"Are you a humanist?" topic closed (to the edge)

SteveG wrote: Dean wrote:   dr wu23 wrote: To put in a little humor; one of my favorite guerilla ontologists RAWilson once said,"If you think you know what's going on,you are probably full of sh*te." You do like trotting out that homily whenever anyone questions agnosticism don't you. Wilson's version of general agnostics didn't require agnosticism about god. Looks like more bet hedging to me. He also said "There are gods; but there is no God; and all gods become devils eventually." Philosophers are full of it. Dean, I recall you stating once that you were a "post theist" or some similar term. I don't believe this of you personally, but do realize that term might be viewed as "heg betting".  It's similar to someone saying that they are a recovering alcoholic. They may be recovering, but they're still an alcoholic.

Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote:   dr wu23 wrote: To put in a little humor; one of my favorite guerilla ontologists RAWilson once said,"If you think you know what's going on,you are probably full of sh*te." You do like trotting out that homily whenever anyone questions agnosticism don't you. Wilson's version of general agnostics didn't require agnosticism about god. Looks like more bet hedging to me. He also said "There are gods; but there is no God; and all gods become devils eventually." Philosophers are full of it. Dean, I recall you stating once that you were a "post theist" or some similar term. I don't believe this of you personally, but do realize that term might be viewed as "heg betting".  It's similar to someone saying that they are a recovering alcoholic. They may be recovering, but they're still an alcoholic.  That's not what Post Theism means.  Also I cannot bet upon a heg but I can hedge a bet. However, Post Theism does neither since it is nontheistic: "Post-theism is a variant of nontheism that proposes to have not so much rejected theism as rendered it obsolete, that God belongs to a stage of human development now past." (wiki)

  I do know the clinical meaning of Post Theism and it is that rings of the recovering alcoholic. I.E. there once was a God.

As I stated, but maybe was not clear, I don't consider you to be a heg better but the term Post Theist stll sounds that way. Any hoo, it's ll much ado about nothing.

Dean wrote: Since you are aware that Post Theist doesn't mean "there once was a god" then what's your point? Also I'm still not sure whether you are being serious or taking the piss with the misuse of "heg better".

Just taking the piss, but Post Theism does come off as some sort of disgarded Panentheism. Perhaps it needs a better definition.

^ Well done.

Religiousness is not incompatible with humanism as far as I know. I'm against "secular humanism" though.

For me it's always strange to ask if something exists before you have defined what it is. God is "X". Of course anyone can believe in X. Billions of discussions could have become more fruitful if they had started from the beginning, asking what we are talking about.Usually the whole problem consists in that people divide whe whole matter in two viewpoints, either this or that. In reality, there are an endless amount of possible viewpoints.
The most stubborn atheists (Dawkins) argue by putting everyhting (bad) that's happened in the name of religion into one and the same basket, and that will represent "religion". Stupid , and not very scientific either.

stonebeard wrote: I don't know. I think whatever I've heard about "humanism" sounds a lot to me like fluffed-up atheism.

Maybe you think about "secular humanism". I think "Humanism" is broader and is about human rights, common sense, and the belief in the human individual, basically.

Dean wrote: There is no god, only science.

Hi!

Only science? There is science, and there is the unknown.

Science upholds the illusion that we know a lot, if not almost everything there is to know.In reality, we can safely assume that our knowledge is extremely small compared to "All Knowledge". In other words, to only focus on what we know (science), and forget about the unknown, is unwise.

 In school, your curiosity is killed by conveying the feeling that everything have been explored and all areas of the world are mapped, and we are always at the point were we know more than we've ever known before. So all you do in school is going through a process of memorizing the stuff in the books. You get the wrong idea about what you are reading about...because everything is a mystery, and you only deal with one aspect, or version, of what you are reading about. Even learning to read and write is something very peculiar, and not just a "process" which needs to be done. Only after I had finished high school did I become interested in just about everyhting. I had a broader way of looking at things. In school you didn't look upon the different fields in an inquiring way. Except from maybe the first lesson, when they ask about the subject itself, "what is history?". Good question, and very important. But it's only happens briefly, and then you get on with the book, page after page. Elementary questions are important even if they can't give full answers. But that is reality - we don't know much about it, and that's why school should be exciting.

One of the foundations of the human nature is our desire to understand our reality. Science is a method. But it's not a substitute to our ability to reflect upon reality as a whole. Science also doesn't deal much with psychology and ethics. Fields of science give us information in these fields. To get understanding and wisdom,  you have to see how everyhting works together. Nothing is separated, it's science need to categorize things for its method to work. It doesn't mean that you should look upon nature as many different science fields, with their own separate "rules". Science is the method to observe and measure things. It's not gonna tell us anything about purpose and meaningfulness and inner nature. Science don't tell us what is happening. It only registers the physical traces that is left. But we can have some idea what's going on - just by living, experiencing, feeling and thinking. Science is a product of the human individual. So I suppose the true humanist should put the human being in the center, not science. Only atheists wants us to believe that science is incompatible with religiousness.

Dean wrote: "Post-theism is a variant of nontheism that proposes to have not so much rejected theism as rendered it obsolete, that God belongs to a stage of human development now past." (wikipedia)

Dean wrote: I was raised a christian, I was told that the god of Abraham existed and I believed what I was told, no proof was given I was just told it was the truth, and to emphasise that it was put in capital letters... The Truth.

Maybe you have good reason to reject all of what you were told, because maybe you were treated to a specific religious interpretation, incorporated into a certain way of upbringing.  Children should be given a chance to make their own beliefs. Religious messages shouldn't be kept from children, but shouldn't be forced on them either. But if you were to approach christian teachings a second time, it wouldn't be a return to the childhood teachings, but it would have to be starting fresh with your own personal approach.

For me, I can't practise a belief in God, or have that sort of a "relationship" were you communicate with God. I'm more of an eclectic philosopher, and open to transcendental concepts. I'm willing to accept the existence of God, but I also have some idea of what it is, or could be.

^Perhaps philosophers just went to a bad school.

I'm not beholden to philosophers either, but some like Nietzsche did have some good points or arguments. Do you agree or are they all a waste of time to you?

^So Nietzsche' view of of christianity being a controlling and counter intuitive influence on mankind is of no consequence what so ever. That's interresting.

Philosopher=no good. Nietzche=philosopher. Hence: Nietzche=no good. Just using the science that you treasure so much.