So there’s this guy who walks into a 17 year old culture and immediately goes off on some of the old timers, asking who they think they are…
Ah, a hard on for Monty.
I’ll take Cheshire Human for 400, Alex. What’s this, your 4th sock?
Dangnabbit! I don’t know which makes me feel worse about myself, getting fooled by a sock, or replying to a zombie thread without noticing it’s a zombie.
I owe it to myself on this day off of work to pour myself a cold one and think hard about my life.
So what is your hangup? Are you married to a Marvin Milquetoast and did my thread make you feel insecure because you aren’t married to a Charles Brosnan kind of guy or something? If you’re not a man and not insecure in your manhood, why on earth did you care?
And my argument was more along the lines of evolutionary theism than “ID” in the “Ray Comfort” sense which seems opposed to evolution. So the fool in question lacks reading comprehension and simply thinks anything not in tow with his Humanist creed is “anti-science” even when it’s not arguing against established science, or something.
Well from what I’ve seen so far this Monty fellow is a twit who is probably still reeling over the number of times his face was shoved into the locker in HS gym class.
But I’ve never met an ‘evangelical Humanist’ who isn’t a daft twit. Most of them come across as bad as Jehovah’s witness, and seem to think they’re ‘spreading the good news’ by ‘edumacating’ folks on the internet about evolution.
You have a cite for all this? Or are you tripling down on this “Calico Jack routinely lies about what other posters say” thing?
So far you’re arguing against a bunch of fictional people (and lying about what the real ones have said). Who are these “evangelical humanists”, whatever they are, that have challenged you on this board?
Another reason I often consider Humanism more of a cult than a religion, a sign of a cult is that it’s not up-front about it’s beliefs, but tries to keep them under the radar until people have already invested time and money in their organization, such as how Scientology presents itself as a mere ‘self-help group’ to first time prospects.
Here’s the Humanist statement of “faith” right here:
*We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.*
I’d say a Humanist who feels the need to proselytize their ideology to others qualifies as ‘evangelical’.
Still arguing with no one here? Who the hell are you talking to?
Humanists like Monty aren’t fictional people, they have a specific creed with a statement of faith as I just showed you.
Monty thinks he’s “spreading the good news” in the name of Humanism by educating people about evolution, and as my suggestion about higher intelligence is at odds with his creed, he seems to fancy me a heretic worthy of excommunication apparently.
This is why Humanists are starting to become as popular with the average person as Jehovah’s witnesses and Mormons are.
Cite that Monty claimed allegiance to this group? Is this just another Calico Jack lie?
“Oh woe is me, I’m being oppressed and exiled!” :rolleyes:
Never said he “claimed it”, in fact I mentioned the intentional aversion that Humanists have about identifying with their ideology is why Humanism bears some semblance to a cult.
Seems like the average humanist will only identify as “atheist” in public instead of with what they actually do believe.
*
There is one characteristic, however, that all true cults seem to share, and that is the deliberate use of deception. The details of their belief system are revealed to recruits only in stages, calculated to draw them in, step by step, without scaring them off up front. You have to reach the inner circle (level 5) of Scientology, for example, before you learn that we are all allegedly possessed by the banished spirits of alien beings, and that this is the true cause of human suffering. Mainstream beliefs, rather, are completely up front with their beliefs and make no attempt to conceal them.*
So what’s with all these Humanists, like the American Atheists group and whatnot being deceptive, and presenting themselves just as “atheists” up front, rather than just being up front with their secular humanist ideology?
Calico Jack, you’ve been here less than a month, and already you seem determined to gain a reputation as a fabricator. Why would you want to be known as a liar?
So just another lie, then. If you don’t want to be known as a liar, then stop lying about other posters. Argue with what they say, not what you infer or invent about them.
If it looks like a duck, it’s a duck. He’s saying the exact same type of thinks that secular humanists regularly argue, so no reason to assume he’s not another Humanist, just like the majority of “atheist organizations” are.
They intentionally avoid identifying as Humanist just to avoid having their beliefs come under fire; if they just identify as “atheist” they can dodge criticism by just rebutting that “atheism isn’t a religion”, but atheism is what they *don’t *believe, not what they do believe.
He’s a lying liar who lies. I think that’s pretty clear.
And that’s why I object to you, Calico Jack. I dislike liars, as I said in the post you quoted. Trying to cast aspersions on people who object to your lies (or on their husbands) is not likely to do you any favors.
Who’s fabricating anything? Ideologically he’s a secular Humanist as far as I can tell, and probably believes natural sciences are the key to solving human problems, therefore me arguing for a higher intelligence than humans went against his views.
I mean if I’m wrong he’s free to state what his beliefs are, but “atheism” isn’t a belief, just a lack thereof. But atheists of course still have belief systems, even if it doesn’t involve a God.
Deflection is more efficient when one simply lies as quickly as they can. This character decides what the truth is and goes from there.
I’m 75% sure it’s Cheshire Human. Schools are out for the holidays so it could be one of those bored college kids who’ve discovered something they think no one Takes Seriously. Anything’s possible.
What do you suppose will come first, their banning or their boredom?
Why not? He’s already known as a troll, a fuckwit, a gibbering moron, a pompous ass, and a thread-shitter, so “liar” completes the package quite nicely. 
You “toe” the line, fuckwit – “towing” is what you do to cars and water skiers.
But I am rather amused by the ideas elucidated here and in your various diatribes that I glanced at before I stopped wasting my time, that “humanists” (a word that you must have read somewhere recently, because you use it a lot even though you don’t know what it means) are some sort of dogmatists promoting biological evolution. Apparently any physicist who “believes” in gravity or quantum mechanics must be some kind of iconoclastic heathen. You really are a fucked-up moron.