Our Humanity, Naturally

Well stated Dave! I seem them as two sides of the same coin (reality). Athiesm is a limited term, but the real thrust behind it is a critical decontruction of false beliefs and values compared to real evidence. Humanism, is a like-wise limited term, but speaks to the constructive side of basing beliefs and values from reality and understanding the human condition.

Humanism is the invention of Catholic philosophers.

What you're doing is throwing away the baby, but trying to hold on to the bathwater.

Atheism might be enough if having sex with feces is enough. For a surprise, do a search: First Scandal.

I lost faith after "warrented" (in this article)

It is hard to get excited about humanists and their manifesto when they are just standing on the shoulders of atheists . All one has to do is read both the Atheists and Humanists literature. Atheists rairly use the words should and ought. Humanists messages are peppered with them to the point one feels "preached at". Atheists realize morals are not universal and morals changes constantly.

God says that He will tear to pieces the nation that forgets Him. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

Thanks for deleting half the comments....

Have you read 'The most awesome spirit story you'll ever read'?

It was regarding the experience of skeptic Dr. Nevill Whyman in 1926 and was the basis for his book 'Psychic Adventures in New York'.

Atheism/humanism would be more appealing if not for stories like these that surface continuously.

I am beginnjing to believe that what we consider to be 'supernatural' is not supernatural at all. If these experiences are true, then the 'supernatural' is 'natural', and the reality we find ourselves in is the 'supernatural' because it is real, but is not 'reality'.

Yes, this involves a major suspension of beliefs, but in the light of such compelling evidence it seems we aren`t left with much of a choice. These events just should not happen if there was nothing more.

To embrace atheism/humanism I would need to reject this story and other incredible stories and I have no reason to do so lest I manufacture an explaination. I am not so rigid in my beliefs as to do that.

Cheers.

Have you read 'The most awesome spirit story you'll ever read'?

It was regarding the experience of skeptic Dr. Nevill Whyman in 1926 and was the basis for his book 'Psychic Adventures in New York'.

Atheism/humanism would be more appealing if not for stories like these that surface continuously.

I am beginnjing to believe that what we consider to be 'supernatural' is not supernatural at all. If these experiences are true, then the 'supernatural' is 'natural', and the reality we find ourselves in is the 'supernatural' because it is real, but is not 'reality'.

Yes, this involves a major suspension of beliefs, but in the light of such compelling evidence it seems we aren`t left with much of a choice. These events just should not happen if there was nothing more.

To embrace atheism/humanism I would need to reject this story and other incredible stories and I have no reason to do so lest I manufacture an explaination. I am not so rigid in my beliefs as to do that.

Cheers.

Everything has to do with loving and not loving. - Rumi

Christians are close when they said/say, God is love. They see LOVE is whats important. They don't see that there's no god because they don't understand the realities of our humanity.

Love is and will be enough. It's just not what we're thinking of.

Peace, joy and love to everyone! :)

The whole problem with athiesm is it is an absolute. That makes it a belief system, and all belief systems are inherently evil( define evil as a force against truth) because they blinder the believer from truth.

Define God as the highest possible form of life then theoretically life evolved to infinitety equals God. While you may say thats not possible, but with the expanding contracting universe, quantum and relativity theories, no one can say for certain. Infinity is a concept but it is real when calculating limits in calculus. Evolution is real. The universe exists. the universe has life. the universe was one mass of energy. If it contracts back again where does the life that evolved for a trillion years go? to the next bubble universe?

That said, humans will not evolve unless we adopt humanist values. I am a humanist but not neccessarily an atheist. That said, I do know that God can not be here right now because God has to be the ending not the beginning. If we have freewill then God can not know everything until only one lifeform exists and knows everything.

Or we are living on the thumbnail of a giant!

Atheism is hardly relevant to Humanism. Atheism rests on a proposition about the existence of something. That is a matter for metaphysical inquiry.

Humanism is an ethical process through which we can all move above and beyond the divisive particulars of metaphysical assertions and denials.

As an ethical process, Humanism has no need for interest in assertion or denial of the existence of things unless these impact questions of what is good or evil.

The Humanist Manifestos (1933, 1973, 2003) do not even mention nor discuss the existence or gods or other alleged entities. Why should they? Humanism shows the way to understanding and living by ethics without reliance on or reference to the existence of supernaturalisms.

This blog states a humanist..."rejects all supernatural beliefs, not just the singular issue of divinities.". It then goes on to say that not all humanists are atheists. Aren't these two elements of your description of humanism incongruent?

"Atheist" is a statement about the existence of something. That is metaphysics.

Humanism is not about metaphysics. Humanism is about ethics, how to live right, what is good and what is evil. These are human concerns about human behavior. Humanism is an ethical process through which we can rise above and beyond the divisive dogmas and particular claims of older religions.

Humanists look to what the consequences will be when choices are made, and learn from experience. Humanists have no reason to be interested in the existence or non-existence of unicorns, leprechauns, trolls, pixies, elves or gods.

Consider: Suppose tomorrow morning you woke up to find absolute undeniable proof for the existence of mermaids, angels and God. What different choices would you make for the rest of the day? If the existence of God would make any difference to you then maybe you should ask what, and why.
.

Thanks for pointing out the differences between a lack of belief and Humanism. The first and most influential Humanist was Shakyamuni Buddha. He was a believer in non-superstitious and non-materialist faith. The first "Spiritual Scientist."

As we know, State Atheism, without Humanism, was responsible for the great democides of the 20th century. Prime examples are the Soviet Union, China, Tibet and Cambodia. Nothing is more important than the humanistic value of freedom of religion. The freedom to believe or unbelieve.

So much of Atheism is not far evolved from an adolescent rebellion against Christianity. As a teenage unbeliever, I come to understand this during my college years, when I discovered Carl Jung, Herman Hesse and Joseph Campbell. I realized that my conflict was not with faith, but with the dead bureaucracy of The Church.

Albert Eisenstein said it well:

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

Religion and Science
http://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/science_cosmicreligion.htm

Thanks for pointing out the differences between a lack of belief and Humanism. The first and most influential Humanist was Shakyamuni Buddha. He was a believer in non-superstitious and non-materialist faith. The first "Spiritual Scientist."

As we know, State Atheism, without Humanism, was responsible for the great democides of the 20th century. Prime examples are the Soviet Union, China, Tibet and Cambodia. Nothing is more important than the humanistic value of freedom of religion. The freedom to believe or unbelieve.

So much of Atheism is not far evolved from an adolescent rebellion against Christianity. As a teenage unbeliever, I come to understand this during my college years, when I discovered Carl Jung, Herman Hesse and Joseph Campbell. I realized that my conflict was not with faith, but with the dead bureaucracy of The Church.

Albert Eisenstein said it well:

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

Religion and Science
http://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/science_cosmicreligion.htm