Humanism: On what basis they believe what they believe?

[Sunstone]

Religion also does not hamper humans from moving on and bettering ourselves.

Except when it does.

 

[gnostic]

There might well be things that resemble humanism in other cultures, but that still doesn't change where the Humanism we have now came from.

Humanism didn't just appear from nowhere during the enlightenment, it was simply the final step on a continuous journey: Christian humanist reformers like Erasmus, the Quaker movement, deism etc.

But you forgetting one thing, Augustus. Humanism doesn't require the belief that a deity or some deities will intervene, eg perform supernatural miracles.

Like someone said earlier in the thread (I can't remember who and it is late, and I want to go to bed, so I will keep this short), but I am paraphrasing here:

Humanists believed that humans can solve human problems, and don't require for God to do things.

Meaning, we should rely on ourselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There might well be things that resemble humanism in other cultures, but that still doesn't change where the Humanism we have now came from.

Humanism didn't just appear from nowhere during the enlightenment, it was simply the final step on a continuous journey: Christian humanist reformers like Erasmus, the Quaker movement, deism etc.

I didn't claim Humanism didn't just appear from nowhere, but that it has a number of predecessor philosophies, many of which predate Christianity and/or are found in places where Christianity was not/is not a force that drives culture. And there are no "Christian Humanists" because Humanism is a secular movement. Christians put their god above all else, Humanists put each other above all else. A Christian would say "Our Father who art in Heaven," whereas a Humanist would say something more along the lines of 'everything to everyone."

If 2 people have ideologies that make them think and act in almost the same way then I don't really see the point in considering one superior to the other based on a technicality.

It's that Humanism supports the idea that "god" is unnecessary. It's something we don't need, and for the most part it only serves to anchor and tether us to the past.

 

[Augustus]

But you forgetting one thing, Augustus. Humanism doesn't require the belief that a deity or some deities will intervene, eg perform supernatural miracles.

Like someone said earlier in the thread (I can't remember who and it is late, and I want to go to bed, so I will keep this short), but I am paraphrasing here:

Humanists believed that humans can solve human problems, and don't require for God to do things.

Meaning, we should rely on ourselves.

I'm not forgetting that, I'm aware of what Humanism is.

I'm not saying it is Christianity, I'm saying it is a godless evolution from liberal Christianity.

I imagine you believe religions evolved over time from existing beliefs rather than magically appearing out of nowhere, why is this so different?

What do you mean by "reason"? How are defining that term? And what do you see as the relationship of your definition of "reason" to "reason" as valued in humanism?

The normal definition of reason. Trying to use logic, thought and evidence aiming to reach conclusions rather than basing them on emotion, caprice, etc.

We have lofty aims and ideals, but we are fundamentally limited by our unsolvable and very human failings. Ultimately, we are not rational animals and tend towards hubris.

Reason can be every bit as harmful as a lack of reason, especially when we don't realise this fact.

[That' isn't saying reason is not useful of course, it is just not intrinsically benign or even intrinsically reasonable]

 

[Augustus]

And there are no "Christian Humanists" because Humanism is a secular movement

Small h, not big H.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

It's that Humanism supports the idea that "god" is unnecessary. It's something we don't need, and for the most part it only serves to anchor and tether us to the past.

For me this is like religious people who find fault with each other due to a tiny and insignificant doctrinal difference. If someone has 99.9% the same beliefs as you, why focus on the 0.01%?

Anyway, a bit of anchoring is not a bad thing [Of course too much can be bad also]. Few things are as dangerous as human hubris and utopianism.

 

[paarsurrey]

Lol. Try cracking open a history book and you'll see how wrong you are.

Please quote the verse of Quran that hampers humans from moving on and bettering ourselves.
Regards

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Small h, not big H.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

Christian humanism emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his social teachings and his propensity to synthesize human spirituality and materialism.
That is a very huge difference. Humanism doesn't promote any god. Christianity does.

For me this is like religious people who find fault with each other due to a tiny and insignificant doctrinal difference. If someone has 99.9% the same beliefs as you, why focus on the 0.01%?

I actually don't focus on it. But Humanism is not a Christian thing, nor is it a thing of any religion. It is very much a philosophy of "no gods, no kings, only humans."

 

[paarsurrey]

Christian humanism emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his social teachings and his propensity to synthesize human spirituality and materialism.
That is a very huge difference. Humanism doesn't promote any god. Christianity does.
I actually don't focus on it. But Humanism is not a Christian thing, nor is it a thing of any religion. It is very much a philosophy of "no gods, no kings, only humans."

Humanity and humans existed long before Humanism was invented. Why should the Atheists hijack this word and use it exclusively for "no gods, no kings, only humans."? It is just a cover over Atheism.
Regard

 

[Augustus]

But Humanism is not a Christian thing, nor is it a thing of any religion. It is very much a philosophy of "no gods, no kings, only humans."

I'm not arguing that it is a Christian thing, I'm saying it developed out of Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism and Greek philosophy). In my opinion, removing God from the equation doesn't fundamentally change that. Chemistry developed out of alchemy (with other influences), that doesn't mean chemistry is alchemy.

In your opinion, would you say there was a heavy Christian influence to the development of Humanism, or that it emerged more or less independently and could pretty much have arisen in any cultural environment?

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm not arguing that it is a Christian thing, I'm saying it developed out of Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism and Greek philosophy). In my opinion, removing God from the equation doesn't fundamentally change that. Chemistry developed out of alchemy (with other influences), that doesn't mean chemistry is alchemy.
In your opinion, would you say there was a heavy Christian influence to the development of Humanism, or that it emerged more or less independently and could pretty much have arisen in any cultural environment?

I don't think there is any new thing in Humanism. Atheism people understand that the world Atheism is meaningless, so they came up with a label that looks plausible. It is the same way as earlier they chose labels of Secularism or Communism etc, adopting some other innocent words as their labels. In fact the truthful religion already covers all the valid and merited points in them severally and or even collectively. Right?
Regards

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Humanism is nowhere near being 'objective', it is a cultural construct. It's like children arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.

'Reason' is also neither reliable nor objective. It aims to be, but humans are nowhere near intelligent enough to get even close to that target. Unfortunately, their hubris makes them think they are much smarter than they are. Neither is 'reason' intrinsically good, Soviet communism was based on 'reason' as was scientific racialism, eugenics and the invasion of Iraq.

You seem to not know the difference of claiming to be based on reason and actually being based on reason.

If reason is correct it shatters your world view so you are of course going to claim it is subjective.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Humanity and humans existed long before Humanism was invented. Why should the Atheists hijack this word and use it exclusively for "no gods, no kings, only humans."? It is just a cover over Atheism.
Regard

I am not an atheist, yet I promote Humanism. Just because you don't like or agree with religion doesn't mean you are an atheist. And there was no word hijacking. Humanism is not a hijacked word, but a term that builds off the root word, which is human. It's especially hard to argue that because in years past, when we were far more religious, you don't find terms like "humanity/humans," but you find "men/mankind." Even into the mid to mid-to-late part of the 20th century we still say things like "man" as a general term to describe humans.

 

[paarsurrey]

I am not an atheist, yet I promote Humanism. Just because you don't like or agree with religion doesn't mean you are an atheist. And there was no word hijacking. Humanism is not a hijacked word, but a term that builds off the root word, which is human. It's especially hard to argue that because in years past, when we were far more religious, you don't find terms like "humanity/humans," but you find "men/mankind." Even into the mid to mid-to-late part of the 20th century we still say things like "man" as a general term to describe humans.

It is the same thing as man:
human (adj.)
mid-15c., humain, humaigne, "human," from Old French humain, umain (adj.) "of or belonging to man" (12c.), from Latin humanus "of man, human," also "humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized." This is in part from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally "earthling, earthly being," as opposed to the gods (see homunculus). Compare Hebrew adam "man," from adamah "ground." Cognate with Old Lithuanian zmuo (accusative zmuni) "man, male person."

Human interest is from 1824. Human rights attested by 1680s; human being by 1690s. Human relations is from 1916; human resources attested by 1907, American English, apparently originally among social Christians and based on natural resources.
human (n.)
"a human being," 1530s, from human (adj.). Its Old English equivalent, guma, survives only in disguise in bridegroom.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=human
My humble submission is that Atheism has been looking for good and appealing and attractive words to be meaningful to use just as a cover/label, else it is the same thing.
There is no valid merit in any form of Atheism (be it Agnosticism/Communism/Secularism/Skepticism etc or whatever), which already does not exist in the truthful Religion.
Any body to mention just one such merit with consensus.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Humanism didn't just appear from nowhere during the enlightenment, it was simply the final step on a continuous journey

Humanism can be found or allude to as early as in the play Heracles by Euripides.

After Heracles slaughtered his own 3 sons, because the goddess Hera inflicted madness upon him, the Athenian hero Theseus came to comfort the distraught hero that the gods had caused this so tragedy, so Theseus advised Heracles that the gods don't really care about humans and are also cause of so many problems, so people should rely on each other.

Theseus is not so much as saying don't believe in the gods, just don't depends on them in time of crisis.

In the Book of Job, God play a sick game, a wager to see how much suffering Job can take before he start questioning God.

Is a deity that play such game of wager, "dependable"?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Please quote the verse of Quran that hampers humans from moving on and bettering ourselves.
Regards

I can't be bothered listing verses again when I've listed them elsewhere. In general, I mean any verse that's used as justification for repressing other religions, for killing or repressing non-Muslims and subjugating them. I'm talking about verses that you and others might argue are 'used out of context' or have had their true, deeper meaning corrupted for a more literal interpretation. For example, the verses you might say are used to justify defensive war are being used by Islamic terrorists as justification for attacking non-Muslims and enslaving them as Islamic State are doing - the whole "Take the pagans and slay them where you find them. Drive them out of the places they have driven you out from."

I know I'm probably mashing verses together there but it's just an example of the sort of tone of the verses I'm talking about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is the same thing as man:
human (adj.)
mid-15c., humain, humaigne, "human," from Old French humain, umain (adj.) "of or belonging to man" (12c.), from Latin humanus "of man, human," also "humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized." This is in part from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally "earthling, earthly being," as opposed to the gods (see homunculus). Compare Hebrew adam "man," from adamah "ground." Cognate with Old Lithuanian zmuo (accusative zmuni) "man, male person."

Human interest is from 1824. Human rights attested by 1680s; human being by 1690s. Human relations is from 1916; human resources attested by 1907, American English, apparently originally among social Christians and based on natural resources.
human (n.)
"a human being," 1530s, from human (adj.). Its Old English equivalent, guma, survives only in disguise in bridegroom.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=human

The word human isn't a new word, but it is new that we see it widely used. Man has been used, not because it actually does mean the same, but only because it's believed it could mean the same given the status of women was low enough that they could just accept that men are higher than them, high enough that their gender is the word/gender to describe all of humanity.

My humble submission is that Atheism has been looking for good and appealing and attractive words to be meaningful to use just as a cover/label, else it is the same thing.
There is no valid merit in any form of Atheism (be it Agnosticism/Communism/Secularism/Skepticism etc or whatever), which already does not exist in the truthful Religion.
Any body to mention just one such merit with consensus.
Regards

For one, communism isn't inherently atheistic (the earliest Christians lived in Communist communes), agnostics can be theist, atheists, or neither, but a valid merit of the views that do not uphold a god is they believe in our own capabilities and that we don't need god. We are growing up as a species, and though there is nothing wrong with believing in a god, we shouldn't have to rely on this god as a child relies on their parents. Secular views also allow for more freedoms, because it forces no one to be bound to the morality of a religion they don't believe in. Because it's not expected that an ancient book will govern your life, secularism frees people to make more choices, and evaluate things for themselves rather than having to accept what a religion tells them.

 

[Augustus]

You seem to not know the difference of claiming to be based on reason and actually being based on reason.

This is precisely the point I was making.

I am sceptical of human reason as we are collectively pretty dumb animals.What we think at the time is reasonable, often turns out not to be.

If reason is correct it shatters your world view so you are of course going to claim it is subjective.

If humans collectively are capable of being reasonable, I agree with you. It would shatter my [non-religious] worldview.

One of the few things we can reasonably assert about the human condition is our collective inability to be reasonable.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
My humble submission is that Atheism has been looking for good and appealing and attractive words to be meaningful to use just as a cover/label, else it is the same thing.
There is no valid merit in any form of Atheism (be it Agnosticism/Communism/Secularism/Skepticism etc or whatever), which already does not exist in the truthful Religion.
Any body to mention just one such merit with consensus.

For one, communism isn't inherently atheistic (the earliest Christians lived in Communist communes), agnostics can be theist, atheists, or neither, but a valid merit of the views that do not uphold a god is they believe in our own capabilities and that we don't need god. We are growing up as a species, and though there is nothing wrong with believing in a god, we shouldn't have to rely on this god as a child relies on their parents. Secular views also allow for more freedoms, because it forces no one to be bound to the morality of a religion they don't believe in. Because it's not expected that an ancient book will govern your life, secularism frees people to make more choices, and evaluate things for themselves rather than having to accept what a religion tells them.

Human beings do err, it is inbuilt in us. Don't we?
If one human being could make one mistake, collectively we could make more mistakes. And it is a fact that collectively we make mistakes. Don't we?
So G-d is needed by the human beings more now than in the past. Right?
Your argument is not ,therefore, correct.
Regard

 

[icehorse]

paarsurrey said: ↑
My humble submission is that Atheism has been looking for good and appealing and attractive words to be meaningful to use just as a cover/label, else it is the same thing.
There is no valid merit in any form of Atheism (be it Agnosticism/Communism/Secularism/Skepticism etc or whatever), which already does not exist in the truthful Religion.
Any body to mention just one such merit with consensus.

Human beings do err, it is inbuilt in us. Don't we?
If one human being could make one mistake, collectively we could make more mistakes. And it is a fact that collectively we make mistakes. Don't we?
So G-d is needed by the human beings more now than in the past. Right?
Your argument is not ,therefore, correct.
Regard

For the sake of argument, let's say I believed in God (which I don't). In that case, which interpretation of which scripture should I use? Because that's really the only word of God correct? We certainly don't want to trust the interpretations of clergy!!

 

[paarsurrey]

For the sake of argument, let's say I believed in God (which I don't). In that case, which interpretation of which scripture should I use? Because that's really the only word of God correct? We certainly don't want to trust the interpretations of clergy!!

There is no need of any clergy whatsoever to understand Quran. One could read it and understand it correctly.
Regards