RubySoho
Winston
Imagine A World Of Secular Humanism
November 22nd 2008 01:36
Secular Humanism is a moral philosophy concerned with reason, justice and ethics. It is a world view that champions critical thinking and rejects the idea of the supernatural and blind faith. According to the Council for Secular Humanism:
Secular Humanism is the antithesis of the common misconception of the “angry atheist”. Since Secular Humanism at its core rejects the notion of authoritarian beliefs it is erroneous and blatant defamation to claim that atheists (or nontheists as many like to call themselves), who refuse to adhere to the tenets of a religion are simply out to topple the power of religion and replace it with another, authoritarian system. Secular Humanists are just as opposed to ideological tyrannies such as Stalinism as they are to religious ones. They are not interested in control but rather in freeing humanity from the control of religious dogma. A central aspect of this philosophy is the championing of rational thought ahead of faith and superstition. According the Rationalist Society of Australia:
There are no dark and sinister plans hidden in the Rationalist and/or Secular Humanist movement. It is simply a philosophical movement that passionately believes that humans have the capacity and the means for improving their own lives and the world around them by focusing on what is tangible and what is real.
Above all Secular Humanists champion democracy. In 1980 the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism issued a declaration stating the following ideals:
Historical figures who have adhered to a secular humanist world view include Russell Bertrand and Mark Twain, but perhaps the most famous secular humanist of all was the great John Lennon. His classic song Imagine is an anthem, written in the hope that one day the world would adopt a philosophy where love, mercy and compassion come first, trumping sectarian dogma and divisions. As you can gather from the mind and mouth of John Lennon, the misconception that atheists reject morality and ignore basic human emotions is not only a ridiculous assertion, it is also as the Rationalist Society of Australia declares, “irrational!”
Please pay particular attention to the last line where Lennon declares "I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one". Note the use of the words "hope" and "join". Secular Humanists do not wish to take over the world by force, they have no desire to control and tyrannise. They simply hope that one day, humanity at large will realise the we have the capacity to improve our world and own lives by rejecting ideologies that divide us such as nationalism and religion and embracing in their stead, our own humanity and mortality and simply "living for today".
Can you imagine?
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
“we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation”.
Secular Humanism is the antithesis of the common misconception of the “angry atheist”. Since Secular Humanism at its core rejects the notion of authoritarian beliefs it is erroneous and blatant defamation to claim that atheists (or nontheists as many like to call themselves), who refuse to adhere to the tenets of a religion are simply out to topple the power of religion and replace it with another, authoritarian system. Secular Humanists are just as opposed to ideological tyrannies such as Stalinism as they are to religious ones. They are not interested in control but rather in freeing humanity from the control of religious dogma. A central aspect of this philosophy is the championing of rational thought ahead of faith and superstition. According the Rationalist Society of Australia:
"Rationalism is a movement that exists to promote the role of reason in approaching and finding solutions to the wide range of issues and problems that confront us.
Rationalism argues for a rational approach to human problem-solving, suggests reasoned alternatives to religious dogmas, defends freedom of thought and civil liberties and strives for the secularisation of politics, the education system and society in general. Its members endorse a scientific approach and work to counter superstition and promote an open and just society.
Rationalists believe that one’s beliefs and conduct should be based on a combination of experience and reason. It is to a large degree a development of the ideas and values of the eighteenth century ‘Enlightenment’.
Rationalists also believe that:
1. Reason is man’s central capacity, and it enables him not only to think, but to act, correctly.
2. An open, egalitarian and secular democracy that respects minority rights and interests and champions fairness, justice and equality maximises the probability of achieving a free and rational society.
3. A universal, free and secular education system is a basic requirement for a free, democratic and rational society.
4. Free access to information and means of communication is a basic requirement for a free, democratic and rational society.
5. Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason and evidence, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.
6. Allegedly supernatural phenomena can be explained in naturalistic terms.
Rationalism argues for a rational approach to human problem-solving, suggests reasoned alternatives to religious dogmas, defends freedom of thought and civil liberties and strives for the secularisation of politics, the education system and society in general. Its members endorse a scientific approach and work to counter superstition and promote an open and just society.
Rationalists believe that one’s beliefs and conduct should be based on a combination of experience and reason. It is to a large degree a development of the ideas and values of the eighteenth century ‘Enlightenment’.
Rationalists also believe that:
1. Reason is man’s central capacity, and it enables him not only to think, but to act, correctly.
2. An open, egalitarian and secular democracy that respects minority rights and interests and champions fairness, justice and equality maximises the probability of achieving a free and rational society.
3. A universal, free and secular education system is a basic requirement for a free, democratic and rational society.
4. Free access to information and means of communication is a basic requirement for a free, democratic and rational society.
5. Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason and evidence, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.
6. Allegedly supernatural phenomena can be explained in naturalistic terms.
There are no dark and sinister plans hidden in the Rationalist and/or Secular Humanist movement. It is simply a philosophical movement that passionately believes that humans have the capacity and the means for improving their own lives and the world around them by focusing on what is tangible and what is real.
Above all Secular Humanists champion democracy. In 1980 the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism issued a declaration stating the following ideals:
1. Free Inquiry
We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought…Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organize opposition parties and to join voluntary associations, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom. Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.
2. Separation Of Church And State
Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry. Clerical authorities should not be permitted to legislate their own parochial views - whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social - for the rest of society…Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle. Today, nontheistic as well as theistic religions compete for attention. Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views. Here we see a modern secular version of the violation of the separation principle.
3. The Ideal Of Freedom
There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. We stand not only for freedom from religious control but for freedom from jingoistic government control as well. We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our view, a free society should also encourage some measure of economic freedom, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary in the public interest. This means that individuals and groups should be able to compete in the marketplace, organize free trade unions, and carry on their occupations and careers without undue interference by centralized political control. The right to private property is a human right without which other rights are nugatory. Where it is necessary to limit any of these rights in a democracy, the limitation should be justified in terms of its consequences in strengthening the entire structure of human rights.
4. Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence
The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists. The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, to Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and others. There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual's obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral.
For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism. Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views of moral virtue and sin, sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, birth control, or abortion, or legislate them for the rest of society. As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy.
5. Moral Education
We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults. We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles.
6. Religious Skepticism
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. Symbolic and mythological interpretations of religion often serve as rationalizations for a sophisticated minority, leaving the bulk of mankind to flounder in theological confusion. We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry. We are always open to the discovery of new possibilities and phenomena in nature. However. we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation.
7. Reason
We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science. We are committed to the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth. Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction. Although not so naive as to believe that reason and science can easily solve all human problems, we nonetheless contend that they can make a major contribution to human knowledge and can be of benefit to humankind. We know of no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence.
8. Science And Technology
We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it... We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so. While we are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment, we urge resistance to unthinking efforts to limit technological or scientific advances. We appreciate the great benefits that science and technology (especially basic and applied research) can bring to humankind, but we also recognize the need to balance scientific and technological advances with cultural explorations in art, music, and literature.
9. Evolution
Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences. There may be some significant differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution; yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it. Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society. Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum. If successful, creationists may seriously undermine the credibility of science itself.
10. Education
In our view, education should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies. The aims of education are many: the transmission of knowledge; training for occupations, careers, and democratic citizenship; and the encouragement of moral growth. Among its vital purposes should also be an attempt to develop the capacity for critical intelligence in both the individual and the community.
We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought…Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organize opposition parties and to join voluntary associations, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom. Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.
2. Separation Of Church And State
Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry. Clerical authorities should not be permitted to legislate their own parochial views - whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social - for the rest of society…Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle. Today, nontheistic as well as theistic religions compete for attention. Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views. Here we see a modern secular version of the violation of the separation principle.
3. The Ideal Of Freedom
There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. We stand not only for freedom from religious control but for freedom from jingoistic government control as well. We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our view, a free society should also encourage some measure of economic freedom, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary in the public interest. This means that individuals and groups should be able to compete in the marketplace, organize free trade unions, and carry on their occupations and careers without undue interference by centralized political control. The right to private property is a human right without which other rights are nugatory. Where it is necessary to limit any of these rights in a democracy, the limitation should be justified in terms of its consequences in strengthening the entire structure of human rights.
4. Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence
The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists. The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, to Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and others. There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual's obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral.
For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism. Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views of moral virtue and sin, sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, birth control, or abortion, or legislate them for the rest of society. As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy.
5. Moral Education
We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults. We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles.
6. Religious Skepticism
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. Symbolic and mythological interpretations of religion often serve as rationalizations for a sophisticated minority, leaving the bulk of mankind to flounder in theological confusion. We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry. We are always open to the discovery of new possibilities and phenomena in nature. However. we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation.
7. Reason
We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science. We are committed to the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth. Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction. Although not so naive as to believe that reason and science can easily solve all human problems, we nonetheless contend that they can make a major contribution to human knowledge and can be of benefit to humankind. We know of no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence.
8. Science And Technology
We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it... We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so. While we are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment, we urge resistance to unthinking efforts to limit technological or scientific advances. We appreciate the great benefits that science and technology (especially basic and applied research) can bring to humankind, but we also recognize the need to balance scientific and technological advances with cultural explorations in art, music, and literature.
9. Evolution
Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences. There may be some significant differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution; yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it. Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society. Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum. If successful, creationists may seriously undermine the credibility of science itself.
10. Education
In our view, education should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies. The aims of education are many: the transmission of knowledge; training for occupations, careers, and democratic citizenship; and the encouragement of moral growth. Among its vital purposes should also be an attempt to develop the capacity for critical intelligence in both the individual and the community.
imagine...just imagine
Historical figures who have adhered to a secular humanist world view include Russell Bertrand and Mark Twain, but perhaps the most famous secular humanist of all was the great John Lennon. His classic song Imagine is an anthem, written in the hope that one day the world would adopt a philosophy where love, mercy and compassion come first, trumping sectarian dogma and divisions. As you can gather from the mind and mouth of John Lennon, the misconception that atheists reject morality and ignore basic human emotions is not only a ridiculous assertion, it is also as the Rationalist Society of Australia declares, “irrational!”
Please pay particular attention to the last line where Lennon declares "I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one". Note the use of the words "hope" and "join". Secular Humanists do not wish to take over the world by force, they have no desire to control and tyrannise. They simply hope that one day, humanity at large will realise the we have the capacity to improve our world and own lives by rejecting ideologies that divide us such as nationalism and religion and embracing in their stead, our own humanity and mortality and simply "living for today".
Can you imagine?
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
| 216 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by mistersmith
First of all, let me just get something out ... John lennon is the most overrated musical 'genius' in the history of the western world. His lyrics have no depth. Imagine sounds like it was written by a 14 year old. I was a 14 year old when I first heard that song. It sounded pathetic then and it sounds pathetic now, not idealistic. And what a whiny voice. And besides that, he was very unattractive with his beady eyes, his lank hair and his pasty complexion. His ongoing appeal is a complete mystery to me. I think it is just a reputation that continued because of the era of peace & love, blah,blah,blah. Sounds like he was sorely lacking on a personal level (and, since you also mention Bertrand Russell, he treated the women in his life very badly) Now I feel better. Thank you.
To the topic of your post. Going only on the information you have provided, I see a contradiction in the principles of Secular Humanism and that is:
It professes to be open and egalitarian yet denies the existence of the supernatural. The idea that education or policy making might be in the hands of Christian Fundamentalists (or any other religious or dogmatic group) worries me as much as any sane person but Secular Humanism certainly does not sound like the open and enquiring alternative that it professes to be. An insistence that belief can only be accepted on the basis of reason and evidence imposes dogma of a different sort.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Journeywoman
Great Hair Style Tips
I Dream of Hollywood
Fashion Peach
And for what it's worth, I love John Lennon's 'Imagine'. I don't think it's childlike as mistersmith said - it's succinct. It's an uplifting song, because it gives hope for the possibility of a different future.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
great summary!
when the USA tried to deport John Lennon he declared himself a citizen of his own nation Nutopia
http://www.joinnutopia.com/
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by CraigH
Legal Herald
Australian Constituency
Sights of Dubai
Film Peek
Australian Tales
We seem to have settled on democracy as the only way of life. It is interesting to remember that Plato, in his "five regimes" philosophy, stated that democracy is the fourth regime, one step above tyranny. Plato also states that the lower levels are degenerations from the highest level, monarchy.
It is a basic principle of social psychology that people want to be led. Even leaders look to a higher leader. Maybe this is where religion comes in handy - the unseeable supreme being to take the blame for harsh laws of earthly rulers.
Imagine is a great song, and Lennon a great and inspirational man of peace.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Hi Mistersmith, well it's ok if you don't find Lennon sexually attractive, i don't either and i won't say he is one of my favourite musicians. But i don't underestimate his impact on the musical world either. I think Imagine is more notable for its forthright declarations of atheism rather than the cleverness of its lyrics. Reading and hearing about atheism is fairly common now but back then, it was still pretty rare. It was supposed to be a simple song. I won't go into much detail on Bertrand Russell except to say that sometimes you have to separate the personal from the professional. Roman Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl and there is still a warrant for his arrest in America. He also makes great films.
About your comment:
Why is that dogmatic? Isn't that how science works? Isn't that how the law works? Isn't that how education works?
Hi Ahmed, Secular Humanism isn't really an ideology, it's a philosophy. Not all Secular Humanists have the exact same set of beliefs as you would expect in an ideology. Some are atheists, some are agnostic, some are rationalists, some are skeptics. Also, even if it were an ideology, there is one key difference- they don't approve of
the use of force and they welcome differing opinions. They only ask for the right to scrutinise and criticise these opinions.
Comment by mistersmith
his own wisdom. And as for Lennon being a man of peace: I read that he beat up his wife and barely took any interest in his first child. Ono was the interesting one and by all accounts he could barely function without her, except when he got another Asian woman to prop him up.That love&peace thing fiizzled out pretty quickly so I am undoubtedly remembering a sense of resentment towards those bloody hippies. My hopes dashed, or something like that. Then, as much as now, it was about how things looked; what was in fashion.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Thanks Morgan! Nutopia? Can I move there?
Hi Jeff, what you say is true, and I intend to support my position very vigorously!
Hi CraigH, I agree with your assessment here:
I also think it was Winston Churchill who said "democracy is the worst form of government- apart from every other that has been tried".
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Dress it up as you want, it's like that post modernism crap, 'it's not a theory, it's... INSERT SOMETHING ODD'
I could just as well argue religion isn't an ideology, it's a way of life.
Name one religion, or heck, ideology, which contains followers who think exactly the same way.
There are like countless different sects in Islam, Judaism, Chrsitianity, Buddhism and many different kinds of democracies.
the use of force and they welcome differing opinions
Not like I haven't heard this for virtually every ideology in existence. People don't seem to realize how passively aggressive they are, believe it or not but saying 'church and state MUST be seperate' is the equivalent of dismissing and being aggressive towards people who think it should be acceptable.
Differing opinions are only ever welcomed when they belong to the same denomination within the same ideology if even that. Otherwise they are casually dismissed for blanket and ambiguous reasons 'it's unconstitutional', 'it's illogical', 'you're illogical therefore I don't need to care about addressing your opinion' and so on and so forth.
Who doesn't?
Comment by mistersmith
I perceive an education that is based on reason and evidence as being narrow in the extreme. And contrary to imagining a free unshackled new world where religion no longer dictates action, the picture that springs into my mind when read about Secular Humanism is those very strict Christian sects that promoted hard work and banned idols (which they saw as evil) I see the word 'deny' That is enough.
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
I was brought up a Christian - Roman Catholic to be exact. Although I could not regard myself as a "practicing Catholic" I am happy that I was brought up being able to differentiate right from wrong and all the other morals that came with it.
At the same time, I believe that all other religions have their place and certainly many people in the world need to believe in something.
That also goes for anyone who chooses to not believe in any religion or be defined by one. It is - and should always be - something we all personally choose.
The trouble with reliigion is not the religions themselves but how people interpret them and use them. In Australia it was once very much a Protestant -v- Catholic thing, even though they were both Christian. Now it is more about Christian -v- Muslim. Beliefs should not come down to us-and-them, but unfortunately they do.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
The term "ideology" has a specific meaning. I am not dressing up Secular Humanism as anything. It is what it is.
Yes, I am aware of that. But followers of these countless sects adhere, or at least claim to, to the particular tenets of their sect. They are all differing ideologies.
Not like I haven't heard this for virtually every ideology in existence.
Bullshit. Religion has prided itself on its use of force over the years. How any times did you have to say La Illahah Il Allah wa Mohammed rassoul Allah before they sliced your throat? What about the Inquisition. Give me a break.
Hi Mistersmith. I really can't understand what it is you have against reason and evidence. Secular Humanists are not trying to ban religion. They just don't want it to control the world.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
haha, not true at all, not by any stretch of the imagination, Roman Catholics believe in the trinity while other sects of Chrsitianity find it blasphemous, Sunni Muslims believe it is blasphemous to attribute divinity to humans while shias believe Muhammeds family are all divine. Basic tenants? Well their name, but beyond that they tend to be fairly different especially in the 'basic tenant' department.
How can religion 'pride itself'? That is physically impossible, do you mean people?
How many times was god invoked during the bloody communist revolution which led to the deaths of millions of people? Yeah, I guess lack of religion also 'prides itself' in the systematic starvation of peasants.
Is this the part I say 'give me a break'? It's ok to get defensive when your views are called into question. It's quite typical of someone who thinks he/she holds the ideology (or whatever she likes to call it) that would lead to world peace or something.
Comment by mistersmith
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Actually all Christians believe in the trinity apart from Jehovah's Witnesses which leads other Christians to deny that Witnesses are actually Christian. I am aware of the differences Ahmed. What I am saying is Roman Catholics adhere to the tenets of their religion. As do Shia Muslims. As do Alawite Muslims. As do fill in the blanks. When have I ever said that all Christians are the same? Or all Muslims are the same? I know how much they differ and argue amongst themselves. That's one of the reason I think they are all rubbish.
Yes. Bite me.
Haha. You think you have got me. I already stated in my article that Secular Humanism is opposed to all tyrannical ideologies- Communism included.
I think you are the one who is being defensive.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Your original argument:
and my counter, religion is the same, not all religious people have the exact same set of beliefs, 'as you would expect in an ideology'. So if religion is what you say it is then secular humanism is categorically a part of it.
I'm sorry, I forgot the part I was supposed to get emotional about this.
Kind of typical no? 'That's not true communism!' says the communist, 'that's not true islam' says the Muslim, 'that's not true Judaism' says the Jew, 'that's not true Atheism' says the atheist. Oddly enough they're all right, but they wouldn't acknowledge each others views are correct either. People who are insecure in their beliefs need to actively dismiss other peoples beliefs in order to justify their own, that is why they refuse to acknowledge each other.
But back to the point, what is the atheist in this case referring to? The Bolshevik revolution, not based in religion, but personal pride, pride in humans, the humans ability to achieve without the need to answer to a higher power. Working and toiling, so on and so forth. Reason is king? Sure, but whose reason? The peoples?
Your perfect ideologies fundamental flaw is the same as the fundamental flaw of anyone elses perfect ideology, people aren't perfect and they will manipulate their ideology to further their own ends. There is no escaping it, human nature and all. To think your ideology hold the answers makes you the same as anyone else who thinks the same of their own.
Your argument points are the same as anyone else who defends their own beliefs, I've seen. 'If only everyone agreed with me there would be peace', the response I always give 'but that's like what everyone else thinks' and it leads to the typical 'but my views are the exception'.
Oddly enough the way in which their views are an 'exception' kind of gels in with other peoples views which are an exception. Everyone tends to call the same exceptions but they refuse to acknowledge each others exceptions.
Give me a break and bite me =)
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
What are you talking about? When did I say that all of religion is just one ideology? I know not all religious people have the same beliefs. That makes them adherents to different ideologies.
An ideology is a rigid set of beliefs. A philosophy is a guide. Ergo, Roman Catholicism is an ideology. Secular Humanism is a philosophy.
I'm sorry, I forgot the part I was supposed to get emotional about this.
Actually, i think you have already gotten emotional. You are upset because I think your God is make believe. So you have to cast doubt on my intelligence. I was pointing out that your comment was not necessary. You knew exactly what i meant. You just wanted to call me on it.
Hey, I am not saying that the Bolsheviks were not atheists.
But they were not humanists. And they never pretended to be. Do I think all atheists are perfect? Heck no. Just because someone is an atheist does not mean I will automatically agree with them or like them. I think Communists are really atheists. They are also adherents to an ideology I do not agree with because it actually has the same effect as religion- it hinders freedom and free thinking. The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is they don't believe in God. Everything else is up in the air.
Yes. That is why I don't like ideologies. Secular Humanism is not an ideology. Secular Humanism is a opposed to ideologies. It is simply a guide to approaching the world from a reasoned, rational perspective as opposed to a supernatural one. It's about thinking rather than believing.
By the way, I really don't think there would be peace if everyone thought the way i did. I'm not an idealogue. I know people will find a way to corrupt every system. I just think the world will be a better place without religion and superstition and rigid political systems. That's not to say I think everyone should be just like me. How boring!
Most of my friends are atheists. We certainly do not agree on everything. We do happen to agree on one big thing, though. So give me a break, bite me and have a nice day.
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Check this out...
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Even within the context of the exact same religion there are differences.
our argument is they follow basic tennants, and how is this different to secular humanism? What viewpoints must you adopt to be a secular humanist? Wouldn't they be 'basic tenants'?
Which elements are rigid set of beliefs and which elements are a guide?
Hang on, where did I say I was upset or even allude to being upset because you think my god is 'make believe'? Did I even make a reference to my god anywhere? You're clearly jumping to conclusions, if you didn't know me before today you wouldn't even know if I was religious. Also whose using the colourful language 'bite me' and all? Me? Or you?
If you think I'm being defensive then you're right in the sense I am debating here, if I wasn't being defensive and offensive it wouldn't be a debate. But I'm not exhibiting any traits of emotional defense/offense, I'm not using language like 'bite me' and 'that is bullshit'. I don't find the need to, I have no emotions to vent.
Debating the merits of your views is not the same as casting doubt on your intelligence, I'm sorry if you think otherwise. How else is there meant to be debate if there are no disagreements? You're taking what I say way too personally if you think i'm casting doubt on your intelligence, I'm saying your views are wrong, you're saying my views are wrong, we are discussing these contentions.
Yes, I'm making an assertion that you're being too emotional about this discussion, that is my evidence to support my assertion.
So you agree, they are not correct. They're an exception to true secular humanism.
You're arguments are circular in nature, on one hand you say that there are no rigid set of beliefs but then you talk about a rigid set of beliefs but then you argue they are not 'basic tenants' though really, isn't this secular humanity in your own words:
Therefore one can deduce that secular humanism has basic tenants, which from the paragraph are
>
>
>improve our world and own lives by rejecting ideologies that divide us such as nationalism
There probably are a few more but you get the drift.
Those are the 'basic tenants', what you do based on them would be your own philosophy. It's not different to religion at all, the basic tenants of say, catholicism is to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour, the rest is your philosophy based on your own interpretations of the bible and scripture. Your philosophies will be guided by the basic tenants, same goes for secular humanism.
And this entire blog post you made advocating secular humanism means what then?
I could just as well make a post promoting Islam and be like 'I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I just want them all to be Muslim, they can think anything they want so long as they adhere to the basic tenants of Islam'.
It works just as well, because, as in your own words, 'we agree on one big thing', we all essentially think in the same way, and if everyone thought like I did their would be peace.
Well that's emotion if I've ever seen it.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
ive just been reading along with your debate . . .
this analogy may not work but ill give it a burl anyway
so lets say every religious and political sect wore different coloured shoes, every shade of the colour spectrum represented a specific religious or political leaning
Communists wore red shoes
Marxists wore brown shoes
Catholics wore purple shoes
Jews wore green shoes
Muslims wore blue shoes
you get the general idea . . .
if the sect or political faction was holding a meeting, election, or prayer-service, at their hall (or church) they would only let in the people who had the right coloured shoes
if you had blue shoes on and tried to walk into the red hall (or church) you would be shunned and ultimately turfed out
either change your shoes to our colour or leave!
the secular humanists are the people who have decided not to wear shoes anymore and the doors of their hall are open to people with any colour shoes
once you enter the secular huminist hall. if you want to kick your shoes off too you can, but its not required, you can stay for as long as you want and keep your shoes on the whole time as long as you respect that theres going to be a rainbow of different shoes walking amongst you (and more than a few barefoot people) and you must never exclude anyone based on their footwear
its like a social contract to live and let live
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
As a pacifist christian eccentric, who is an ecclectic buddhist at heart, I have long believed that I am possibly already belonging to the Church of Reason, as an honourary member through the way I live my life perhaps?
Like Janet, I also learnt my *right from wrong* through the doctrine of Catholic values as a young girl, many still with me today. Of course I had to change a few values along the way as one would leave the rigidity of a sexist patriarchial system behind to the deserts of Arabia, after visiting there, where they may have made more sense than 21st Century Australia. Not that there arent some great lessons of morality to be learnt there, but to me the Bible always felt more like a collection of books, *Based on true stories* rather than the absolute truth itself. Sort of popular novels of they day type thing.
Anyeewho ... I love Lennons dream (so much like Ghandi) no doubts about it, but unlike Ghandis ideal, it lacks a practical modus operandi (if you will). I am not knocking him, he was the one to inspire the thoughts for a new system, which in my mind has to come from a belief that doesnt claim ownership of God, much like Secualr Humanism promotes.
However, in point No 6 (Religious Skepticism) the humanistic proposal already falls down in my eyes because as a professional clairvoyant, I say ruling out supernatural phenomenon from the world, from those who have the second sight, or the belief that there is more than the one dimension (or beings) that we can see with the corporeal senses, again sounds like a dogma to me. No better than saying men should dominate women. People should be free to experience mystical phenomena as much as they like if a free society is to be truly free.
For me that method to Lennons enlightenment is clear from his sojuourn in India, and the best modus operandi I can see here on the planet today for the 21st Century West (so far : having studied a few of them), comes from the philosophy of meditation as practices through the philosophy of Buddhism, because achievining a secualr humanistic lifestyle requires enormous amounts of compassion and self discipline (to follow your passion to death if needs be); not to beat yourself up with it, but to practice emptiness, focused on the impermanence of our lives; allowing everyone to live as one through a blend of science and ritualistic practice, but not worshiping a deity, but by ceaslessly questioning ones own mind and its false attachments to the 84,000 delusions that the ego will throw up to trap us into suffering (samsara).
(Interesting side note here that the planets energy (kundalini) is shifting again to a new spiritual cultural centre (chakra) in 2012 : yep, leaving Tibet (as the holder of sacred spiritual wisdom) to emerge with the Maya and South America *stand by* for that evolution and flood of information/wisdom).
As a spiritual person I would have to sit and meditate daily for about a week to understand what the word *HOPE* really means, until then I could not be clear and even after that, my view of it could change within a year, decade or lifetime. Like re/reading a book after 10 years. Life is not a rigid system and this secualr humanism sounds to me like it could easily end up as one through its sheer liberalism?
People need guidelines at an early age, ask any mother. It is a childs nature to push the boundaries to see where they exist, and a parents job to make them. Albeit, to date these values of where boundaries should exist have been boorishly limiting, coming down through the traditions of a monetary system, where religion suited the purpose of support in subordinating the workers to servitude or offering hope against it?
That said, a mother will often say no to protect a child from harm, I often wondered what would happen if I let the children go (all the way without caution) to suffer their own consequences? The results are all too clear in the society of today where it is not directed in positive ways, through some education of the benefits of self discipline.
So one could argue that in a non/monetary, secualr humane system (like a comunial socialism), the only boundaries needed are those which are intrinsically present in the intuition of the mother and father during the years of raising a child? Interesting, because without a higher purpose/being/deity/mystical connection with the universe in some way, it is interesting to ponder if we would become no more than human animals : *chuckle* something which we are becoming again in the west anyway through disconnection, with women moving through multiple partners bearing children to each like pack rats and men also promoting promiscuity and mutliple partners like wandering beasts. Perhaps this proves that traditional religionism is too liberal, or is it that the monetary system cares little about its workers and their habits, tolerating the promiscuity against its own doctrines, because it is another form of slavery that supports the wealthy?
For me, the study of my mind (reason) through the precepts of Buddhism offers a different way of clear seeing where morals and ethics come from self evident truths from within each of us, from the mystical *whatever* which is not questioned, merely experienced .. and for me, nothing snaps me too quicker than seeing myself clearly in the absolute moment of the infinite universe, as I live within the realm of absolute possibility of experiencing bliss, daily. Each to their own karma, live and let live, all as one.
I loved the way Lennons house in the clip, has a sign saying *This is not really here* *chuckle* Lennon wasnt killed for nothing here, I agree; and to me his dream cannot be, until the monetary system has ceased to be as it is today.
Interesting Post.
Lilla ...
Comment by mistersmith
Ahmed, the word is 'tenet' not 'tenant' Sorry, had to tell you, it was starting to annoy me.
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
I could do the blogger thing, and quote pages of his encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis in relation to this post, but one small section will suffice:
As for John Lennon's Imagine?
The day John Lennon was murdered he was living in a NY apartment taking a trip to and from a recording studio in his private limousene.
He certainly had a good imagination when it comes to having no possesions. I guess he had to. He didn't live without them.
Oh, but he needed them. He was a rock god. Excuse me while I write about the Catholic Church's wealth, and how obscene it is?
"Secular Humanists, our leader, and promoter of no possessions, John Lennon, will today enlighten you on his no possessions/ secular humanist policy from his NY apartment. As soon as he returns in his private limousine, and has a free love-in with Yoko Ono at $1500/night."
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
the secular humanists are the people who have decided not to wear shoes anymore and the doors of their hall are open to people with any colour shoes
That is not true, you're now basically saying 'wear any coloured shoes you like, so long as they're the same ones secular humanists are wearing'.
Secular humanists can claim they are following a philosophy however their philosophy and ultimately their way of thinking IS based on a rigid set of beliefs which if you don't follow (i.e. wear a different pair of shoes) will have you shunned.
And to expand my reply upon mistersmith, same goes for many religious groups who are happy to accept different religious people into their group, probably in the hopes of having them converted over. Secular humanists, showing how different they are again, no?
I've had this exact same conversation with like a million people (Muslims included) and it always ends up in bragging 'no my beliefs are like this and this and this and therefore awesome, everyone should be like me!'
Guess where this is going and has already reached?
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
And what are secular humanists doing with shoes? Aren't shoes a possession?
Why not hold the meeting naked in the open?
Oh, that's right. You can't blog without a pc.
Comment by Journeywoman
Great Hair Style Tips
I Dream of Hollywood
Fashion Peach
And I thought Lennon was killed immediately after leaving Annie Leibowitz's photography studio, where he did a nude shoot with Yoko for Rolling Stone? Is that wrong Gene?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Secular Humanist prefer that we don't just accept anything as given, that each and every human has the opportunity and capacity to draw their own conclusions based on evidence and rational thinking. That does not mean that each and every secular humanist reaches the same conclusion. Can you see the difference?
And as for my comments that you keep quoting, I wrote those to counteract a common misconception about atheists, namely that we are all secretly communists or similar idealogues who have a dark, secret agenda and want to take over the world. That is not true.
David, I don't recall ever saying that Lennon was "our" leader. Nor do I ever recall saying that all Secular Humanists don't approve of possessions. That is Lennon's own take. Yeah, I happen to agree that he is perhaps a tad hypocritical. That's what I mean when I say we don't all have the same beliefs and that we don't agree on everything. But I still approach the world the way Lennon did: ie focusing on the actual world. Not on the prospect of an afterlife.
Mistersmith, I'm not aware of any educational system or academic that is based on intuition and feeling. Science? History? p.s the tenant thing was annoying me too. Thanks for clearing it up.
Oh and Ahmed, I know what your beliefs are because we have discussed them before. And you've taken issue with my way of thinking before. Also, I should perhaps use more emoticons and put in a wink or a smiley face after my "bite me" and "have a nice day comments". I was just being a smart arse, didn't mean nothing by them.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
no that wasnt what i was saying, if you read the next paragraph you would see i said;
i think you possibly did read this paragraph and just disagreed with my interpretation, in which case we will have to agree to disagree
hi David,
i think its made out of clear plastic and they grow alot of hydroponic pot in there
and im pretty sure the anti-blogging society resides in a glass house full of stones to throw around in between posting blogs
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
You wrote:
Anthem. Ideology. Philosphy. Tenet. Wasted sperm. Whatever.
Quite frankly. I Can't be bothered any more. It's all a lot of blog wank. This is my take on it. The more we blog, the more we become wankers for the Orble cause.
Let's all hold hands and sing:
It's easy if you try
Then let's all go and do something about it. And leave the wankers to argue their cause.
Cya later. Nice non knowing ya.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I don't interpret Imagine as Lennon saying you must be like me and you must throw away your PC's. I interpret it as him saying the world does not need to be the way it is. Imagine no Heaven, imagine no leaders telling you what to think, feel and believe. Imagine a world where everyone thinks for themselves. Imagine a better world and think about what you can do to make it so. Imagine things people never dared to imagine before. That's what I take from it.
And I do wish you would stop bagging bloggers for being bloggers. That would perhaps go down a little better were you not a blogger yourself.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Frustration with an opposing view point? Oh good lord, secular humanists have yet another thing in common with religious people.
Besides, frustration is a typical symptom of being emotional over something.
The same goes for religion, as I keep saying. Every religion has a rigid set o beliefs, including secular humanism, and every religion gives leeway to people to act within those rigid set of beliefs, secular humanism included.
*sigh* and secular humanism doesn't? It just doesn't look convincing, you're saying secular humanism doesn't have rigid beliefs in a blog post where you detail the rigid beliefs secular humanists have.
And religious people think in exactly the same way, except to them rational thought leads to a belief in religion while secular humanists believe rational thought leads to a dismissal of religion.
It was made in a direct response to the 'common misconception' about religious people being violent because of religion. You attempted to generalize, I showed you the futility of your attempt coupled with the hate you yourself were without conscience spewing. you took offense at the fact I linked atheists with communists who mercilessly killed because it is a common misconception atheists are like that, wonderful, now tell me why a religious person shouldn't take offense to this:
Religious people are equally ignorant to their own subconscious hate too.
Many religions, with their 'rigid set of beliefs' promote diversity and tolerance. So really this does not give merit to the argument secular humanism is somehow different to religion in principle. I think true difference comes down to people, doesn't matter what beliefs the follow for whatever reason.
Actually I feel I should answer for this Lennon charactr too, most leaders of religion tend to be fairly hypocritical of their own religious teachings. Lenon is no different in the sense he promotes these ideas of 'no possessions' while he himself indulges in the material.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I didn't take "offence" when you linked atheism to communism. It's a tired old argument I have heard many times. I'm just getting bored of refuting it. And I am telling you it does not wash because it lacks deductive reasoning. ie Atheists don't believe in God.
Communists are atheists.
Therefore all atheists are communists.
Well I am telling you that is not the case. Not all atheists are communist even though all communists are atheists. Reasoning, you know?
Now go ahead and take offence when I mention the Inquisition and when I mention the way Muslims would kill those who refused to convert. W as what i said a lie? Or am I just not permitted to say anythng negative about any religion?
You may also go ahead and tell me that not all Muslims are like that. And yes, I will agree. But I will also tell you that communists killed not because they were atheists but because they were communists. Muslims/catholics/etc killed in the name of their religion and in the name of their god.
When has an atheist ever killed in the name of their non-God? You are determined to categorise us as a religion because you cannot fathom a world without religion. Well I can. I am living it. I have been on both sides of the argument and I can tell you my mind and my life were never free until I had the courage to admit to myself that I don't believe in God.
Step outside the religious box Ahmed. It's time.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I'm probably exposed to more atheist/secular humanist thought than religious thought considering how much time I spend on the internet.
I am also getting tired of refuting religion making people inherently violent, but rather than refuting it I'm demonstrating how silly it is to use generalizations to get a point through.
Read above, if this is how you think you won't use generalizations to beat down religion.
No you can do that, but don't go all corrective when I highlight what some atheists do.
nope, wrong, try again, but if we're going to be using your reasoning then communist atheists killed in the name of advancing humanity, having a lack of belief I could argue they lacked the compassion and believed in toiling to achieve a greater good to advance humanity as a whole at any cost. Of course this would just make you more angry as you try to separate what they did from their ideology or give them motive that is other than because they were atheist.
Of course if you start highlighting other motives I could respond by doing the same about whatever religiously motivated atrocity you claim to have existed.
I think I predicted you would end up like this, hang on:
Yes I did, wow, I'm quite proud of myself now.
I'm just matching you eye for eye and you're having a hard time digesting the simple fact your ideology is not at all different to any other. You've spent so much time with people who agree with you that you can no longer accept an alternative, your ideology has to be right, secular humanism must be awesome, otherwise the world no longer makes sense.
You have this thought that I'm somehow held down because I'm religious. I find it hilarious for a number of reasons, the most obvious being I've had the exact same debate with Muslims based on the same basic ideas, yeah they argued bringing up virtually the same points you attempt to with the obvious exception of using Islam in the place of secular humanism.
Your reasoning has led you to believe there is no god, another persons reasoning has led them to believe their is a god. The justifications I see for both sides tend to be flawed in the sense they apply to any side trying to rationalize itself. Everyone tends to end up at the same place, they just get there differently.
You bring my religion into this because you have nothing left via rationalizing, all you can do is keep giving me examples in how you think secular humanism is somehow different to religion, my only responses thusfar have been refuting you giving rational examples. Your frustration has exposed your facade of reasoning, had you been trying to reason with me you would not have called my emotional state into question based on virtually nothing but the assumption I'm offended you believe my god is make believe and now you've brought my religion in a second time and are again trying to use it against me.
I've ignored defending my faith because I really couldn't give a damn what you think of it, I know you've been trying to get me to start talking about Islam and all, I dunno why, perhaps you want to put me in the firing line. I don't really mind, but since you failed once why are you trying again? Do you want me to talk about Islam? So that you might try arguing how flawed my way of thinking is so that I might start thinking more like you? I appreciate you think my faith keeps me shackled down, but you should see in this entire discussion I didn't bring it in once unless I was responding to you bringing it up.
If you want to reason with me then reason with me, don't start plucking random theories out of thin air for why I think the way I do. Refute my points.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
The ones you're not refuting
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Religion:
In the frame of western religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.
Philosophy:
I don't think we are actually capable of having a decent discussion on this issue until you can see the difference between a religion and a philosophy. As long as you are determined to dismiss atheism as a religion then what is the point?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I never said religion and philosophy are the same thing, I'm saying secular humanism is in many ways similar to religion and its followers are very much like religious people even if they try to say they're not.
I never said I was determined to dismiss it as a religion, you claim it is different to religion yet are struggling to demonstrate in what ways it is different to religion.
Really if you want to be bitter about it, as long as you're dismissing my views based on me being religious (even if I don't bring it up, like, at all) then what's the point?
Are you seriously playing the 'you just don't get it' card? I'm willing to change my mind, atheism being a religion and atheism not being a religion don't affect my views on my own faith.
I suppose it's difficult for you to understand but I don't strengthen my beliefs by dismissing or trying to reason away other peoples beliefs. So you know, feel free to come up with something valid, I'm game, I have nothing to lose.
Comment by mistersmith
Belief in the existence of a world beyond the material need not take the form of strict religious tenets, but it seems that Secular humanism denies this completely. Like Lilla, it is this statement that I take exception to:
6. Religious Skepticism
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural
I find this statement (and others) utterly contradictory. It is what I was referring to when I took up Morgan's analogy. Secular Humanism, obviously, does not allow spiritual experience("pink shoes") It therefore does not acknowledge intuition, second sight or healing arts and must hinder artistic expression in all its forms.
So, even though Secular Humanism proposes a system of belief to escape strict religious dogma, it is imposing its own limits. Though it states, on one hand, that people should be free to express their beliefs; this is contradicted when the idea of God is completely rejected.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
Mark Chapman followed John Lennon's Secular Humanist philosophy, according to what you think part of Lennon's message was::
Imagine a world where everyone thinks for themselves.
Mark Chapman thought for himself.
He thought. 'I'm ridding the world of this tosser John Lennon.'
This is an example of the conclusion to your reason and logic:
Secular Humanists believe everyone should think for themselves.
Mark Chapman thought for himself.
Mark Chapman killed John Lennon.
Mark Chapman is a Secular Humanist.
David is a blogger
David bags bloggers
David had no credibility when he does that.
Scientists who challenge each other are right to do so. It leads to important discoveries.
Basically, your arguments lack logic and reason. You argue against reason and logic half of the time just to make a point that you "feel" everyone else should "feel" the truth of. Well, truth isn't based on "feelings" or "emotions".
One day you'll work out what logic and reason are. I hope you do, because then you won't get so tired trying to argue illogically and irrationally in order to prove your irrational and illogical arguments have any other basis than erroreous thinking. You won't wear yourself out trying to prove to other bloggers you are right and they are wrong.
Anyway, these couple of minute comments don't tire me out. Learning true logic and reason did, and that's why nowadays this is a facile exercise that doesn't take very long at all.
May all the people of the world unite on 8 Dec to celebrate whatever it is they believe in. May Lennonists and Beatle-ists and Secular Humanists celebrate the death of their god and may Catholics celebrate the feast of the Immaculate Conception.
How strange that such a person would die on such a major feast day. Coincidence, or Providence?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Yes, that's why I included the Wiki quote that says that mythology and philosophy sometime overlap. There are some areas where our concerns are similar to the concerns of religion. That does not make us religious, nor does it make SH a religion. Primarily because we don't believe in an afterlife, nor do we believe in the supernatural, nor do
we hold irrational thoughts and beliefs such as Moses parted the Red Sea, Jesus walked on water, a virgin gave birth and an angel commanded an illiterate Mohammed to read...and wala! Guess what? Mohammed who had never read nor written a word in his life could suddenly read! Wow!
See above. Plus we don't have sacraments and we don't pray.
Also Jonah and the whale. Need I say more. Honestly?
I certainly wouldn't expect it to. I didn't write this post hoping to convert anyone ( but if i did give us a shout will ya?), I wrote it to put simply and in their own terms the approach of Secular Humanism. And to counteract the notion that always props up when atheism is being discussed by theological types. Namely that atheists are all communists or Nazis or similar idealogues who have a deep dark secret agenda to take over the world and kill as many religious people as possible. For example read this post that appeared the day after I posted this:
Perhaps we need to look at naive utopianism again
To summarise the post: Secularists are all evil because Hitler was a secularist (that's actually arguable but I'll let it be), and Russian Communists were secularists and Karl Marx was scary looking so I will put in a picture of him in so that everyone will see how evil atheists are.
I basically wanted to dispel some myths about atheism. That is all.
Except your religion perhaps? haha.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I must disagree with you when you say that this statement is contradictory:
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural
I think what that statement is saying is that the religious experience is entirely self-generated. It comes from within, not without.
Well no, not really. Even though SH rejects the idea of God it does not seek to prohibit people from expressing their belief in God. You will find that the declaration does say that just as important as allowing the expression of belief is permitting scrutiny, criticism and, yes, rejection of these beliefs.
The reason the idea of God is rejected is because of the overwhelming lack of evidence. To believe in God requires suspension of disbelief, a rejection of basic scientific principles and forgoing rational thought. Is it really rational to believe that we all came from one pair of lovers? Is it rational to believe that Noah manged to find a pair of animal lovers from every single species? Is it rational to believe that a supreme, merciful creator will create a place where he burns his own creations for all eternity? To accept the idea of God is to reject critical thinking. SH is simply a way of approaching life (note NOT a way of life but a way of approaching life), without the need to believe in anything other than what humans experience in the real world.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
You keep saying that but you are yet to prove it.
Many religions don't ask for prayer either.
In any case your argument is based on really weak semantics, I could argue that your 'free thought' is prayer and your 'reasoning' is your god. Your ideology, or religion if we should call it, says that you can find inner peace and happiness within oneself rather than through an external god, which oddly enough is very similar to certain kinds of Buddhism (albeit Buddhists don't dismiss the existence of a god).
You can keep trying to explain things away by highlighting in what ways secular humanism is different to any given religion, however all you're doing is saying 'secular humanism is not like this religion', heck, I could argue 'Islam is not like Christianity and here are my reasons as to why'. You're not separating secular humanism from religion by comparing it to other religions, you're just explaining why you subscribe to this religion over others. If anything you're simply demonstrating how you yourself beleive secular humanism is a religion.
Surely if you don't believe it is you wouldn't be talking about in what ways it is different to other religions but trying to explain in what ways it is not a religion. I guess you don't see the irony in comparing secular humanism to specific kinds of religion then trying to say it is not like religion.
Something that doesn't resemble a straw man argument maybe
Again you show your similarities to religious people, more than willing to use generalizations against people who have different beliefs while getting all defensive when the same generalization tactic is used against you.
erm...
To summarize this comment: Religious people are all evil because, so on and so forth.
By attacking religion? Yeah another thing you have in common, you have to discredit other peoples views in order to justify your own.
[quote]Except your religion perhaps? haha[/qote]
If your current reasoning is the best you can come up with I'd say there's a better chance the world is flat.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I feel I must clarify something here. When I wrote the title "Imagine a world of secular humanism", I certainly wasn't postulating that every single person in the world becomes a secular humanist immediately. As I have stated above I am attempting to dispel the myths that abound ie that atheists are out to get you. I was simply tying in some of the principles behind SH with a familiar song and historical figure that many people already know of and respect. Primarily to show that such fears are not warranted.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
If your intentions are so noble you should realize you can't dispel fear by spreading fear about other people.
and if anything taking such a double standard will only hurt your cause.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
That last quote? It was a joke. A JOKE! You know, a play on words, the REM song? Losing My Religion? Funny! haha.
Now it it my imagination or do you really love arguing?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Who's trying to spread fear?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
haha, it feels nice to expel some of that hate you hide bellow your facade of reasoning, yet again you show how similar you are to religious people
I like how you use my words and my own argument against me, it's a pity my argument actually supports my argument and not yours (if you have one underneath all that rhetoric),
I said I heard of, I never said people acted on it. You think secular humanism is so hot shot because it promotes peace and understanding based on such and such set of beliefs? I'm simply pointing out, virtually every religion does that. Whether it is followed or not has more to do with the person than the religion, but feel free to keep trying to pin religion to evil while simultaneously trying to dismiss secular humanism own destructive power on 'well it was just those people who acted like that, communists are a misconception of atheism '. and I can just as well say any tragedy you point to oppression can be even more easily explained if given political motivation rather than religion.
If your argument is to hold it has to hold for all possible scenarios, not just the ones you enjoy or subscribe to. I know you put in a lot of thought into your last post and perhaps your heart sank because you apparently missed the obvious part, that comparing secular humanism to different religions puts itself in the same category as religion.
Hey I'm not beating you down or dismissing your views based on that, feel free to try again, if you have something of substance to say that is. Other wise you'll get frustrated again by a rational response for which you're going to have to come up with an explanation which you yourself know is flaky at best but is enough to keep believing what you want to believe.
I think the funniest part is you accused me of not being able to imagine a world without a god and therefore I couldn't understand secular humanism because of how radically different it is, that is, I can't believe secular humanism is not just another type of religion.
It looks like it has ended with you drawing the line, you cannot believe in secular humanism if it is categorically like religion, you clearly haven't thought about your beliefs with enough perspective. Otherwise you would have realized by now its adherents display very similar character traits to religious people.
And my response was also a joke (earth is flat, not really flat, impossibilities, Funny! haha.), I suppose I should have predicted your response, you can dish out jokes but you can't really take them. Oh woops, I think I can link you up to certain religious denominations... again.
Whether you are willing to admit it to yourself or not you have a typical religious persons mindset.
No, I love learning about people, I find more and more they're all the same but what I enjoy most is seeing how they deny that.
anyone who is looking out for his/her own ideology and beating down others he/she doesn't subscribe to.
Comment by mistersmith
You obviously hope that Secular Humanity is the ideal antidote to a world ruled by religion and something to strive for. Of course, why else would you be championing it so hard.
I believe anything that sets limits, hinders expression. Like I already said, SH's requirement that everything be scientifically provable sounds to me like a HUGE impediment. I won't bother addressing the John Lennon being creative question because that is way too long. I can see why these ideas developed many years ago when society was, in fact, strictly ruled by religious thought. I don't think it is really like that now, definitely not in Australia. I think, if you want something totally different, Anarchy would be more workable than SH which, to me, sounds like something thought up by a bunch of middle aged male intellectuals focusing on the mind. They have got the theory alright but it just won't work. Sorry! Don't mean anything personal. That's just my impression. I will never be convinced that SH is a solution because it is so flawed. I think I'd better stop now.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I'm not offended by what you are saying, you are perfectly within your rights not to be enarmoured of it and I appreciate why you think that it is not feasible. Though I do admit I am astounded that you think Anrachy would be more workable. I think the opposite- Anarchy is one of those great in theory, poor in practice ideas.
Comment by mistersmith
I didn't use 'championing' as an insult. I think it is good that you are prepared to defend what you believe in. I was actually being a bit flippant in referencing Anarchy. I was trying to make the point that,for me, S.F. and Anarchy are equally lacking.
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Ahmed has beautifully illustrated what happens to the more narrow-minded of people when they come across something they don't understand: they pathologise it. Can't comprehend that no-one who identifes as postmodernist would claim to have an objective definition of postmodernism? How incredibly odd.
And by the way, it's postmodern (or post-modern, not 'post modern'), as in after the historical period or aesthetic style of modernism. It pays to have a clue about what you're writing about, Ahmed.
I think at the beginning of the debate between Ruby and Ahmed, your use of terms confused me. I think everyone has an ideology. My political ideology, for instance, is in the centre, with slight leftist leanings. I think the difference between theism and atheism is perhaps can be most clearly construed in the presence of the 'a' prefix. Religion is belief in a metanarrative (totalising tale about the world), whereas atheist defines itself through its rejection of such. Secularism is activity of the state which operates independently of religious thought, a byproduct of atheists and/or atheism-friendly people. In this sense, I agree with Ruby in that to simply say you are 'atheist' is to reject a world order without revealing much about the complexity of your spiritual beliefs (which everyone has). Saying I support capitalist democracies is not the same as saying I am anti-totalitarian.
I have to go for now, fascinating discussion, Ruby.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
See you think this would make me angry, but knowing your mental condition it's more of a 'your anger and paranoia is justified' kind of thing, so meh really.
It's nice that you're trying to define religion, pity you're doing it wrong. Oh right, it's also typical of religious people to deliberately over simplify other peoples religious beliefs, I dunno why, I assume it's to get a few notches on the self worth scale.
When it comes down to it all, religion is a set of tenets and practices, whether it is a belief in the metanarrative or not is completely up to any specific religion. Secular humanism has a set of tenets as defined in this blog post (which later Ruby humorlessly contested), and practices? 'Free thought' would probably be the bigger one.
So long as secular humanism has a rigid set of beliefs and tenets that must be followed it can categorically be seen as religion and it can even categorically be compared to religion.
It's that simple, feel free to prove me wrong. Like I said, I couldn't give a damn what it was, I just call it like I see it.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Actually PoMo, your line summed it up:
A contributer to not controller of public discourse is how I see it too
Ahmed, what rigid beliefs and tenets does Secular Humanism have? .
Hi Mistersmith, well thanks for clarifying. I did find you statement a little odd. Though really the two can't be compared- Anarchy is an ideology which seeks to replace democracy as a political and social system. SH is a philosophy which works within the current system.
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Translation: I am indicating I am fighting my anger, just as I indicated I was fighting my emotionality earlier on.
It's funny how angry and paranoid are two words that are rarely, if ever, used to describe me, whereas everything you shows how central they are to your existence. You and your passive-aggressive lashing out at people, your quick-fix accusatory logic and your know-it-all mentality.
It's pretty sad that you feel the need to conclude that I am mentally ill because you don't get me (another perfect example of your 'otherising' of everyone who is different to you). I am now proud of the 'veneer' that you claim is some kind of personality disorder on my behalf. Did you ever consider that maybe I didn't feel comfortable showing you who I was all of the time? I never saw you as someone to share my deepest thougths with. I thought I might be able to be a good influence on you, but I no longer think that it's in my best interest to get involved with you much at all, and I guess you're just pissed that I wasn't the sweet little thing I can be with you, from the start.
In conclusion, you suck.
I've already said what I wanted to about religion and secular humanism, good day.
However, I will say this: There is no such thing as a 'wrong' interpretation. Just yours and mine. At least I'm trying to open up discussion in mine, instead of going around being redundant, hostile, aggressive.
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Oh yeah, and one more thing: Thanks to you, I now feel more confident presenting myself as pansexual (as far as labels go, that is). I figure no one could possibly have a more disturbing reaction than you did. Now go crawl into a hole or something... preferably one without an internet connection.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
oh how ive missed the wit of PoMo . . . im sure not another person in the world would have put those words together like that, you have a unique (and pleasing) way of speaking
Comment by mistersmith
Why should I not compare Anarchy and Secular Humanism? Just because one seeks to replace the current system and the other seeks to work within it? Comparisons can be made for any number of reasons.
For instance, Anarchism proposes that we do away with compulsory government and let the individual decide. S H suggests that we do away with religion and let decisions be reached through means of reason and experience. Labelling one an 'ideology' and the other a 'philosophy' does not prevent comparison of two approaches to social rule.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
There is no hook you're on, it's not like I'm holding a gun to your head and saying 'prove to me secular humanism is different to religion'.
I'm not going to scroll up to copy paste what I wrote, go ahead and read my posts and you'll see.
Erm, no, I meant that I don't really give a damn if you're deliberately trying to troll me.
Like I said, I couldn't give a damn if secular humanism was a religion or not, however Ruby, and everyone else, is yet to convince me otherwise. In fact the arguments Ruby has presented have only strengthened my position.
If I sound passively aggressive for saying secular humanism is a religion then you are all being passively aggressive towards me for saying it isn't. But I guess I give you too much credit, in the face of evidence disproving your view you're being resentful,
I find post modernism to be a sweetly ironic topic, on the one hand you're going on and on about secular humanism which dismisses unprovable claims then on the other you'll be debating how science is stilted because it is the endless pursuit of an objective reality which exists, can be experimented upon, rationalized and observed. However postmodernism goes against this, in the end it basically says that everything is immaterial, so really, as far as shitting over everything secular humanism is about postmodernism does the best job.
Haha, silly little insult games don't provoke me in the slightest
Oh yeah, and one more thing: Thanks to you, I now feel more confident presenting myself as pansexual (as far as labels go, that is). I figure no one could possibly have a more disturbing reaction than you did. Now go crawl into a hole or something... preferably one without an internet connection.
This is by far the most passive aggressive comment made here. Funny how people project their own weaknesses on others eh?
You also seem to be very unsure of yourself, I say something you are and you go online and find people who say you're not? I shouldn't play on your insecurities, actually I feel guilty for doing so.
Before you start with the 'no you're the one projecting', not once have I held your mental illness against you.
Comment by mistersmith
It seems you are trying to defend something that you don't quite understand yourself.
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I find it almost unbearably side-splitting that you're calling me a troll. But hey, when I'm this entertained? ... It's difficult to complain ...
Re: my perspective on secular humanism, I like to work with the most appealing aspects of each philosophy. I neither wholly embrace nor wholly shun any particular one. My aim is to question, deconstruct and re-evaluate. To create something new out of what already is. I need to keep reinventing all the information that enters my mind.
No, I'm sorry, the passive aggressiveness you perceive in me and others is probably you projecting. I can see your point, sort of, but it's not very well made, so it's no surprise that no one is supporting it.
You also seem to be very unsure of yourself
I did it because I knew it would be easy enough to do, and to get the results back to you, not because I needed affirmation from others. When someone is so convinced about something, often the best way to inform your view is to offer different perspectives. I wasn't going to bring it up, except that you brought up the whole 'condition' thing out of the blue in a completely different context. Now why would you do that, if not to particularly cast me in a negative light or piss me off? I wasn't trying to piss you off at all, I never have. I'm not that type of person, which is something I shouldn't have to state. You're so off in so many ways, Ahmed.
I wouldn't be surprised if you were secretly in love with me after all this. I mean, 'senile'? Then again, you're 'in love' with every female online presence you come across, aren't you? "Remind me not to date someone like Ruby," etc.
not once have I held your mental illness against you.
You're just trying to look nice now, aren't you? You're incredibly arrogant in assuming that you know more about my mental health than myself, my friends and a psychologist combined, don't you think? I hope none of the people I know who are recovering from psychosis come across people like you who place them in boxes without so much as thinking about how destructive it can be. Don't you know that mental health, like everything else, is fluid, and that some people reinvent their self-esteem to a very low level every day?
It would make me really happy if you told me that you had sought mental help. I can hook you up with a free community centre in your community if you like. There's nothing to lose: if you need a bit of help, they'll do all they can to provide it, and if you don't, well, at least you turned your computer off and got out of the house for a few hours.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
rofl, are you now accusing me of secretly being in love with every girl I meet online? Where do you get these things? I like Ruby, but unless we're in a playground setting you better come up with something more if you want to sound even mildly convincing that I love her.
I love how you worded it, 'I wouldn't be surprised' and then you rhetorically ask 'well you are, aren't you?' You have no time to wait for truth, you want this to be true so therefore it must be true. Just like how I'm a closet homosexual.. I guess you got tired of thinking that, now I'm a closet lady killer...
Comment by Natalie 2
My Life My Muse
Beta Girl Blog
Carry on!
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
How about you forget I ever mentioned anything? I'd already forgotten about it, and it's not like I actually care what your orientation is anyway!!!
And ppl, I'd appreciate it if you didn't hype up the whole Amhed vs. PoMo thing or encourge me to engage with the guy. I should know by now that it's only a waste of my incredibly precious time.
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Being mentally ill is not the same as being 'intellectually impaired'. Illnesses such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia have nothing to do with a person's intellect, although of course they tend to prevent a person from being at their intellectual best because they always involve intense and repetitive patterns of negative thinking.