6 of 7
6
Humanist Association’s New Ad - featuring Obama
Posted: 22 April 2009 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
George - 22 April 2009 12:38 PM
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.

OK, so now it is a free for all on Northern Ireland and Middle Easterners?  Talk about your ad hominim attacks - wow.  Get real George!  How about a bit of civil discourse.  Provide substance for your opinions and conclusions!

As part Irish I am offended by your comment.

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
George - 22 April 2009 01:02 PM

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.

I get it from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State as well as other sources.  At this point all we can do is agree to disagree.  You certainly have not proven your case. 

Good day sir.

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

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.

Yeah…I hear ya Wes. Funny, for me it is very easy to proclaim my atheism. It’s cold, hard, concrete. I also like to think I have strong humanist values. But I never refer to myself as humanist.(I know, I have been taking a stand for my angle on humanist beliefs here, and in other threads) I just can’t muster up the gumption to call myself a humanist. I have faults. I’ve certainly engaged in actions that would not be considered humanist.
I see, you have a Heavy Duty background in The Navy, Officer I’m guessing. And your quite an intelligent entrepeneur. I imagine this lends a very clinical, “militant” angle to your humanism. I also bet your a really nice guy. Being a militant humanist, you must be. Although I have never seen the Humanist Manifesto, I’m sure I would agree with every last tenet of it.
I just can’t make the jump to disregarding peoples beliefs, just because they counter mine. Well, I can easily disregard their beliefs, but I can’t easily disregard them.
You as an agnostic, stated “you don’t know, and neither do I”. How come this doesn’t make you more readily accepting of the person and their beliefs?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 April 2009 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

Ok folks, I think the tone of this thread is getting excessively personal and hostile.  Let’s try to refocus the discussion on the ideas and turn down the rhetorical heat a bit.


A couple of specific points:


wes,

I do not understand the necessity for the fiction of considering everyone who posts in this forum a Humanist.

Of course, not everyone who participates here is a humanist. However, the purpose of prohibiting one member from declaring another member’s self-identification as a humanist to be invalid is to prevent precisley the sort of non-productive personal bickering that is occurring in this thread. You are free to present your vision of Humanism and the rationale and evidence for it, but declaring all other understandings in error and labeling other members as “not real Humanists” is not consistent with the spirit of the forum or CFI, which is to open and maintain dialogue and to build a broad and diverse community with some, not necessarily all goals and principles in common. And on a simpler level, such unilateral absolute declarations almost never lead to polite, productive, open-minded dialogue. Anyway,  it isn’t necessary that you agree, but it is necessary that you abide by the rule to participate here.


George,

Having argued the point with you before, I understand why your theories of human behavior allow you to characterise groups of people as innately predisposed to certain behavior patterns without considering yourself, or intending to be, a racist. However, there are sound ideological and historical reasons for others to take offense at such characterizations, so I would suggest you be very clear and careful in presenting such a position. The distinction between “The incidence of violent behavior among Czechs (or the Irish or whomever) may be explainable to a significant degree in terms of genetic factors” and “All Czechs (or the Irish or whatever) are pyscopaths and should be locked up” isn’t always as clear in your writing as it may be in your mind.

Also, using words like “insanity” to characterize someone else’s position is unhelpful and inappropriate.

[ Edited: 22 April 2009 03:18 PM by mckenzievmd ]
 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2009 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  219
Joined  2007-05-20
wesmjohnson - 22 April 2009 01:21 PM

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

I would term your variant Humanism 1, and it’s certainly true that atheism is widely seen as an indelible ingredient of H1 - I don’t dispute that, in fact it’s my central complaint about the state H is in. This identification of atheism is the dry residue of H1’s modern origins vis a vis christianity, I would guess, it just came to be seen and relegated as a Greek urn for atheism.

However, the Bush era is now over and atheism per se impresses nobody - being synonymous with nothing is not big crowd pleaser, it’s like claiming that you’re sane.

Humanism 2 moves on from H1 by being inclusive and accepting, not judgmental, and you do attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

Right now Humanism needs to get noticed, to present actual ideas, and not be dismissed as obvious and passe by the young.

 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: 24 April 2009 08:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
mckenzievmd - 22 April 2009 03:15 PM

Ok folks, I think the tone of this thread is getting excessively personal and hostile.  Let’s try to refocus the discussion on the ideas and turn down the rhetorical heat a bit.


A couple of specific points:


wes,

I do not understand the necessity for the fiction of considering everyone who posts in this forum a Humanist.

Of course, not everyone who participates here is a humanist. However, the purpose of prohibiting one member from declaring another member’s self-identification as a humanist to be invalid is to prevent precisley the sort of non-productive personal bickering that is occurring in this thread. You are free to present your vision of Humanism and the rationale and evidence for it, but declaring all other understandings in error and labeling other members as “not real Humanists” is not consistent with the spirit of the forum or CFI, which is to open and maintain dialogue and to build a broad and diverse community with some, not necessarily all goals and principles in common. And on a simpler level, such unilateral absolute declarations almost never lead to polite, productive, open-minded dialogue. Anyway,  it isn’t necessary that you agree, but it is necessary that you abide by the rule to participate here.


George,

Having argued the point with you before, I understand why your theories of human behavior allow you to characterise groups of people as innately predisposed to certain behavior patterns without considering yourself, or intending to be, a racist. However, there are sound ideological and historical reasons for others to take offense at such characterizations, so I would suggest you be very clear and careful in presenting such a position. The distinction between “The incidence of violent behavior among Czechs (or the Irish or whomever) may be explainable to a significant degree in terms of genetic factors” and “All Czechs (or the Irish or whatever) are pyscopaths and should be locked up” isn’t always as clear in your writing as it may be in your mind.

Also, using words like “insanity” to characterize someone else’s position is unhelpful and inappropriate.

OK.  To be clear I did not intend to call anyone or characterize anyone, specifically in this thread, as not a “real Humanist.”  If I offended believers, theists, deists or others who would revise or “hijack” Humanism, I am not sorry.  But, having said that I’ll behave.

Wes cool smile

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2009 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2009-04-23

It is my understanding that individuals, such as Paul Kurtz, adopted the term “Secular Humanism” specifically to avoid a connection and confusion with “religious humanism”. Secular Humanism stands out from other ideas of humanism purposefully. I would be hesitant to start pulling out quotes from the first Manifesto to bolster an argument on what someone thinks is humanism, unless they make clear what humanism they’re talking about. The Manifesto’s have built upon (improved?) in the spirit in which they are intended, they reveal the understanding that secular humanism needs to be progressive in the sense that it must be willing to change and adapt (which includes eradicated or adding ideas or principles etc.). In many ways Humanism has become Secular Humanism (however, this is still not agreed upon - hence the need to maintain ‘secular’).

Recently, Paul Kurtz in discussing the latest version of the Manifesto’s revealed what a monumental task it was due to the varied input received from many individuals with competing idea in what to include or exclude from the document. In fact, Kurtz, the author of the latest Manifesto, let it be known he nearly abandoned the project due to the difficulties. Even as a completed documented with many well known and respected individuals signing it, there were hold outs for differing reasons. Peter Singer refused to sign (and as far as I know still has not signed) based on moral grounds. His reasoning fell on the wording of “undo suffering” of other animals.

Like I have pointed out in the other thread, there’s very little interest in humanism, even amongst so-called humanist. Outside of a document or two and “principles” displayed (as guides - I hear Tom Flynn can recite them forward and backward - in his sleep!), there is barely any attention being paid or ideas expounding from ‘secular humanism’ that are not already fully naturally realized by most atheist. Most atheist if question, without explaining humanism to them, would respond in ways that seemed based in secular humanism. Today, secular humanism has become more inclusive, so you find the forwarding of conservative political ideologies, Libertarian ideologies and radical leftest ideologies all under the umbrella of the neo-humanism. Because of the vagueness, the already understand common sense without a glance at a “Manifesto”, no one really gives a crap.

There are out reaches taking place under the guise of an organization that forwards a version of secular humanism, but even within the organization there is tremendous variation (such as the competing ideologies). So, what’s being forward really is atheism, and what atheist most often want! The term Secular Humanism also was settled upon and forwarded as such in large part because of the idea that Atheism is seen as a Pejorative in today’s societies. In essence the secular humanist society, and its competing ideologies within the group has help to reinforce the negative view of atheism simply by repeating that as a fact.

As I said, you are proving there’s nothing to this to yourselves and everyone else! (and are possibly reinforcing the false notion that it’s ok to view atheism as a negative)

 Signature 

The extreme hostility towards atheists in America can probably be traced to two related factors: America’s view of itself as a religious nation entrusted with a special mission from God and America’s fight against communism in the Cold War. - Cline

Godless Atheists Menace Western, Christian Civilization

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2009 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
VYAZMA - 22 April 2009 01:35 PM

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.

Yeah…I hear ya Wes. Funny, for me it is very easy to proclaim my atheism. It’s cold, hard, concrete. I also like to think I have strong humanist values. But I never refer to myself as humanist.(I know, I have been taking a stand for my angle on humanist beliefs here, and in other threads) I just can’t muster up the gumption to call myself a humanist. I have faults. I’ve certainly engaged in actions that would not be considered humanist.
I see, you have a Heavy Duty background in The Navy, Officer I’m guessing. And your quite an intelligent entrepeneur. I imagine this lends a very clinical, “militant” angle to your humanism. I also bet your a really nice guy. Being a militant humanist, you must be. Although I have never seen the Humanist Manifesto, I’m sure I would agree with every last tenet of it.
I just can’t make the jump to disregarding peoples beliefs, just because they counter mine. Well, I can easily disregard their beliefs, but I can’t easily disregard them.
You as an agnostic, stated “you don’t know, and neither do I”. How come this doesn’t make you more readily accepting of the person and their beliefs?

I also hear you.  Thank for your compliment and understanding.  I am sure this is the polite dialog to which Dr. Mac referred.  So thank you again

I would really like to be able to deeply respect other people’ beliefs.  By that I mean Christians, Muslims, Jews, New Agers, Spiritualists and other believers in superstition and things supernatural.  I am unable to do so just as I am unable to accept and welcome someone into my home who seeks to subjugate me and possibly take my life.  I see a war going on between those who would enslave the world to a particular belief system be that system religious, political, or economic and those who would be vigilant and protect my freedom.  To some that might sound contradictory but “freedom” does not mean the right to oppress other people.

Because I accept the tenets of Humanism I feel very comfortable with the appellation “Humanist.”  I am less comfortable with “Atheist” or even “Agnostic” because the focus of my life does not involve God in any way.  I am motivated by acquisition of knowledge and its humane application for the greater good. 

Actually my Navy experience was as an enlisted man.  I earned my degrees after military service.

Notwithstanding my perceived and actual passionate postings I consciously behave day-to-day with thoughts for my fellow human beings and animals around me.  I obey the “little” rules.  I park where I’m supposed to park. I obey the “in” and “out” signs on doors and parking lots.  Humanism to me is about ethical treatment of our total environment.  We are stewards of the Earth and of each other.

Your point of separating the person from the belief is interesting and clearly difficult for me.  It is my experience that people act in accord with their core true beliefs.  A person who really believes they must bring the World to God, or some such version, is not someone I can respect.  I certainly can get along with people who “live and let live” and respect them as persons, but still reject their belief system.  Of course it actually produces a state of less than full respect in me.

As an Agnostic what I am saying is that I don’t whether a supernatural realm exist or not (with it all the gods, spirits, etc.).  However as a scientist and student of religion I find no evidence for such a realm.  The lack of evidence does not mean the realm does not exist, it only suggests that it doesn’t.  (I’m sure you now all this.)  Evidence of which I am aware suggests such a realm is unnecessary for our physical existence.  Evolution produced life from basic principles and mechanisms - God(s) were not required.  Those arguments are why I do not call myself an Atheist although I suspect most profoundly that no one is there.

Wes grin  cool smile

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2009 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
Martinus - 23 April 2009 10:37 AM
wesmjohnson - 22 April 2009 01:21 PM

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

I would term your variant Humanism 1, and it’s certainly true that atheism is widely seen as an indelible ingredient of H1 - I don’t dispute that, in fact it’s my central complaint about the state H is in. This identification of atheism is the dry residue of H1’s modern origins vis a vis christianity, I would guess, it just came to be seen and relegated as a Greek urn for atheism.

However, the Bush era is now over and atheism per se impresses nobody - being synonymous with nothing is not big crowd pleaser, it’s like claiming that you’re sane.

Humanism 2 moves on from H1 by being inclusive and accepting, not judgmental, and you do attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

Right now Humanism needs to get noticed, to present actual ideas, and not be dismissed as obvious and passe by the young.

Martinus:  Thank you for your response.  We are certainly in serious agreement about the shape of Humanism today.  I do not agree that atheism, or perhaps more accurately non-theism, is the culprit.  Certainly, being non-theistic is unimpressive, nor is it intended to be such as I read the manifestos.  HM 2 did soften, get sweeter if you will, on the HM1 non-theist stand.  But its sweetening was only through omission of non-theistic language.  HM 2000 is little better but does define “scientific naturalism” and seeks a “disentanglement” from “theology.”

Of course you are right and timely with a call for Humanism to “get noticed.”  Given there are between 16 and 20 percent of Americans (not counting Canadians) who are not within a religious community, the number of possible Humanists is large.  Larger in fact than the population of Methodists in America.  Rather that open Humanism, as agreed as currently Atheist identified, to those who do not follow a scientific naturalistic world view (non-humanists, if I may), I suggest a political style campaign for membership.  While the suggestion is not new is remains an anathema to many Humanists.  They cannot see themselves acting like “J Witnesses” knocking on doors passing out “tracts.”  So for me the problem is not with the philosophy but with the membership.  But what if they had something to “sell.?”

I am a member of the CFI-Tampa Advisory Committee and have proposed some “campaigning” actions.  They slide off the table like a slippery snake.  The membership wants to hear speakers and go to lunch one a month.  I have a friend with whom I campaigned during the recent Presidential election season.  She is non-theist and her daughter is a serious Atheist and will tell anyone who stands still long enough.  I have not invited them to the meetings because visiting with a small group of old white men and one or two old white women listening to a lecture proceeded by minutes from the previous meeting is likely to turn off a young woman.  OK, that’s my bias about the meetings.  I have suggested that members tell jokes at the beginning of meetings and present a brief autobiography (there are some fascinating people here).  It resulted in one meeting where one member shared some cartoons with the membership - that was fun and has yet to be repeated.  I’m sure you get the picture.  I am looking for ideas to have the meetings be FUN.  With fun comes the opportunity to invite neighbors and friends regardless of the current membership demographics.  I’ll add here that the local American Humanist Association group is similarly composed and share a significant portion of their membership and has the same growth issues.

So, after all that, I submit for your consideration that the culprits are: lack of fun in Organized Humanism and effective membership campaigns.  I should add that “fun” activities are like honey.

Wes cool smile

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2009 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  219
Joined  2007-05-20

So, after all that, I submit for your consideration that the culprits are: lack of fun in Organized Humanism and effective membership campaigns.  I should add that “fun” activities are like honey. Wes cool smile

Fun and membership in a nebulous entity won’t cut it, I’m afraid. Humanism II (not a Manifesto version, BTW) will become associated with our species’ governance, with H2 people recognized as good critics and rational champions of Human affairs.

It won’t be a matter of us belonging to a secular organization, rather, we shall as a species be living in an emerging Secular Age, in which religion and myth will be seen as the knittings of individuals. We won’t have to proselytize for atheism, that will be taken for granted as everybody’s opening cards.

 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: 25 April 2009 04:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
Martinus - 24 April 2009 11:06 AM

So, after all that, I submit for your consideration that the culprits are: lack of fun in Organized Humanism and effective membership campaigns.  I should add that “fun” activities are like honey. Wes cool smile

Fun and membership in a nebulous entity won’t cut it, I’m afraid. Humanism II (not a Manifesto version, BTW) will become associated with our species’ governance, with H2 people recognized as good critics and rational champions of Human affairs.

It won’t be a matter of us belonging to a secular organization, rather, we shall as a species be living in an emerging Secular Age, in which religion and myth will be seen as the knittings of individuals. We won’t have to proselytize for atheism, that will be taken for granted as everybody’s opening cards.

Please provide a reference for Humanisim II so I may be educated and better understand the bases for your assertions.  At present I am quite confused by your post.

Thank you

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2009 05:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2009-04-23

Another one of those strange and oft repeated problems I see has shown itself, again. It usually is summed up with someone saying like; I’m an atheist with regards to the god question, it’s my stance in opposition to religion (then of course atheism is defined). This is followed with; However, I am a humanist with regards to a philosophical, or ethical outlook, as a life stance (as a guide or what-have-you). But, then we’ll see the problems of labels themselves displayed (usually with; disagreement does not undermine the value of the philosophy), which is then followed most often with the idea there will come a time when any such labels are not needed. However, what happens is atheism is shown as the amoral position and that humanism reflects someones moral attitude. This in turn reinforces the notion that 1) it’s ok to think that atheist are amoral by virtue of being atheist 2) that someone can be a “bad” person and be an atheist (goes without saying for any label) therefore humanism places one above this problem while softly recognizing (though never saying) people can be “bad” and be a humanist.

You see it with such over used ideas such as; Yes, Stalin was an atheist, but he wasn’t a humanist. Which leads to the next point. Which is historically in Western nations Atheism was in fact given a bad name (to the point of completely demonized, feared, and saw as the enemy) due to it’s connection through propaganda to the communist Soviet Union. Atheist, and secularist suffered under these oppressive ideas and sought other was to reflect their beliefs, life stance and opposition to religious tenets. At a time when we feel no need for any such labels as humanist, the same will be true of atheist. The term “humanist” and “secular humanist” were adopted in part to deflect from a negative impact derived from a public display of calling oneself an atheist (which would lead to repression for being “godless” and possibly communist - both potentially able to destroy the fabric of Western civilization).

However, as is shown through so-called humanist writings, very little is revealed that makes it stand out as apart from simply being a secular philosophy. This is problem with much of the writings, the problems extend beyond how one views themselves as a humanist. As an example, currently “secular humanism” has taken a large umbrella approach to advocate recruitment of people with politically conservative ideologies, Libertarian ideologies and maintains much of it’s radical leftest leanings (the humanist movement by and large was a socially and fiscally liberal movement). This has lead in recent years to an even more watered down style of “humanism”, where basic ideas of personal responsibility and morality are forwarded while advocating social nets to help others. Some of this runs smack up against others firmly held political and social views. Which of course leads us back to what is actually the shared commitment? Here you will find now, secularism and the advocating to be secular and forward the secular conscience (not the humanist conscience - the fundamental human conscience outside of religion). In other words, it is all about placing ourselves outside the religious paradigm still, as Atheist.

 Signature 

The extreme hostility towards atheists in America can probably be traced to two related factors: America’s view of itself as a religious nation entrusted with a special mission from God and America’s fight against communism in the Cold War. - Cline

Godless Atheists Menace Western, Christian Civilization

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2009 05:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Your point of separating the person from the belief is interesting and clearly difficult for me.  It is my experience that people act in accord with their core true beliefs.  A person who really believes they must bring the World to God, or some such version, is not someone I can respect.  I certainly can get along with people who “live and let live” and respect them as persons, but still reject their belief system.  Of course it actually produces a state of less than full respect in me.

As an Agnostic what I am saying is that I don’t whether a supernatural realm exist or not (with it all the gods, spirits, etc.).  However as a scientist and student of religion I find no evidence for such a realm.  The lack of evidence does not mean the realm does not exist, it only suggests that it doesn’t.  (I’m sure you now all this.)  Evidence of which I am aware suggests such a realm is unnecessary for our physical existence.  Evolution produced life from basic principles and mechanisms - God(s) were not required.  Those arguments are why I do not call myself an Atheist although I suspect most profoundly that no one is there.

Wes grin 

Hey Wes, glad to hear from you. Yeah, I suspect our views are far more close, than they are apart. Yes and the bounty of evidence that exists to support why people would seek mysticism is also relevant. That combined with lack of evidence of any god/s, and it’s pretty much a done deal.
Unfortunately, many folks don’t want to take this evidence( which supports the idea that people evolved into believing/fearing in gods) seriously. That is because it partly falls under pyschology.
Rig for silent running…all ahead slow!!! I like reading about Subs as you can tell. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2009 08:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09
VYAZMA - 25 April 2009 05:42 AM

Your point of separating the person from the belief is interesting and clearly difficult for me.  It is my experience that people act in accord with their core true beliefs.  A person who really believes they must bring the World to God, or some such version, is not someone I can respect.  I certainly can get along with people who “live and let live” and respect them as persons, but still reject their belief system.  Of course it actually produces a state of less than full respect in me.

As an Agnostic what I am saying is that I don’t whether a supernatural realm exist or not (with it all the gods, spirits, etc.).  However as a scientist and student of religion I find no evidence for such a realm.  The lack of evidence does not mean the realm does not exist, it only suggests that it doesn’t.  (I’m sure you now all this.)  Evidence of which I am aware suggests such a realm is unnecessary for our physical existence.  Evolution produced life from basic principles and mechanisms - God(s) were not required.  Those arguments are why I do not call myself an Atheist although I suspect most profoundly that no one is there.

Wes grin 

Hey Wes, glad to hear from you. Yeah, I suspect our views are far more close, than they are apart. Yes and the bounty of evidence that exists to support why people would seek mysticism is also relevant. That combined with lack of evidence of any god/s, and it’s pretty much a done deal.
Unfortunately, many folks don’t want to take this evidence( which supports the idea that people evolved into believing/fearing in gods) seriously. That is because it partly falls under pyschology.
Rig for silent running…all ahead slow!!! I like reading about Subs as you can tell. LOL

Yes indeed!  Psychology, a powerful field for inquiry.  All our hopes, dreams, fears, and beliefs lurk in our brains running around our neurons.  BTW I am also a very big labor union supporter!  My wife was in a leadership position in an AFSCME local in Toledo a ways back.  The need for unions has grown I think but the need is lost on many.  Somehow the excesses of a few union leaders has soured many on the movement, but the need is there!  Up scope!

Wes

cool smile

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2009 08:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  219
Joined  2007-05-20
wesmjohnson - 25 April 2009 08:18 AM

BTW I am also a very big labor union supporter!  My wife was in a leadership position in an AFSCME local in Toledo a ways back.  The need for unions has grown I think but the need is lost on many.  Somehow the excesses of a few union leaders has soured many on the movement, but the need is there!  Up scope!
Wes

With so many jobs going to China, I expect that your labor union movement will be championing Chinese workers now, and celebrating the fact that 500 million of them have been lifted from poverty? And Humanist labor people are the first to recognize that having a job is far better than arguing for $75/hr on a Detroit assembly line, only to end up in the street?

The only way to bring full employment back to the US will be to arrest and reverse the flow of factories offshore, and the best way to do that is to greatly devalue the US dollar (which Obama is doing, printing money) and to greatly raise the package of salary/benefits/pensions for Asian workers.

As a Humanist labor supporter, that will be your policy, I trust, advocating for them now, from a wider and wiser global perspective?

[ Edited: 25 April 2009 09:19 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
 
 
   
6 of 7
6