A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto

You seem to acknowledge that your fears are irrational, bravo!

I wish I could be so optimistic, but I am haunted by the beliefs that I adopted which said that in the so-called End Times people would reject organized religion and embrace just this sort of philosophy. A character known as the AntiChrist would then come to power and cause living hell for 7 years or so before Jesus came back and took names...correcting the evil attempt at dominance. Im not sure exactly what I believe regarding end times any more.

If you view the bible as simply an ancient code of living, authority and law, it is plain to see that the end times dogma is just an empty threat. Likewise with hell, threaten the people to ensure they are good little believers. It's no wonder they found that religious people are more responsive to fear.

If jar is right and Original Sin was only a made-up con job than this statement will work. Otherwise we are headed for trouble.

And if I am right, original sin is largely responsible for our apparently greedy etc, nature. If you tell everyone as children that humans are bad and greedy, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Epigenetic effects and the way our brains are wired throughout our growth determine our personalities to a far greater extent than genetics alone.

Finally, even though i am a dogmatic obstructionist at heart, I am one of the better ones...for I am smarter than most of them. I worry about what the Biblical Christians will do when faced with the possibility of such a world.

I agree with the former, but would add that I think it has more to do with allowing yourself to think freely, than brute intelligence.

If a world govt system is put in place by the current mob of plutocrats, under the same financial system, I will not welcome it either.

Faith writes: However, assuming you are right it makes an interesting bit of evidence FOR The end times,........The failure of prior predictions is a really weird one, since rather than proving the prophecies wrong it just brings us closer to their fulfillment.

Heads you win, tails I lose huh?

It's a fascinating example of confirmation bias - you find evidence for your beliefs in both the failure of prophecy and the future success of prophecy because of its failure.
Extraordinary.

Phat writes: What we worry about is the idea that god is in all of us and that an external Deity is un needed. This will prove to be a giant lie for society...to fall for this innocent and benevolent sounding altruistic belief.

Matthew 25. It's what Jesus said.

You don't have to say, "Lord! Lord!" That is unneeded.

What is needed is to be benevolent and altruistic.

Faith writes: The basic idea is that the world will be run by fallen humanity, though calling itself Christianity, and everybody is going to love the Antichrist -- except the real Christians --

I know what the fundies think. The point is that they're wrong.

It's the fundies who will follow the AntiChrist while the rest of the world gets more secular. Fundies are just itching for somebody like Ronald Reagan to take us back to the "good old days". THAT is the AntiChrist, who offers the (fundy) world easy solutions to their problems.

ringo writes: It's the fundies who will follow the AntiChrist while the rest of the world gets more secular. Fundies are just itching for somebody like Ronald Reagan to take us back to the "good old days".

I don't plan to vote for Trump. He won't get elected.

As for the yearning for the good old days, I will admit that this may be a problem for many so-called Biblical Christians. Jesus would have no problem suffering...but we do.

Phat writes: I don't plan to vote for Trump.

That's why I used Reagan as an example. When he rises from the dead, the prophecy will be fulfilled.

Phat writes: Jesus would have no problem suffering...but we do.

I don't think the humanists are promising a magical end to blood, sweat, toil and tears like some Christians are.

So which doctrines and methods do the humanists(most of whom seem to be Unitarians or atheists) find so outdated?

How about a reliance on revelation as a source of epistemic truth?
Accepting truths based on faith in authority figures?

There's lots and lots.

Are they in essence saying the universe created itself or always existed?

Neither and both.

Humanists are a diverse group, there is no singular opinion on this. In 1933 there was even less certainties than today. So they made a statement that can cover numerous possibilities, including the ones you listed but others as well. Take for example the notion that Universe simply exists and has done so for a finite amount of time.

Where do they get off on denying even so much as the possibility of a Creator?

Have you read any religious creeds/manifestos? Where do they get off affirming with no doubt that there IS a Creator?

These are the beliefs of some people. They get to have beliefs. They get to express them.

This is what I mean when I said these manifestos were arrogant!

Yes. Having an opinion about the cosmos is arrogant. How dare they issue a statement of beliefs that includes what they believe. The arrogance of having and expressing beliefs!

The only danger I see in this affirmation is to state that man is no more special or unique than any other animal.

The contrary belief (or delusion...) has fucked the planet.

How dangerous could it be to admit that we are temporal animals who are dependant on other animals/plants/others just as much as the reverse is true? We might try and live alongside our fellow animals, rather than you know, that Religious mindset of, shoot it and eat it. If it doesn't taste good, butcher it and hang bits from your wall.

We humans are super special!

Talk about arrogance.

Do they mean the substance or Cartesian dualism made popular through the teachings of Rene Descartes?

Yes.

Are they advocating Holistic Health?

No, nothing to do with health.

They are advocating monism. The idea that the mind is not made up of 'magic' or 'exotic' *something*, but instead is an emergent process of the same physical things that make up cats or dogs.

I believe that humanity is triparte

Not sure how this is meant to be a relevant point. But OK.

After all, who made the humanists any sort of final authority on belief?

They are the final authority on THEIR OWN BELIEFS. Which is what this document is about. It is not asserting truths with authority. Humanism rejects this concept.

The sad thing is, {jar} would probably agree with them {that beliefs should align with what we observe, and while religious ideas may be true, we are unable to guarantee it}

You think it is sad to have the opinion that our beliefs should not contravene our observations?

If someone formulates the religious notion of say, 'women are wicked', they are under no social obligation to...observe women's behaviour? And that if someone else points out that women's behaviour empirically falsifies the thesis, this is 'sad'?

This doesn't feel consistent with the Phat I thought I knew.

The humanists will, however someday find out that they were wrong all along. The Holy Spirit trumps any sort of scientific "spirit" mentioned.

If the Holy Spirit is true, this statement of the Humanists would not be wrong. Please read this part again

quote:

---

Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered

---

And they go on to point out that if we were to discover such things that it would be by ' intelligent inquiry'.

They have declared themselves in opposition to Theism.

Yes. They are Humanists.

They believe there is little to no utility in continuing with philosophies that propose some specific intervening deity. Whether or not any theistic view is true is irrelevant. We can't know which one is true, so engaging in theism is to engage in baseless speculation. Humanists can still believe in a god/God/gods/goddess/es but the 'time for theism' is past...its a useless branch of philosophical thought that has got us nowhere useful except as a foil for progress to argue against.

Here comes the gestapo again! The thought police outlawing any expression of worship towards the supernatural which they in their arrogance and ignorance cannot see.

No sir, its so much worse than that. What we have coming is a massive disproportionate overreaction. Oh shit, it already happened.

What they are saying here:

quote:

---

In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

---

Is that they believe that you do not need to believe in the supernatural to experience 'religious experiences/emotions'.

That's not gestapo. It's just saying that religious or numinous experiences don't require a specific religious belief. Which I would have thought was utterly uncontroversial. After all, isn't it a common story about the Atheist who has a religious experience and becomes Christian/Muslim/whatever? I can provide examples if you want.

Discouragement in fantasy is to be encouraged. To label Christian belief as fantasy, however, is going outside of their pay grade.

They didn't call out any religion. In fact all they actually said was basically 'we hope we will discourage wishful thinking'. Unless you think Christianity is intrinsically 'wishful thinking' or a 'fantasy' so you read them as talking about Christianity even when they don't mention it?

define "reconstituted".....

Well if that's difficult to understand, take a look at ISIS. Can you imagine a better way for religion and society to interact than that? Do you not thing they are a little...backward in their attitudes? Like they are at odds with living in the modern world? Wouldn't it be great if that mode of thinking could be reconstituted so that it can live in the modern world.

OK, but that's silly right?

This document was written in 1933. The year of the Catholic Church signing the Reichskonkordat {sp?}.

The Scopes Monkey trial was about a decade earlier.

The Costigan-Wagner Bill was considered HIGHLY controversial in the USA (it made allowing or participating in a lynching, illegal), religion was regularly used by both sides to shore up their arguments...entrenching positions to violent levels.

In Europe, the Catholic church would remove children from parents they deemed unfit so they would be raised by Catholics.

You really don't see the need these people might have felt to reconstitute the practices and roles of religious institutions in society?

You don't think preachers could have been been engaging in preaching more positive values and lambasting the hate rather than fanning the flames?

This is where global finance comes in to play. I am for a more fair and just world, but will not surrender my own means of survival to a centralized control so as to redistribute wealth.

You already have. Amazon doesn't pay taxes. You do. This is because we have a truly global economy with only regional controls. You live regionally and have to surrender your means of survival to centralized places called the State and Federal government. Meanwhile, large corporations should have paid millions, probably billions more to the US People. Heck, if they actually paid taxes, you could pay LESS taxes and still enjoy the same services and infrastructure!

Strange that you'd be happy in a world where the rich, who don't need the extra money, don't pay it. And you, who needs the money to live, are compelled to surrender it.

So what is it they suggest we have faith in?

Might I suggest 'the capacity of humans to solve our own problems?'

This is, however, not the fault of Jesus Christ

They didn't blame him.

This seems more realistic than the first manifesto where they sought to eliminate theism altogether!

No, they didn't. You just understood them better this time. Which makes sense. You are more closely aligned with 1970s writing than 1930s writing.

Sounds like these humanists are preaching to a friendly choir here at EvC apart from dogmatic obstructionists such as myself!

There are a lot of humanists about, Phat. My wife and I are members of the BHA, for instance.

In other words, they would deride the basic Biblical Christian assumption of Original Sin.

Just about everybody who isn't a Christian does...why would you expect Humanists to differ?

We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. I won't argue this position. Who would want to?

Like say, Nazis. Kim Jong Un/Il. Stalinism. The Catholic Church from about 300AD to erm....today. All Islam.

Basically everyone.

Inevitable, though I am not in favor of making Christianity equal with everything else

You mean you want Christians to still receive Federally approved political and social favours over non-Christians?

We'll fight you or anyone who exhibits this kind of disgusting selfishness.

My only protest here is that this is economically impossible to implement at a global level.

SO is striving for world peace. Would you protest a Christian who longed for it?

The standard of living would drop too far. I don't know what alternatives would avoid this, however.

There's no specific economic policy being proposed here. It just says we want to eliminate discrimination and look after the needy.
ISN'T THAT WHAT JESUS CHRIST SAID???? Don't just look at Matthew 22 - see Luke 10 and Matthew 25:40!

They advocate a basic new world order and one world government. I am not optimistic regarding our readiness for such a system nor our ability to govern it.

I am less optimistic regarding our readiness for a global economic system with nobody governing or regulating it. Because I've seen us in a global economic system with nobody governing or regulating it. It's a clusterfuck out there Phat, and you and I are paying to clean it up.

Great in theory...but how could they hope to turn off global violence?

It's a manifesto, it's a statement of intents, beliefs, opinions and stances. This is exactly like criticising someone for saying 'Peace on Earth!', given the meanings are exactly the same.

They don't hope to turn it off, they insist it is necessary for us to stop using violence to solve disputes. Whether we are capable of meeting our own needs, remains to be seen...

The United States won't like being displaced as global cop by a one world system.

This was written in 1973. If the United States had decided to stop pretending to be a global cop then I expect the world would be a happier place today. 30 years after WWII and the USA was still high on 'putting the world to rights' and 40 years again and they haven't stopped.

The USA alone cannot fix the world. Fixing the world will require transnational efforts. Regardless of how Nationalists in the USA feel about having less influence. Most of the world resents or despises the USAs interferences and thus most people would prefer they recognized they had already been knocked off that pedestal

Russia walked into Ukraine and the US did basically nothing. Rwanda? They aren't global police, they are corporate whores - killing for profit. Own it.

And how will terrorism suddenly go away? How will that problem be solved?

Good questions. The manifesto simply states it is necessary for us to live in harmony with one another across the world. Do you disagree? Is saying 'peace on earth and goodwill to all man' really something you want to make snarky comments about?

Comments?

It seems you agree with most of it.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I wish I could be so optimistic, but I am haunted by the beliefs that I adopted which said that in the so-called End Times people would reject organized religion and embrace just this sort of philosophy.

This is called brainwashing. If you get 'em young enough it can stick for life. But you can fight it!

A character known as the AntiChrist would then come to power and cause living hell for 7 years or so before Jesus came back and took names

Said some guy who you know nothing about who some other guys that knew less about him thought was right.

---

abe:

Incidentally this isn't Biblical. The antichrist is a concept in first and second John and refers to anyone that denies Christ. If we interpret it as an individual then the antichrist was 'already in the world.' back when the books were written.

Revelation speaks of the Beast. This is not a humanistic reign. The first beast is unbeatable in war, and everyone thought it was awesome. IF it exists today its name is USA 'The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words', 'it was given power to wage war against God’s holy people ' OF course the USA fails #All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast'. So you need a totally militaristically dominating nation that everybody worships....well we've not had that so I guess you shouldn't worry about Humanists who don't want any of that right?

OH oh, but then there was the second beast. Who gave people the mark. Hrm. That doesn't look like an imminent threat either.

That's it. There's no 'humanist-like' ideals hinted at in anything the Beast or the Anti Christ does.

---

If jar is right and Original Sin was only a made-up con job than this statement will work. Otherwise we are headed for trouble.

Why is treating each other with love and respect going to head us towards trouble? I thought that was a good idea regardless of our stance on Original Sin.

If anything at all worries me about this third manifesto, it is the idea of an interdependent one world system.

Trust Phat the Christian to take issue with someone hoping to foster a global community of man acting as a giant familial unit or 'brotherhood of man'.

If anything at all worries me about this third manifesto, it is the idea of an interdependent one world system. I am skeptical whether such a system will preserve our standard of living. I am skeptical whether or not folks will get along naturally

Naturally? No no no. It's going to be artificial. Created by man. Something we work on for decades to come. We want to make the world a friendly more familial place for everyone to live on by working hard. We don't expect everyone to just get along because we say so. We have to build the kind of world in which we will all get along. Impossible? Who knows - do you have anything better to do than building a better world for our descendants?

I am honestly fearful of throwing god away.

You don't have to. Keep him if you want. We can still learn to live in peace together. Just don't call me a gestapo member for hoping we can get along together and we'll be fine I'm sure.

Maybe one day you will lose your fear. Maybe you won't. Maybe you won't lose it, but still throw god away. Maybe you lose your fear, but keep God. Regardless let's build a better world together where what we believe about the unknowable isn't used against us.

I worry about what the Biblical Christians will do when faced with the possibility of such a world.

A world of cooperation, respect and dignity?

Maybe they'd lose their shit. But we'd hug them anyway.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Humanism is Christianity without the myth, magic and mania.

Or something like that TM.

Phat writes: Some folks believe that there are many truths. I believe there is one truth. Some folks believe that there are many ways to believe and that it is arrogant to assume that one has the correct belief if such a thing exists. Perhaps I am arrogant, but I find it hard to compromise without weakening my basic stance.

This is the type of arrogance that humanism is trying to cure humanity of. You actually think that reality conforms to your beliefs. Not only that, but you refuse to even consider that you are wrong.

Humanism takes the much more humble and logical approach of always assuming that you could be wrong, and understanding that our beliefs must conform to reality.

On top of that, religion asks its members to believe that something is immoral for the singular reason that some guy living thousands of years ago wrote in a book that it was immoral. It asks for the abdication of reason, logic, empathy, and morality in trade for obedience to authority figures and a book. Who wants that?

You actually think that reality conforms to your beliefs. Not only that, but you refuse to even consider that you are wrong.

To be honest, reality "changed" when I got saved. I know it sounds illogical and that there are ready psychological explanations for this, but I believe that I was filled with a new worldview. The church didnt brainwash this, though the teachings largely confirmed it.

Humanism takes the much more humble and logical approach of always assuming that you could be wrong, and understanding that our beliefs must conform to reality.

And this is what jar tries to teach. The reason that I dont agree with his beliefs is because he doesnt get the "saved" thing....and i confess I didnt expect it. I changed totally in one day...critics will argue that even Saul becoming Paul was a minor thing...but I am convinced that this phenomenon happens. I know you guys have the more logical argument here...objectively at least.

Phat writes: ... I believe that I was filled with a new worldview.

I changed too, when I got rid of the God baggage. I think I became a better person by taking responsibility for myself instead of using "God's will" as an excuse.

Phat writes: To be honest, reality "changed" when I got saved. I know it sounds illogical and that there are ready psychological explanations for this, but I believe that I was filled with a new worldview. The church didnt brainwash this, though the teachings largely confirmed it.

Reality doesn't change, and it certainly doesn't change to conform to our beliefs.

And this is what jar tries to teach. The reason that I dont agree with his beliefs is because he doesnt get the "saved" thing....and i confess I didnt expect it. I changed totally in one day...critics will argue that even Saul becoming Paul was a minor thing...but I am convinced that this phenomenon happens. I know you guys have the more logical argument here...objectively at least.

We get it just fine. You had an experience that has led you to believe things for which you have no evidence. You also shield yourself from doubting those beliefs, even when there is logical reasons to do so. We understand why people convince themselves to believe things.

If I told you your computer was insecure and someone could steal your bank details, or hijack your bandwidth - using your connection to illegally moving data around - you'd probably feel pretty motivated to improve security or ask someone to help you do so.

To be honest, reality "changed" when I got saved. I know it sounds illogical and that there are ready psychological explanations for this, but I believe that I was filled with a new worldview. The church didnt brainwash this, though the teachings largely confirmed it.

If I told you your mind was insecure and was vulnerable to hacking and hijacking. That people can exploit weaknesses in certain rootkits in your mind {human emotions are filled with backdoors} to manipulate the way you think, alter your perception, influence your voting, how you spend your money....likewise the normal response is to be concerned and seek to beef up security.

I know you guys have the more logical argument here...objectively at least.

The fact that you are aware that your understanding of the world, and even your own experiences, is impossible - this doesn't send any alarm bells. That's because the key to a good hack is to avoid the victim realizing the hack ever happened. You have had 'believing six impossible things before breakfast' completely normalised so it no longer feels alarming.

I don't know, but from the reports of many believers, they are aware of an alarm. They just ignore it, and get habitually used to so doing.

I changed totally in one day...critics will argue that even Saul becoming Paul was a minor thing...but I am convinced that this phenomenon happens.

It does. Epilepsy, strokes and other brain traumas regularly cause it. Many believers report that it happens to them, but this is cross-religion. It has happened to me in an atheistic context. Epiphanies and sudden changes are part of life, to an extent. Also our memories tend to be flawed and biased towards confirming certain narratives so that can exaggerate the subjective perception of things quite considerably.

Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't dispute the potency, meaning and importance subjectively of these experiences. My only issue is interpreting them as validation of a specific unverifiable belief system can only be right purely by chance.