After Humanism

[lemondiesel]

That was the argument used by Hitler, Stalin and other perpetrators of countless atrocities…

They exploited and abused the philosophical pure Communist state. When everyone is taken care of equally, there will be no need for torture and punishment. It will only be forgiveness and compassion.

That which is laid down in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

And what do you do in your day to day life to ensure that these Human Rights reach everyone? Perhaps you would like to read my thread, “Religion – A Contemporary View” which was shunned on this forum. Why? Because some take their American lives and freedoms for granted while around the world people are being denied theirs.

 

[lemondiesel]

If your ideals change “as our knowledge and understandings change”, then they can never be considered as “objective”. If they aren’t objective, they must be subjective. After all, “understanding” is a very subjective concept.

Example: Man (time period) Middle Aged Man (time period) Married middle aged Man (time period) divorced middle aged Man (time period) divorced middle aged Man with adopted kids (time period) Divorced Father.

Apply that method to ideals

So the belief system is not compulsory. Correct?

Why would it be? I am not going to force my beliefs on to you, your own beliefs are your own choosing.

What you write here suggests that the knowledge is objectively arrived at.

Yes, but we also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experiences. (which also are continuously changing) Our knowledge is always subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Has evolution stopped? If not, then humans have no fixed nature and it is forever changing.

Not quite sure what you are trying to prove with this, as I never said humans were done changing. We are fixed within nature because Mother Nature changes us.

Ideals? Do you mean the “ethical values” you wrote of? Well, they are arrived at through testing 'experience", so they are subjectively based and relative and constantly changing as human nature “evolves”, according to what you wrote

I mean that Life’s fulfillment comes when we aim for possible development and live our lives with some deep sense of purpose; which I personally find in the wonder, awe, and beauty of human existence, along with the challenges and large tragedies that many experience. Life is fulfilled when you rely on rich heritage of human culture, while providing comfort during times of want and giving encouragement during times of plenty.

Social yes, but an individuals experience of social relationships is a subjective one. And relative.

Yes but as a Humanist, I strive for a world of mutual care and concern, where differences are resolved by cooperation. Joining different individualities enriches our lives, and it encourages us to share this enrichment with others. (With peace, justice, and opportunity)

Utilitarianism. Or a gross assumption about the altruism of individuals.

Not everyone is capable of unselfishness.

Does “humanity”, (which is a collective noun) have a common “ideal”? Or is it a social construct? Or do single human entities have their own ideals? To which do you give preference? If there is no common human ideal, then to suggest that one is achievable is to foist a social construct onto people. To do so contradicts the point you made about non-compulsion.

Everyone has their own ideals. Humanity rests on cooperation of these ideals. Together, the Good Life comes into existence.

Seems like a mish mash of philosophical analysis is required to sort this “manifesto” out.

And the same can’t be said about your beliefs? Philosophical analysis is the key to knowledge, do you find problem in using it?

It is, basically, a relativistic, subjectivist approach to arriving at “ideals”, based on nothing more than human experience. Human experience is, after all, relative and subjective.

It is an approach to understanding that there are no inequalities, unless you choose to make one.

EDIT: (for tonyrey and who ever else)
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=494128

 

[tonyrey]

They exploited and abused the philosophical pure Communist state. When everyone is taken care of equally, there will be no need for torture and punishment. It will only be forgiveness and compassion.

Who ensures everyone is taken care of equally? The principle of equality protects the individual from being tortured and executed if they are supposed to be “endangering the flow of the Commonwealth”. The Commonwealth exists for the sake of its members…

And what do you do in your day to day life to ensure that these Human Rights reach everyone? Perhaps you would like to read my thread, “Religion – A Contemporary View” which was shunned on this forum. Why? Because some take their American lives and freedoms for granted while around the world people are being denied theirs.

I treat others as human beings created in the image of God, not strange freaks of nature who have appeared on this planet for no reason or purpose. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are manmade conventions unless we are truly brothers and sisters with one Father in heaven. The only adequate explanation of our capacity for love is that it reflects the power and love of our Creator for everyone revealed in the teaching, life, death and Resurrection of Jesus…

 

[lemondiesel]

Who ensures everyone is taken care of equally?

The people. I am fast tracking in time to when my citizens all strive for equality.

The principle of equality protects the individual from being tortured and executed if they are supposed to be “endangering the flow of the Commonwealth”.

I am not torturing the innocent, and I am not executing to show an example. If it pleases you, I will just say that anyone who endangers the flow of our Commonwealth will be banned from it. Allowing them to go participate in other if they wish.

The only adequate explanation of our capacity for love is that it reflects the power and love of our Creator for everyone revealed in the teaching, life, death and Resurrection of Jesus…

My thoughts are that our capacity for love be based on the realization of the Beauty of human existence.

 

[John21652]

Paragraph #2
How isn’t God being an ultimate Judge totalitarian? We were created in his image, we are like him, why not use his same method of rule?

Firstly, if you are espousing Humanism, you can’t use God as any type of example. According to your philosophy, He simply doesn’t exist. If you wish to use someone or something as Totalitarion, you can’t look outside the human experience, which is how Humanism works. Therefore, your role models here should be Stalin, or Hitler, or maybe Mao.

However, being of a Christian faith and believing in God, I will say this. God gives us free will. How you use it is entirely up to you. He does not interfere in the use of that free will. He gave us a few basic rules, which we call the Ten Commandments and later He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to help with a few more guidlines regarding our use of that free will. God does, though, judge you on how you have used that free will, but only after you have ceased being able to use it. Therefore, judgement is after the fact. You also have to have been pretty bad, as for example being one who broke the basic rules and then not saying sorry, to recieve really harsh punishment. Compare that to earthly totalitarians who are extremely and whimsically prescriptive about how and what you do. The best of them could even punish you before any act, as they did under Stalin! These earthly totalitarians are very likely to admonish you very severely at any point in your life and even give themselves the power to end your life as and when they see fit.

So, as a humanist and an atheist, you need to rephrase your question and ask “why not use this same earthly method for ruling?”.

 

[tonyrey]

Who

What guarantee do you have that** all **will strive for equality?

The principle of equality protects the individual from being tortured and executed if they are supposed to be “endangering the flow of the Commonwealth”.

I am not torturing the innocent, and I am not executing to show an example. If it pleases you, I will just say that anyone who endangers the flow of our Commonwealth will be banned from it. Allowing them to go participate in other if they wish.

Not for one moment did I think you would torture or execute anyone but the history tells us that sooner or later some one in power will do precisely that.

The only adequate explanation of our capacity for love is that it reflects the power and love of our Creator for everyone

• revealed in the teaching, life, death and Resurrection of Jesus…

My thoughts are that our capacity for love be based on the realization of the Beauty of human existence.

I agree with you. Our realization and the Beauty of human existence reflect the power and love of our Creator!

 

[lemondiesel]

What guarantee do you have that** all **will strive for equality?

You, tonyrey, have experienced God. Because of this, you let nothing come in the way of your beliefs, because you have experienced His pure essense and Goodness. You know that nothing compares to Him.

Once my State is achieved, it will follow this fashion, for all.

Not for one moment did I think you would torture or execute anyone but the history tells us that sooner or later some one in power will do precisely that.

Fair enough, I can’t argue.

 

[lemondiesel]

Firstly, if you are espousing Humanism, you can’t use God as any type of example. According to your philosophy, He simply doesn’t exist. If you wish to use someone or something as Totalitarion, you can’t look outside the human experience, which is how Humanism works. Therefore, your role models here should be Stalin, or Hitler, or maybe Mao.

I use the term “God” as a means to express a perfect ideal. This perfect ideal shows that Stalin and Hitler abused their power, otherwise who would I compare them to?

 

[John21652]

I use the term “God” as a means to express a perfect ideal. This perfect ideal shows that Stalin and Hitler abused their power, otherwise who would I compare them to?

Other people!

As a Humanist you don’t believe in God in any way, shape or form. Therefore you cannot use Him as any sort of example. Humanism accepts no higher authprity than man himself. Your “perfect ideal” must therefore come from amongst the human race.
So, off you go and start again.

You could try Jesus Christ. After all he was human too!!

 

[lemondiesel]

You could try Jesus Christ. After all he was human too!!

I view the human side of Jesus to resemble ways of how to live in society. His God aspect is how we can live in society and pass away with true happiness, knowing we were friends to all. Both of these are expressed simultaneously in Jesus’ teachings. This is the “perfect ideal” I wish to achieve. The term “God” to me is nothing more than our rational conscious, but sometimes we need to be reminded of how to use it properly.

 

[John21652]

I view the human side of Jesus to resemble ways of how to live in society. His God aspect is how we can live in society and pass away with true happiness, knowing we were friends to all. Both of these are expressed simultaneously in Jesus’ teachings. This is the “perfect ideal” I wish to achieve. The term “God” to me is nothing more than our rational conscious, but sometimes we need to be reminded of how to use it properly.

Well said.

So Jesus Christ can be your leadership role model for your humanistic society.
Ok that I can accept. So, out with the canvas, pick up your brush and start painting and let’s see where you take us. First up; is Jesus President, Prime Minister, or Treasurer? Or a dictator?

 

[lemondiesel]

A monarch

 

[tonyrey]

You, tonyrey, have experienced God. Because of this, you let nothing come in the way of your beliefs, because you have experienced His pure essense and Goodness. You know that nothing compares to Him.

Once my State is achieved, it will follow this fashion, for all.

We all experience God, often without being aware of the fact. Without His presence we wouldn’t even exist but we are usually too preoccupied with what He has created - either ourselves, others or things…

 

[lemondiesel]

We all experience God, often without being aware of the fact. Without His presence we wouldn’t even exist but we are usually too preoccupied with what He has created - either ourselves, others or things…

This may seem off topic, but this statement brings up a question that I believe you have the ability to answer.

Do you think change is needed when rituals themselves overpower who the ritual is honoring?

 

[John21652]

A monarch

An absolute Monarch? With the power to lop heads off?
Or maybe a Constitutional Monarch?

 

[John21652]

This may seem off topic, but this statement brings up a question that I believe you have the ability to answer.

Do you think change is needed when rituals themselves overpower who the ritual is honoring?

How can a ritual which is honoring someone overpower them?

 

[lemondiesel]

How can a ritual which is honoring someone overpower them?

I mean if the ritual becomes more important than what it is actually being honored. I mean that is really my only problem with religion, which is why I have resorted to being Humanist.

An absolute Monarch? With the power to lop heads off?
Or maybe a Constitutional Monarch?

No, because even Jesus turned that kind of power down from the devil himself. A constitutional Monarch perhaps.

 

[John21652]

I mean if the ritual becomes more important than what it is actually being honored. I mean that is really my only problem with religion, which is why I have resorted to being Humanist.

Can I suggest that if ritual has become more honoured than what is being honoured, then the fault lies with those who practice the ritual. Agreed? If so, then what is supposed to be honoured is still valid and worth honouring. Correct? So then, how do you explain that you turn away from that which is supposed to be honoured, even though it is still valid and worthy of being honoured, when the fault lies with those practicing the rituals of honour?

No, because even Jesus turned that kind of power down from the devil himself. A constitutional Monarch perhaps.

Ok then, a Constitutional Monarch and Jesus Christ is it. The trouble with a Constitutional Monarchy, of course, is that the Monarch is just a figurehead, with that figurehead’s powers devolved, according to a Constitution, to others, such as Prime Ministers and Presidents and Houses of Parliament. Therefore, if you go down this path, you have stripped Jesus Christ of most of his power, if not all of it. Even if he were able to work the odd miracle every now and then, He might be subject to sanction, depending on the wording of the Constitution! You would have to ask, with such a system in place, do you really need someone of the calibre of Jesus Christ in the position of Monarch? Seems like a waste of talent to me.