters of our own abilities), with caring for ourselves, our family, our friends, and then care for or advocate for others to the best of our ability and understanding.

Is it then my lack of knowledge about grammar or some logic built in
that makes me misunderstanding that text.

So exactly what does that text say? Does it say this:

Humanists has a duty to care for ourselves, our family, our friends,
and then care for or advocate for others to the best of our ability and understanding.

...

I was just sharing what makes sense to me in trying to interpret:  “Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity.” I suspect that most people who identify themselves as a Humanist would agree that Humanists have duty of care to all humanity, but that many would have different ideas of what constitutes “duty of care”.