Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyway there are other things besides science. Many churches do good by helping the sick and homeless.
Still the religion that caused the most harm is the Taiping religion. The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom killed between 20-30 million people. This greatly counterbalances the more positive things they did like ending footbinding or giving food to some peasants. It is also a much higher death-toll than the most reasonable high-end figures for mainstream Christianity. The Taiping religion doesn't seem to have survived the Rebellion.
It seems the number they killed falls quite short of the USA's 50 million abortions offered on the altar of secular humanist morality.
Can you reasonably show why they don't qualify as secular humanists?
Show me some MAJOR philosophical differences between the philosophy of secular humanists and the Soviet communists, the Chinese communists, the North Korean communists, or the Cambodian communists.
You know it can't be done, but give it a try anyway.
If you read the U.S. Constitution. It is the epitome of Humanist political thought.
If you read The Communist Manifesto. It is the epitome of Marxist political thought.
from #13: "Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world."
It's clear how the Soviets attempted to accomplish the above. The North Koreans presently have 105,000 Christians in their prisons being "reconstituted."
Christianity in the NT sense of the word has done no harm to humanity..
Religion, imo, has done harm to humanity..Religion is made by man, for man, in the image of man.. image meaning with all his faults, love of self, love of money, love of having a following, love of possessions, love of being the leader, the ruler maker ,and the entertainer in their buildings they call "my church".
Why didn't you quote it so we could all have a laugh?
Myth #6 says "One political view that secular humanists do share is unswerving support for democracy, freedom, and human rights. All secular humanists are utterly opposed to totalitarian systems like communism and fascism"
In reality, Humanist Manifesto I (1933) says "The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world." see Humanist manifesto i
By the time of Humanist Manifesto II the humanists had become much more politically savvy, understanding that most people opposed their view the more they knew of it.
Also during the intervening 40 years the horrors of the socialized system which they had praised were now becoming well known.
So in HM II , the language is more shrouded. While initially paying lip service to 'democracy' and 'protection of dissent', the document concludes: "Destructive ideological differences among communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism should be overcome."
In other words, no dissent will be tolerated. Everybody is to toe the line.
How is that not totalitarian?
Your reading of Manifesto I is rather strained. Not that these manifestos speak for all humanists - at all, in any way - but I'll humor you. Advocating democratic socialism is as related to Stalinist communism (or communism at all) as much as advocacy in free markets is advocated to dictatorial systems like existed in Chile under Pinochet. That is to say, it's not inherently related at all. A country's economic system is different than the form of government. Many countries in Europe have what we would call socialism, and are far in many ways better places to live than here. But any way, socialism does not equal communism. Just look at the language you quoted: "voluntarily and intelligently" cooperate is not what the communists had in mind. The manifesto is clearly naive and almost child-like in its optimism, but there is nothing vile or sinister about that hope.
Look, I would wager most humanists are not even socialists. I am not. The core of humanism isn't subscribing to one particular dogma or belief - it's about a mindset that rejects superstition, bases conclusions on empiricism and science, and has a respect for individual liberty.
it's about a mindset that rejects superstition, bases conclusions on empiricism and science, and has a respect for individual liberty.
The respect for individual liberty is notably absent in practice, (although they pay great lip service to it.)
'traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.'
'Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.'
'The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.'
'there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.'
'all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism'
'religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted'
'A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established '
Sure is a lot of 'musts' there.
These control freaks are not any respecters of individual liberty. Sorry.
I have no problem with science addressing scientific concerns.
But if you think that science can or should be able to answer everything in life, you don't understand science.
To a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The respect for individual liberty is notably absent in practice, (although they pay great lip service to it.)
'traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.'
'Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.'
'The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.'
'there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.'
'all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism'
'religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted'
'A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established '
Sure is a lot of 'musts' there.
These control freaks are not any respecters of individual liberty. Sorry.
I have no problem with science addressing scientific concerns.
But if you think that science can or should be able to answer everything in life, you don't understand science.
To a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I never suggested science could or should solve any non-scientific problems.
I just said religion is irrelevant to solving any problem in the modern age. Science, psychology, economics, philosophy - all provide more rational approaches and with better outcomes. All the "good" religion does is explainable purely by reference to these other things - religion is as relevant as alchemy or the old theory of four humors.
Why don't we shift the burden where it belongs? Explain to me:
1) what does religion explain that is not explainable by reference to secular theories? In other words what logical "work" does religion do, other than make bare assertions? Because if all it does is make bald assertions such as "God is the creator of the universe," you raise more questions than you purport to answer - e.g., where then did God come? How do you know it was God and not the invisible pink unicorn? - and therefore utterly fails as an explanation.
2) What good comes of religion that would not exist without it?
Last edited by austinguy2009; 07-08-2009 at 02:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
