Comments on: Humanist hypocrisy

By: LeaT

LeaT — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:58:44 +0000

It is not fighting against the idea, but fighting the ideas of these people who believe in this idea represent, such as making abortion illegal and that kind of things.

By: ???

??? — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:31:54 +0000

How can us as humans really know what God is really like? If he's really superior then our thoughts or ideas can't really define him, so I find that point somewhat pointless. It would be a paradox in the mind of the created, and not the creator. As for humanism, if they really dnt believe in a God or anything then what's the point in fighting down that idea? It's like something else is going on with all that as far as I know because how come they need to be so passionate to make a stand against a God they don't believe in unless it's some kind of attack against that God himself…Then wouldn't that be like an anti-God movement instead of like a philosophy? That in itself is a religion the way I see it.

By: jorrizza

jorrizza — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:40:17 +0000

If a higher being would be all knowing, the second law of thermodynamics dictates such a being cannot possibly exist. Being all knowing in a physical realm would take an entity larger than everything (see Turing, a.o.), and for it to interact with this universe to be a part of it as well. That's pretty much a paradox. So, I ask you, how do you reconcile your belief in a supreme being with the second law of thermodynamics?

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:40:21 +0000

Well, this was just the Humanist Movement, the one I believe with American roots. It remains quite unclear though, there's a lot of propaganda on the site but very little explains anything about the actual humanists behind it.

Well, so do Christians, if you get me. The primary common idea is the faith in god and Jesus, at least if you just look at the Christian group as a whole, without starting to look into each subgroup.

Anyway, I still remain my stance that I will not call myself a humanist regardless whether I fit the "criteria", simply because of how I dislike the term I find it ill-chosen, understandable, just like feminism, but ill-chosen nevertheless.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:37:42 +0000

Yes, I am well-aware that defining religion is tricky I think it can be argued a bit also whether the idea of the inner human strength is metaphysical in its origin, because where exactly does the strength come from? Sure, we say it comes from the human, but exactly what the "strength" is isn't as easy to define. While I am sure many would disagree with me implying that it may have a metaphysical concept tied to it, I also believe it's a bit intellectually unjust not considering such an origin, since the idea seems to pertain more of say, psychological or mental empowerment, but it is not done through psychology. At least I don't know any humanist that actively use psychological methods to feel mentally stronger. Anyway, I suppose it might be a bit of a nitpicking on definitions there.
EDIT

To clarify, the site is trying to aggressively recruit new members as I understood it, and used a very condescending tone towards religious people, regardless of how religious they were, treating them all like they would be fundamentalists. I don't mind that they are trying to spread information, but it they made it sound like we are being invaded by religious nutcases which is certainly not the case. While it's true that Islam is spreading, Islam is not stronger than Christianity, yet they emphasized Christianity as the biggest threat, or so was in my impression. I would've understand this better if it was an American site, and while I understand that the humanist movement got American roots, Sweden is not USA, yet they sounded like it was.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:34:28 +0000

I don't understand what you are trying to say either… And I certainly don't see how it is related to my post

By: db0

db0 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:53:00 +0000

Yeah, what exactly do you mean? You surely do not mean to imply that the earth should decay do you?

By: Waldheri

Waldheri — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:02:46 +0000

As someone who has actually studied thermodynamics I would like to ask you what you're talking about.

P.S.: You can just call it the second law of thermodynamics. Kthnxbye.

By: Scott R.

Scott R. — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:12:21 +0000

As a Mormon Christian I would like to ask how you reconcile the Physics Law of Entropy (ie without organized energy everything tends to decay) with your lack of belief in a higher being?

By: jorrizza

jorrizza — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:59:37 +0000

Humanism isn't that easily defined. It's more like a way of thinking about things. In philosophy, humanism describes the homo-centric natural point of view, absolutely banning everything supernatural. Because of that, humanism is loosely connected to the scientific method for resolving philosophical dilemmas. Many humanists are extremely confident in the capabilities of the human race. That's why many leftist philosophers and politicians can be considered humanist.

As I've said, humanism can't be easily defined. The most prominent humanist movement is secular humanism, which I've just described. But during the past few decades a new form of, mostly American, humanism appeared. This new movement describes how people need religious activities, and a new form of humanism could provide these without introducing new supernatural dogma. It's even related to modern Satanism, which incorporates many of it's ideas. Albert Einstein was one of the people behind the new religious humanist movement, the First Humanist Society of New York (I had to look that up), which is still active today for all I know.

As you can see, humanists, just like atheists, can't be grouped together that easily. They share some common ideas, but that's about it.