5 of 7
5
Humanist Association’s New Ad - featuring Obama
Posted: 22 April 2009 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
George - 22 April 2009 11:14 AM

I am really not sure how to answer to this without running the risk of being bombarded by the moderators’ blue ink and perhaps even getting banned from this site. But I’ll say at least this much: I think your fanaticism is bordering on insanity, wesmjohnson.

And now you can blue-ink me.

George, Wes is pretty zealous, but He’s not insane. The Santa Argument is pretty right. The worst part about santa clause is the fact that it is christianity on training wheels, and an introduction to deities Part I.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

It’s a complete nonsense. In the Czech R. where I grew up, all the kids were told that it was baby Jesus who brought us presents on Christmas and as far as I know none of these children—and I mean NONE—grew up to be religious. Also, the scientific data clearly shows that parents have zero influence on their children’s behaviour.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 11:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  219
Joined  2007-05-20
wesmjohnson - 22 April 2009 10:14 AM

Yes, I would not subject children or anyone else to myth and superstition - you would?  Religious treatment of children (including Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and circumcision) have been argued to be child abuse.  You support such abuse?

I’m willing to compromise. How about we circumcise Santa and the Easter Bunny?

Not allowing Theism in Humanism is hardly “Draconian.”  Simply because one believes something “innocently” carries no weight and is fallacious.  The suicide bombers believe “innocently” that they will go directly to heaven when they kill their enemies.  You support that innocent activity?

They share their innocence and naiivete with US citizens, who fund Israel and the Pentagon to bomb them remotely. 

So, in the name of “a species that is struggling with its own survival, fouling its own nest and every other living creature’s as well” you would allow any ideology or belief?  Even a belief that all humans should die if they do not believe a certain way?

There is one filtering sub-clause whereby psychopaths applying to become Humanists must first confess that they are actually just atheists looking to go uptown.

If you define Humanism as: “an inclusive and responsible sensibility toward our species, planet and lives”,  I clearly disagree with the “inclusive” part.  What you define is Humanitarianism.  As I mentioned before excluding theism is not a paramount interest for Humanism or personally for me. 

Looks like the wind changed overnight.

Behaving ethically and morally is the goal.  I submit for your consideration the fourteenth article from Humanist Manifesto 1.  “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.”

Word for word the credo of the New Left, whose proud model at that time was Soviet communism. They did starve 10M Ukrainians in the 30’s, and almost got some bad press for that.

Yes, people do not care what you are not.  They care what you do and especially what you can do for them.  Self interest is part of our humanity.

Your Manifesto I above has “controls..must be instituted..cooperate..shared life..shared world..from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs.” to allay such notions. Or is Ayn Rand onside with you too?

[ Edited: 22 April 2009 11:52 AM by Martinus ]
 Signature 

Dwight Jones
http://www.humanism.ws
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

“Our lives teach us who we are.”
-Salman Rushdie

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
VYAZMA - 22 April 2009 10:59 AM

Doug Smith taught me a word on this forum once, “Paternalistic”. I hate to sound paternalistic here, but I’m following this and other type discussions.
BOTTOM LINE: There is NO Argument concerning humanism. As I once complained, in another thread, concerning The Rules of this Forum-specifically the rule that states “all people and members shall be regarded as humanists for the interest of this forum…” That is a paraphrase.  I didn’t agree with it then, and I’m still touchy on it. But then, on the otherhand, NO Humanist, could ever faithfully engage in debate about the meaning of humanism, and especially who is and who is not “qualified” to “BE” a humanist.
Would I be wrong to suggest that one of the first “qualifications” of any humanist would be Acceptance. Practically, unquestioning acceptence.( By unquestioning I mean non-judgemental, not un-scientific)
If any humanist wanted to “Stoop Down” to finding faults with someone or something, I guess that would be “ok”, but to not fully understand the science behind the reasons why you reject something in the first place is not good.  In otherwords is any humanist prepared to say he or she is more human than someone else?

I do not understand the necessity for the fiction of considering everyone who posts in this forum a Humanist.  While the levels of understanding and experience with Humanism vary among those posting there are Fundamentalist Christians and others of their ilk who post here as well. (Doug has done battle with them himself.)  It is not possible, a priori, to tell where the posters are coming from or what or who they represent.  It is only through discourse that motives can be known.  I make no assumption about any person’s motives until they are revealed.  It is my experience that the CFI Forum “Profiles” are unhelpful in that regard.  Another way to look at the “NO argument concerning Humanism” is that arguments concerning Humanism are discouraged because they can degenerate into a contest of who is the “better” Humanist.  While that can happen, I have been (am being) accused of doing so, such a proscription would chill discourse.

Humanism is a robust and complex philosophy and comes in several forms.  Discussing one rather small part of that philosophy, non-theism, is really looking at leaves in the presence of a wonderful forest.  But when the basic principles of Humanism are challenged ones attention is naturally drawn to the point of attack.  It is instructive to note that there is little challenge to the Humanist principle stated in the fifteenth article of HM#1 which says “We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b)seek to elicit the possibilities of life not flee from it; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for a few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.”  The point of attack is Humanism’s stand as non-theistic.

Please do not misunderstand.  I am not claiming to be “more” or “better” humanist or “human” (your word) than someone else.  It is profoundly not about me.  I am reporting the definition of what Humanism means today as articulated by its organizations and documents.  I am saying that theism is rejected by Humanism.  If that makes some people uncomfortable then they should practice their Theism elsewhere.  I do not attend Baptist (to name just one) services because I would feel uncomfortable.  My comfort level is no basis upon which they should declare themselves non-theistic, something they are not.

OK, so what is “the science behind the reasons why you reject something in the first place…”?

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 12:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
George - 22 April 2009 11:33 AM

It’s a complete nonsense. In the Czech R. where I grew up, all the kids were told that it was baby Jesus who brought us presents on Christmas and as far as I know none of these children—and I mean NONE—grew up to be religious. Also, the scientific data clearly shows that parents have zero influence on their children’s behaviour.

Well being told baby jesus is bringing presents, and not santa clause is a big difference. In fact, I can see that as an effective way in negating the jesus legend.
The santa claus system is an excellent way to primer children on “softer” deities. A graduated system, whereas telling them it is baby-jesus kind of nips things in the bud. Once a child realizes that baby-jesus could never possibly deliver all those gifts in one night, that puts a big damper on believing any other claims. Maybe this is why they have such a degree of atheism in Czech Rep.

You’ve gotta be kidding about “no parental influence right?”

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

OK, so what is “the science behind the reasons why you reject something in the first place…”?

Well the most suitable example would be our knowledge of theists. You said the manifesto must reject outright the idea of theism. So too, I imagine must a humanist. However, any humanist must realize the science behind why a person believes. And in recognizing the science, must accept that entity for what it is. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be actively involved in reducing religion by peaceable, rational means.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
George - 22 April 2009 11:33 AM

It’s a complete nonsense. In the Czech R. where I grew up, all the kids were told that it was baby Jesus who brought us presents on Christmas and as far as I know none of these children—and I mean NONE—grew up to be religious. Also, the scientific data clearly shows that parents have zero influence on their children’s behaviour.

What a qualifier: “As far as I know” modifying “all the kids.”  Please cite “the scientific data”

Besides, it isn’t just Santa Claus.  Lying to children establishes a pattern of deception and its acceptability.  Historically teaching children that killing other human beings is right has worked in Northern Ireland and the middle east.  Part of the pattern of deceit.

In your spirit of “It’s complete nonsense” - Yes, we should all take ethics lessons from the Czech R.  As I recall y’all were under Communist rule, godless communist rule for quite a while.  I wonder if that had any effect on the children not being religious.  Humm.

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Martinus-

They share their innocence and naiivete with US citizens, who fund Israel and the Pentagon to bomb them remotely. 


Yo Marty, come on man! I don’t make rude comments about Canucks. LOL

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
wesmjohnson - 22 April 2009 12:10 PM

As I recall y’all were under Communist rule, godless communist rule for quite a while.  I wonder if that had any effect on the children not being religious.  Humm.

Poland and other ex-communist countries were highly religious. So no, communism had very little to do with it. And as far as Northern Ireland and the middle east are concerned, it is quite possible that those people are by nature violent and simply share (as opposed to “teach”) that part of their life, just like they would share everything else, with their children.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
Martinus - 22 April 2009 11:46 AM
wesmjohnson - 22 April 2009 10:14 AM

Yes, I would not subject children or anyone else to myth and superstition - you would?  Religious treatment of children (including Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and circumcision) have been argued to be child abuse.  You support such abuse?

I’m willing to compromise. How about we circumcise Santa and the Easter Bunny?

Not allowing Theism in Humanism is hardly “Draconian.”  Simply because one believes something “innocently” carries no weight and is fallacious.  The suicide bombers believe “innocently” that they will go directly to heaven when they kill their enemies.  You support that innocent activity?

They share their innocence and naiivete with US citizens, who fund Israel and the Pentagon to bomb them remotely. 

So, in the name of “a species that is struggling with its own survival, fouling its own nest and every other living creature’s as well” you would allow any ideology or belief?  Even a belief that all humans should die if they do not believe a certain way?

There is one filtering sub-clause whereby psychopaths applying to become Humanists must first confess that they are actually just atheists looking to go uptown.

If you define Humanism as: “an inclusive and responsible sensibility toward our species, planet and lives”,  I clearly disagree with the “inclusive” part.  What you define is Humanitarianism.  As I mentioned before excluding theism is not a paramount interest for Humanism or personally for me. 

Looks like the wind changed overnight.

Behaving ethically and morally is the goal.  I submit for your consideration the fourteenth article from Humanist Manifesto 1.  “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.”

Word for word the credo of the New Left, whose proud model at that time was Soviet communism. They did starve 10M Ukrainians in the 30’s, and almost got some bad press for that.

Yes, people do not care what you are not.  They care what you do and especially what you can do for them.  Self interest is part of our humanity.

Your Manifesto I above has “controls..must be instituted..cooperate..shared life..shared world..from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs.” to allay such notions. Or is Ayn Rand onside with you too?

You misquote the Humanist Manifesto with your own political agenda.  Naughty, naughty.  Your tone and flippant responses are not in the spirit of civil discourse.  Grow up.

By your responses I expected the flaming Libertarian Rand to be right there with you sitting at your right hand.  Wonderful it is to have you reveal yourself as a, steal what you want, screw the powerless, survival of the fittest, Capitalist.  Are you also a right wing Christian Fundamentalist?  Probably not as you would circumcise the Easter Bunny and Santa.  We are on different sides.  I most definitely am a social liberal, but not a Communist.  You do me an injustice.  I lean to the Progressive Democrat position politically.

But all that has little if anything to do with the subject of Theism rejected by Humanism.  A subject to which you have chosen to obfuscate with clearly failed political rhetoric.

I agree to disagree - is that OK with you?

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 12:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
George - 22 April 2009 11:14 AM

I am really not sure how to answer to this without running the risk of being bombarded by the moderators’ blue ink and perhaps even getting banned from this site. But I’ll say at least this much: I think your fanaticism is bordering on insanity, wesmjohnson.

And now you can blue-ink me.

It is surprising to be considered a fanatic for simply using the definitions of Humanism in a Humanist (CFI) forum. 

If you condone systematic lying to children I wonder who would be considered off normal, you or me?  I oppose all such deceitful practices.  If opposing systematic deceit is somehow “insane” then marshal your men-in-white-coats and take me away - hay, hay.

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29
VYAZMA - 22 April 2009 12:00 PM

You’ve gotta be kidding about “no parental influence right?”

We have discussed this topic here many times, but if you are aware of any study where they have been able to prove parents’ influence on their children’s behaviour you can open a new thread and we’ll discuss it there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Poland and other ex-communist countries were highly religious. So no, communism had very little to do with it. And as far as Northern Ireland and the middle east are concerned, it is quite possible that those people are by nature violent and simply share (as opposed to “teach”) that part of their life, just like they would share everything else, with their children.

What is this then? For starters. And enders really, I don’t want to go in there. grin

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9283
Joined  2006-08-29

wesmjohnson,

If you got the idea of telling your kids about Santa being a child abuse from some humanistic textbook, then I apologize: you are merely wrong. It that case it is the humanistic movement that borders on insanity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
VYAZMA - 22 April 2009 12:06 PM

OK, so what is “the science behind the reasons why you reject something in the first place…”?

Well the most suitable example would be our knowledge of theists. You said the manifesto must reject outright the idea of theism. So too, I imagine must a humanist. However, any humanist must realize the science behind why a person believes. And in recognizing the science, must accept that entity for what it is. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be actively involved in reducing religion by peaceable, rational means.


Yes, I maintain that non-theism is a part of Humanism and one taking on that mantle also takes on non-theism.

I have read Dean Hamer (The God Gene) and Pascal Boyer’s (Religion Explained) and have some idea of why we believe.  I am also aware of other studies specifically one published by the MBTI folks that found 70% of people have “follower” personalities and 30% have “questioner” personalities.  Because our propensity to believe in something is genetic, it has a distribution (nature).  That is, not everyone has the same amount of its expression.  The willingness to believe is variable in any given population.  The specific “in something” any one person believes is largely determined culturally, that is, determined by family influences and training (nurture).  OK, so that’s the science I know.  Recognizing that the will to believe is different for each person as demonstrated by “science” Humanism has no obligation to cater to all person’s beliefs.

Wes cool smile

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 7
5