I do tend to be biased against snooty condescension, especially when it’s not earned by being actually smarter. Call it a character flaw.
I did refer to Humanism as “the faith”, but only in the sense that it represents a religion.
AFAIK, the AHA website does not refer to Humanism as a religion. This is probably because not all Humanists regard it as a religion. It is a life-stance, philosophy, world-view and myriad other descriptors. They apparently opted to omit the most contentious one. I willingly concede that both the stance that it is and the stance that it is NOT are both defensible positions.
Religions vary tremendously in their description of the nature and origins of the material universe and perhaps moreso in those entities and forces that transcend the material. Roman Catholicism does not cease to be a religion because it refuses to recognize karma. Islam remains a religion even though it prohibits graven images to loa. Hindus do not recognize the Trinity. What disqualifies SH as a religion for omitting these, as well as other supernatural beliefs?
Back to “faith”. I do have faith. The most important element of Humanism is the value placed on the welfare of humanity. But, the idea that what is “good for humanity” is therefore “good” in a general sense has no basis in logic. I have no proof of it and am not convinced an objective proof is possible. But, I take on faith that living is better than dying, that peace is better than war, that understanding is better than ignorance.
To the OP:
You seem to ascribe some very unpleasant characteristics to all Humanists, that most certainly apply to some, but not to all. You also fall to recognize that while nearly all Humanists are atheists or agnostics, atheism or agnosticism does not equate with Humanism.
These may be somewhat related. A person lacking in empathy or ethics may well be stayed from doing evil if they are also convinced that they are being watched by an invisible judge. This same person, disabused of such a notion may also represent a grave danger to society, having no reason to refrain from causing others harm. I agree with you that the former situation is better, but dissent in that the latter represents the sole alternative. The latter is not a Humanist, though they may be an atheist. The Humanist is the person who believes in no divine judgement, but still refrains from doing evil (at least) and may well make great endeavors to do good.
I agree with you that people can be insufferable when they are utterly convinced of being completely correct, especially with regard to profound issues like the gods. But, sanctimonious pricks come in all flavors (including atheist). But, many Humanists, like myself, are weak atheists. “I don’t believe that there are gods.” is subtly but distinctly different that “I believe that there are no gods”. The first is the position of someone requireing sufficient evidence to establish a belief (and not having received it) the second making a positive assertion of a fact.
I don’t KNOW that the gods don’t exist. I just don’t have any reason to think they do (or at least have as much reason to doubt as reason to believe). I don’t even particularly care. If this universe was created by just gods with an interest in humanity, I can only imagine that they would regard service of humanity as a more fitting homage to them than any hollow obeisance. If there are no such gods, then we have only each other to improve our lot.
No more so than any other claim about the universe:
“Ghosts aren’t real.”
“There isn’t a unicorn in my bedroom.”
“The President of the United States is Barack Obama.”
“I live in Los Angeles.”
“That traffic light is green.”
I can’t PROVE that the traffic light is green. It certainly SEEMS to be green, but there’s a small chance that I might be mistaken. Maybe I’m hallucinating and the traffic light is really red. Or maybe I’m a brain in a vat and there really isn’t a traffic light at all.
So when I say, “That traffic light is green”, what I really mean is “All of the evidence that has been presented to me is consistent with the hypothesis that the traffic light is green.”
It’s the same with God. All of the evidence that has been presented to me is consistent with the hypothesis that He doesn’t exist. It’s really a matter of having a uniform epistemology. For me, I treat ALL statements about reality equally. There is no absolute truth about anything, only provisional explanations of the evidence at hand.
This, of course, presupposes that the existence (or non-existence) of gods is, in fact, a “profound issue”. The theists would certainly have it so because it makes half their argument for them.
However, there are many of us who don’t think that the existence of gods is a profound issue at all. We think it’s actually a rather silly, trivial issue, along the lines of “Is Santa Claus real?” or “Am I living in the Matrix?”
I don’t care if you are a Christian, Buddhist, atheist, whatever. I want some evidence, from you, that believing makes persons behave better, over all, than non-believers. We can’t prove/disprove Gods of any flavor. You could try to prove your assertion of the above, which should be provable.
Oh God, I’m losing my faith that you will ever even address it. First you claimed you didn’t say it, so I quoted it above, now you ignore it. You’re right, my world is looking drearier and drearier…
I chose to ask you questions based upon wanting to learn your answers; I didn’t dismiss your answers because, as far as I could tell, you didn’t provide them. My questions remain in posts 72 and 107 – and 23, at that – whenever you’re ready.
All monotheistic religions are 99.9% atheist, in that they lack belief in almost all of the gods of humanity. We identify them as religions for what they believe in, not what they don’t believe in. I’m unaware of anything supernatural that SH believes in.
This type of goodness is an ethical and philosophical position - surely there is a difference between theology and philosophy, right? Though your positions have sounder logical justifications than just about anything in real religion, they are nowhere close to being facts, on the order that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins is a supposed fact.
Look back at you first post, apparently you do have a problem with them.
I’m not sure why you keep talking about prejudice. It’s not that we are making assumptions about what you believe, you’ve come right out and said that you believe in a supernatural premise for which there is no evidence and that you think that atheists have replaced faith with something drear and tawdry. I really don’t need much more than that to form an opinion of you.
Oh blatherskythe the firsty post was directed at someone who said ALL religions were evil. You have NO problem with that, but you seem determined to jump off a damned cliff of assumption and judgement because I reacted to IT? Where is your vaunted objectivity on that statement. It is provable? Tolerance for me? Understanding why someone might be offended? Bother to read that it WASN’T an Original post AT ALL but a response, and but for the act of a moderator who did a damned lousy job of bothering to understand WHAT he was moderating wouldn’t have even BEEN a damned thread in the first place? Physician heal thyself.
Men see what they wish to see and disregard the rest. Therefore I reject your claims of objectivity. Just as I reject your arguments that your beliefs have not turned into articles of faith.
NOW, since you’ve all got your torches and pitchforks ready, lets give you some real reasons to use them.
I reject your argument against ALL religions based upon “one true faith” argument - It’s a man made construct, basically an advertising gimmick. Why should folks belong and give money to your church unless it’s better than the other guy’s? Do folks believe it? Sure, but they believe Madison Avenue’s claims that buying a certain shirt makes you cool and sexy, too. Man’s idea, not God’s – God gave us free will to choose our path.
I reject that “all” religions are inherently evil or hold men back. Guess what? MEN held men back using the church for political purposes. Was the church complicit? absolutely. T the monarchies rewarded them well to be with land and riches. When the churches ceased or refused to be useful, their followers met with a lot of suppression. A failure of God, or a failure of men? Islam kept alive learning when Christianity went through it’s dark age. Now perhaps we are returning the favor. Religion also gave artists, sculptors and architects a place for their creative works when their talents were not valued much by the aristocrats, and the peasants had no means to support them.
I reject the argument that “religions kill people”. PEOPLE kill people. Xenophobia and lust for what others possess takes many guises besides religion. If it wasn’t “faith”, it would be another excuse… like WMDs, or water rights.
I reject the argument that people of faith are automatically intolerant of other faiths. A lot of people of faith see how much most other religions have in common, rather than focus solely on their minor differences. “In my father’s house there are many mansions” Who says a god can’t go by many names to different people? Man? Yes, some PEOPLE are virulently intolerant of ANYONE that isn’t exactly like themselves. If it wasn’t “religion”, it would be language, accent, skin tone, hair color, butter side up, butter side down… it’s just a convenient excuse. Do some sects stir this antipathy up on purpose? Yes. Again it keeps their professional clergy in a job.
So why would any god allow all this to happen? Besides giving us free will to screw up our own existence - something that as a species we’ve become quite adept at…The universe is a darn big place, possibly billions of worlds with life, each with billions of people. He/she might be spread just a little thin occasionally.
Or perhaps the very act of creation caused the creator to be limited in the ways he can intervene without breaking time or causing some other cataclysmic ripple? Claiming your God is omnipotent is great advertising. Claiming your god is a scientist standing around observing his experiment, not so much.
So, denying a god’s existence because he hasn’t been standing around where you can see him? Like I said, he gave us all free will. But maybe expecting him to step into a lab to be examined at YOUR leisure might be just a little bit on the arrogant side? No, he isn’t gonna do it because I asked either.
So now, if nothing else, you’ve heard me relate a pleasant bedtime story.
You know what would be good?
[ul]
[li]Ask a mod to close this thread (it started badly anyway, for all kinds of reasons).[/li][li]Start a new thread in GD, coherently describing your position.[/li][li]Debate in that thread without the victim complex.[/li][li]Understand that Der Trihs represents pretty much the extreme of the atheist end of the spectrum of positions on this board (I hope he won’t mind me saying that)[/li][li]Address the points and arguments people make, without assuming you know why they said them.[/li][/ul]
So, the universe seems to behave in a random and dispassionate way, just as if gods doesn’t exist and yet somehow this is evidence that he exists and that he set it up that way?
Mangetout is breaking ranks my atheist comrades, he defiles our noble creed with his profane reason and logic, burn the heretic!
I’m not actually an atheist, although the only time I ever seem to argue about the subject of religion these days is to point out key flaws in some crumblingly poor religious canard.
“Far end” is probably better; “extreme” tends to be associated with bombs and shooting, not arguing on the internet.
I do happen to have a torch at the ready, but what should I do with my pitchfork?
As you wish. Extremity of position rather than excess of behaviour was the intent (and within the spectrum represented here, not the whole world)
‘They’ are the people who wrote, or said God said, or did something. The OT(as well as the NT) was written by humans and people believed those people (some who may not have even existed,like Moses). I see no difference from the people who wrote the Bible than the Koran, because Muhammad said an angel dictated what God wanted is no different than any of the Bible, or other writers; and that can be proven.It is only belief in the people who wrote or taught that the writings were from God or a god!
There are many different,religions because people believe the person that best fits their desires of what they want a God to be or say. I have no quarrel with their beliefs but beliefs are not fact unless they can be proven, then they are not beliefs any longer but facts.
You are entitled to your beliefs,if you chose to feel your emotions are from a god, then that is your right, but it is my right to think it is just in your mind.
There are many translations (and have through the years) of what the word God means, or meant. It to me is just common sense to see that if one helps another to better him/her self it also helps me or other people as well. If we wish a better life for ourselves it then helps other peoples lives to be better,at least i have found that to be true in my 80+years since I was born into this world.
It seems to me that the Golden rule is just common sense, If I don’t steal from others etc. and they don’t steal from me etc. we can get along better, when we don’t respect the other person then we are just as bad as they are. I use my own mind, others may not agree with me and that is their right.
Can you prove that there is any writing past or present that wasn’t by or from a human. Is my words the words of God If I claimed they were?
Indeed!