Is a Humanity based religion where we should go ? Any god concept is excluded

Sarkus said:
I am not suggesting it should or should not be taken as the pinnacle of anything, so your strawman is noted but ignored.

My point, that you have clearly missed, is that you seem to be committing the fallacy of generalisation in that you have yet to provide any rationale that suggests Humanism itself exacerbates problems of existence.
Instead you have merely lumped it in with godlessness, and claimed that godlessness tends to exacerbate problems of existence. I.e. you have not addressed the specific of Humanism but instead jumped to the generalisation of godlessness.


So let me ask in more specific terms: What is it that makes all godless philosophies exacerbate such problems, such that none (e.g. Humanism) could possibly be exempt from your statement?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the op.
What are you talking about?
 
spidergoat said:
Yes it does. And may I point out the hypocrisy of an organization devoted to girls which pays homage to the God of Christianity, one of the most anti-feminist organizations in history.
Click to expand...

Lol. If you believe that all people are essentially equal, then you, too, are an anti-feminist.
 
lightgigantic said:
fine
then please restrict your comments to the issue of "Why not make Human Beings above any other philosophy of existence ?" and stop straw manning.
Click to expand...
I'll restrict my comments to issues raised in your response.
This is how discussion works.
It is not a strawman, since you raised the generalisation that I have issue with.
If all you want is to offer a response to the OP and restrict others' comments to that same OP rather than any comment you make, then it won't make for much discussion but instead just another comment system, as you might find on YouTube et al.
The issue remains that you argued with a generalisation that, as yet, you have yet to support.
Support it and we can move on.
Retract it and we can move on, albeit with any point you made reliant upon such generalisation in tatters.
Otherwise, with all this effort at evasion, you are merely, yet again, showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
 
Sarkus said:
I'll restrict my comments to issues raised in your response.
This is how discussion works.
It is not a strawman, since you raised the generalisation that I have issue with.
If all you want is to offer a response to the OP and restrict others' comments to that same OP rather than any comment you make, then it won't make for much discussion but instead just another comment system, as you might find on YouTube et al.
The issue remains that you argued with a generalisation that, as yet, you have yet to support.
Support it and we can move on.
Retract it and we can move on, albeit with any point you made reliant upon such generalisation in tatters.
Otherwise, with all this effort at evasion, you are merely, yet again, showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the op.
What are you talking about?
 
Having dumped God and country altogether, it is now actually forbidding Guides – on pain of excommunication – to promise to serve anything beyond
Click to expand...
I read the link, and through careful allowance for its bigotry and innuendo was able to figure out what had happened: the Girl Guides had made a new rule - that a proclamation of allegiance to the Christian God could not be coerced out of girl members.

This forbidding of coercion was immediately described by the link as a discrimination against Christian believers.

And that illustrates why a religion less susceptible to fostering such unawareness of self and crippling bad faith might be a good idea. On whether godlessness in itself - are the profound spiritual beliefs of the atheistic Buddhist sects invited? - is necessary or sufficient I suspend judgment. We do need a religion, though - not only to bring order in our approach to the levels of mental being we term "spiritual", but to handle some common societal problems such as Hardin's Tragedy and Prisoner's Dilemma situations.
 
Sarkus said:
The unsupported generalisation in your response to the OP, and your unwillingness to address it.
But thanks for confirming your intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...
as things stand at the moment you aren't even up to the par with the OP ... much less responses to it
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
as things stand at the moment you aren't even up to the par with the OP ... much less responses to it
:shrug:
Click to expand...
Evidence for this claim being...what? That I have highlighted an unsupported generalisation in your response to the OP?
Again your evasion shines through.
You could quite easily just support your generalisation, as suggested.
But instead you seek to evade.

As thing stand at the moment you aren't even up to the par with how to conduct discussion honestly.
:shrug:
 
Sarkus said:
As thing stand at the moment you aren't even up to the par with how to conduct discussion honestly.
Click to expand...

As things stand at the moment, there can be no discussion, or only a rigged one, if you propose to be both a participant and the judge.

:shrug:
 
iceaura said:
I read the link, and through careful allowance for its bigotry and innuendo was able to figure out what had happened: the Girl Guides had made a new rule - that a proclamation of allegiance to the Christian God could not be coerced out of girl members.

This forbidding of coercion was immediately described by the link as a discrimination against Christian believers.

And that illustrates why a religion less susceptible to fostering such unawareness of self and crippling bad faith might be a good idea. On whether godlessness in itself - are the profound spiritual beliefs of the atheistic Buddhist sects invited? - is necessary or sufficient I suspend judgment. We do need a religion, though - not only to bring order in our approach to the levels of mental being we term "spiritual", but to handle some common societal problems such as Hardin's Tragedy and Prisoner's Dilemma situations.
Click to expand...

It seems to be this new rule is even more inclusive. It doesn't mean that Christians can't join, or that they can't pray to themselves. I disagree that anyone needs religion, but we might need community, which often comes with religion.
 
wynn said:
As things stand at the moment, there can be no discussion, or only a rigged one, if you propose to be both a participant and the judge.
Click to expand...
Judge of what? The lack of honesty of intellect displayed by someone?
If a participant is not also to judge that, but to continue despite the evasion of the other and their fallacious comments, then how do you propose a discussion is actually to proceed? :confused:
 
river said:
Hmmm.... True but more importantly

My take on Humanism , would be that it teachs us to believe in our ourselves

So that we see ourselves as independent beings , that have out grown the concept of any god
Click to expand...
On that we can both agree. Instead of fixating on the possibility of an afterlife,deities,etc we must turn to each other as a species and realize that until we do die( as an individual or as a society) that we need to rely on each other to promote a better life for people alive in the present and for future descendants.
 
Sarkus said:
Judge of what? The lack of honesty of intellect displayed by someone?
If a participant is not also to judge that, but to continue despite the evasion of the other and their fallacious comments, then how do you propose a discussion is actually to proceed?
Click to expand...

If one party proposes themselves to be The Judge, above the other party, then there can be no discussion.
 
Saturnine Pariah said:
On that we can both agree. Instead of fixating on the possibility of an afterlife,deities,etc we must turn to each other as a species and realize that until we do die( as an individual or as a society) that we need to rely on each other to promote a better life for people alive in the present and for future descendants.
Click to expand...

The only problem is that there is no universally accepted idea as to what that "better life for people alive in the present and for future descendants" is or should be.
 
wynn said:
If one party proposes themselves to be The Judge, above the other party, then there can be no discussion.
Click to expand...
And you think that is the case here? That someone raising issue with another's generalisation and constant evasion is being "The Judge, above the other party"?
It's far simpler than that, wynn: when someone doesn't want to discuss something they can evade, avoid, throw up fallacy after fallacy. The discussion ends when one person wants it to, even if the argument continues. And why one person may want it to end... that is for them to answer, but can often be fathomed from the manner of their refusal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top