Bartlett’s worthy.
It really does boil down to this, there is nothing ever written, thought, said, or taught that wasn’t from another human being, They decided what God said or wants, it is a matter of which human one believes or not.
I’ve read this five times, and still don’t understand. Who is “they” and why do you take their word for it? The singular post of Da Mikster which received smallish accolades for sticking to the personal pronoun trifecta rather than making sweeping claims made sense. “The evidence that God exists come from my own personal experience and feelings though I may not be able to demonstrate that evidence scientifically. Speaking for myself, God manifests Himself in these ways.” That may not reflect measurable evidence, but personal feelings aren’t subject to scientific scrutiny.
I assume you are enlightened and modern enough to reject Old Testament laws… so how in the world do you justify basing your personal belief system on the wildly conflicting, unsubstantiated claims by a random handful of strangers compiled over several thousand years old and corrupted by numerous translations?
I believe the “they” are humans in general.
Hide your sheep.
Frankly, that’s disturbing. Humans in general are all over the place about the concept of creation and God/gods. Why take one person’s word over your personal ruminations and experience? How is that a spiritual endeavor instead of lazy thinking?
That, I think, is exactly the point Monavis was making.
Monavis is a believer, no? I was certain I was misunderstanding his/her post. I guess I’m just shocked that any believer would admit to allowing another person to decide matters of faith for them.
I doubt that there are very many believers that developed their faith independent from outside sources(friends, neighbors, churches, religious literature and the like) so in a way most of what they believe has been determined by others.
From my recollection of his/her posting history, no. You make too hasty assumptions on what people here on this board do or don’t believe.
Wow. Just . . . wow.
I keep re-reading this sentence, appalled that any religious person can make a statement like this.
I am a secular Humanist and I happen to agree with the OP as to the status of SH as a religion. I obviously don’t agree with his valuation of the validity or constructiveness of the faith. Nor do I agree with his unflattering characterizations of Humanists as people.
Humanism has a few defining characteristics with regard to what is right and wrong and how that distinction is to be made. Human life, freedom and dignity are considered good, as are efforts made to protect or promote these. In contrast, death, suffering and humiliation are deemed things to be avoided or minimized.
In other words, we have ideas about what behaviors are moral and what are immoral and what elements or influences in the world will make it better or worse. Our standards are different than Christians (who opine that Truth can only come from the words of the Christ) or Jews (who believe in the same god, but deny that he has appeared as the Messiah) or Hindus (some of whom believe in a multitude of deities, others who describe the many gods as being various facets of one entity). But, my point is that we HAVE such ideas concerning moral right and wrong. It may not be as strict a catechism as other faiths and may not feature supernatural elements, but it does exist.
Many of us identify Humanism as our religion and find philosophical solidarity with each other (even those of us who don’t want the label “religion” applied to the belief system, even though it may consist of the same beliefs). There are organizations dedicated to providing support, representation and education to both believers and those of other faiths regarding Humanism. I am a member of the largest of these, the American Humanist Association.
We also have clergy. Individuals who have been examined by the ordination arm of the AHA, the Humanist Society, are empowered to officially represent the faith. This process is no mere “mouse-click ordination”. The applicant must be a member of the AHA for over a year, must provide multiple references, be vetted by other members of the AHA and must go through an interview process. The nature of our faith is such that we do not go to these clerics for things like intercessory prayer, animal sacrifice, absolution of sin or other such spiritual or magical functions. However, they do sometimes officiate at funerals, child-naming ceremonies or other events. They are empowered by most states in the US to perform ceremonies that put in place a legal marital contract and they are usually allowed access to people that may be heavily restricted otherwise (intensive care units where only immediate family or clerics are admitted; prisoners allowed only few visitors, though spiritual advisors are admitted). Rabbi Greg Epstein was ordained, not as a Jewish Rabbi, but as a Humanist Celebrant by the organization and currently serves as a chaplain at Harvard University.
And if you must have one, I have an article of faith, as a Humanist. As above, I said human life, liberty and dignity are good. Why? Can you weigh life on a scale? Can you measure morals with a gauge? Can you prove, via a mathmatical formula that life is better than death? That serenity is better than torment? That respect is better than humiliation? I can not. I believe these things, but cannot prove them. I take them on faith. That faith I call Humanism.
No I have great contempt for hypocrites. Whether they are religious or not.
You folks chose to attack me based upon your bias. Dismiss my answers because they are 'subjective. In fact acted just like zealots defending their faith. Then claimed it was not a religion based upon certain OPTIONAL trappings, when it behaves exactly like one in more essential ways.
Then you condemn me for responding using the same crap you were spewing? “Pot meet kettle?” I tried to shake hands. The kettle insisted he was a harpsichord.
Where on the American Humanist Association website does it say that it is a religion? I see the word “philosophy” used a lot, but not “religion”.
Have you ever used a mirror before? if you don’t have one, I’d be happy to ship a small one to you, free of charge.
These admirable views come from ethical and philosophical examination, right, not from a supernatural arbiter? Isn’t the certification of the Humanist Society as a kind of religion because only the representatives of religions get the rights you mention, not because members believe in the supernatural? Humanist organizations have to cross-dress as religious ones thanks to the pro-religious bias of much of our society.
You know, that’s fine if you want to call SH a “religion.” It depends on where you personally draw the lines about what you think the word means, but it’s entirely reasonable to consider it a religion. It gives guidance about philosophy and morals, similar to how Buddhism does. If the non-supernatural varieties of Buddhism can be called religions, then I’m fine with secular humanism being called a religion.
I strongly disagree with this use of the word, however. When we’re talking about religions, the word “faith” means a belief not dependent on evidence (or even counter to evidence). There is no faith in secular humanism.
Yes, one does tend to have an adverse reaction to being told the way one lives one’s life is bad.
Disagreeing with you isn’t really ‘attacking’, is it?
Aren’t they, though? If not, how would you describe them?
Do please, when you are finished with it yourself.
While you are at it reread everything I’ve posted. EXACTLY, not your subjective interpretation of it. Or someone else’s.
Going from “I have seen no evidence of God” to “There is no God” requires either tortured logic or a leap of faith. Dismissing outright all historical claims without firsthand examination is presumptuous at best (Got Marty’s DeLorean in your garage?) Have you ever heard of Troy? A lot of experts called it a “myth” not so long ago too… until it was rediscovered.
I’m a hypocrite because I have a faith? Or because I reject a few of you trying to paint me with a broad brush?
Fundamentalists hate me too. I reject their ridiculous strictures, their literalism, and their lip service to God while actually paying obeisance to Mammon.
Not that it matters, but one of my best friends is practicing Wiccan. He’s a good man. I remind him to put out whiskey for the fey (He does anyway, but says the neighborhood wino steals it). He asks me to say a prayer for any folks in a bad way out where he lives. And sometimes we irritate the hell out of each other arguing politics or even whether some beer is total swill or not (In Cali Rolling Rock is a boutique brand, here mostly the frat guys buy it). – I take the quote about “In my father’s house there are many mansions” to mean he’ll go to his version of paradise, I’ll go to mine, and maybe we’ll even still get to visit each other.
In short, I don’t have any problem with your beliefs.
I DO have a problem with your (from some of you) derision of mine. Your prejudices and your attitude of superiority. ESPECIALLY when it is those attitudes you claim you find offensive from people of faith.
Again, tolerance is a two way street.