So much for Humanism..!!!!

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't know if anyone has noticed but the human race is on the brink starting an ecological chain of events that could easily end up killing most of us and the planet with it. We've known about this for sometime now and unless you have your head in the sand and believe the right wing propaganda from the US (whose CO2 emissions have gone up not down) ...[text shortened]... religion (9/11 and all that) it's going to be humanity itself that finishes us off!

And humanism is not equivalent to speciesm!

Originally posted by Palynka
What is it then?

It's such a wide and varied concept that it can't be defined in four words, of course, but I think "belief in human potential" would come a lot closer.

Originally posted by Nordlys
It's such a wide and varied concept that it can't be defined in four words, of course, but I think "belief in human potential" would come a lot closer.

Potential for what? Bungling?

Edit: In much the same way we have just accidentally stumbled to the top of the food-chain, our whole existence is accident-prone and ultimately meaningless.

Originally posted by frogstomp
That's what THEY want you to think.

Why do they spend so much time trying to convince me otherwise? Is it some twisted form of reverse psychology?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Ok, aside from the fact that you don't seem to know what humanism is; is it your claim that if people trusted God more we would not pollute as much or is it simply that if more people believed in God he would save the planet for us?

Do you have any studies that suggest non-humanists pollute less? Do you have any studies that non-humanists are doing more to clean up existing pollution?

TheSkipper

Ok then
1/ tell me what humanism is.

2/ tell me if your thoughts about humanism are altered by predicted self destruction.

Even if non-humanists were much worse than humanists at polluting the planet you would still have a problem. My understanding of (secular) humanism is that it implies a much less cynical view of human nature than religion. Afterall , what I am asking is whether your faith in human nature would be shaken not your faith in humanism. So even if it was the religious right that messed things up it would still make you question human nature itself for being so stupid as believing in a nonsensical God and then screwing up the planet. In this debate attack is not the best form of defence.

Originally posted by rwingett
I fail to see what connection humanism has with global warming, especially when a vast majority of the people around the world would describe themselves as being religious. The self-described 'humanists' are in the minority, by far. If anything, then, religious belief should be tarnished with the odium of causing global warming:

1. Most people have relig ...[text shortened]... y on 'god' to solve all their problems and would have done something about it themselves.

You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that humanism is causing Global warming but I am suggesting that humans themselves are , and that inlcudes religious and non-religious alike. I would assume that if we did the unthinkable and reallly screwed things up you would hold your head in your hands in dismay and any faith you had in human potential and human reason would be shaken.
Even if religion was responsible you could only blame humans for being so stupid as believing in God in the first place (you could not blame God since he doesn't exist to you and you couldn't even blame religion because humans were responsible for that also). Either way the brave new world is gone and you are left to ponder on how humanity screwed it all up . It doesn't matter one jot if religion was part of this or not. It would matter to me , but for you it should be irrelevant to your assessment of human potential.

As an aside , I actually think the main problem is consumerism and capitalism. No-one talks seriously about sustainable development really. The planet can't sustain our lifestyle , something has to give and its human nature to want more DVD's and more swimming pools etc and the developing world want what we've got. My experience is that Atheists enjoy their foreign holidays and new cars as much as the religious.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Humanism isn't faith in human nature, or a naive belief in humans. Where did you get that idea?

Ok , put me straight then. I think it is certainly a belief in human potential. It is optimistic about humanity and doesn't think humanity needs to be saved (from itself?). Global catastrophe would shake that up.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that humanism is causing Global warming but I am suggesting that humans themselves are , and that inlcudes religious and non-religious alike. I would assume that if we did the unthinkable and reallly screwed things up you would hold your head in your hands in dismay and any faith you had in human potential and hum ...[text shortened]... ience is that Atheists enjoy their foreign holidays and new cars as much as the religious.

I have great faith in human potential. As we are still burdened (to a large degree) by religious dogma, we have not yet reached our full potential. We clearly have room for improvement.

Originally posted by rwingett
I have great faith in human potential. As we are still burdened (to a large degree) by religious dogma, we have not yet reached our full potential. We clearly have room for improvement.

You have not answered the central question posed by this thread.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For all the ranting about the dangers of religion (9/11 and all that) it's going to be humanity itself that finishes us off!

I quite seriously doubt that. Even if we, as a species, manage to alter our ecosystem to the point it becomes unhospitable or even toxic to humans, we will find a way to survive. We might even evolve (gasp!) over several generations and become more tolerant to the new environment.

If you really want to get Chicken Little about it, it would be easier to speculate that Sol will go off its main sequence. That would effectively end humanity as we know it. The planet would probably survive, along with some life forms...unless that darn thing goes completely supernova.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You have not answered the central question posed by this thread.

If I have not, it's because you have not asked a coherant question. All I can discern is you making highly speculative connections.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't know if anyone has noticed but the human race is on the brink starting an ecological chain of events that could easily end up killing most of us and the planet with it. We've known about this for sometime now and unless you have your head in the sand and believe the right wing propaganda from the US (whose CO2 emissions have gone up not down) ...[text shortened]... religion (9/11 and all that) it's going to be humanity itself that finishes us off!

Guess who just saw Al "I invented the Internet" Gore's new propoganda film, "An Inconvenient Truth?"

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , put me straight then. I think it is certainly a belief in human potential. It is optimistic about humanity and doesn't think humanity needs to be saved (from itself?). Global catastrophe would shake that up.

A belief in human potential is not the same as a belief in humans. We don't necessarily reach our potential, it's something we have to work on. That's why education plays a big role in humanism. And secular humanists don't believe there is someone there to save us, so the question whether we need it or not isn't really interesting. There's no easy way out, we have to take responsibility ourselves or fail.

Originally posted by Nordlys
A belief in human potential is not the same as a belief in humans. We don't necessarily reach our potential, it's something we have to work on. That's why education plays a big role in humanism. And secular humanists don't believe there is someone there to save us, so the question whether we need it or not isn't really interesting. There's no easy way out, we have to take responsibility ourselves or fail.

Take responsibility for what?

Originally posted by rwingett
If I have not, it's because you have not asked a coherant question. All I can discern is you making highly speculative connections.

I didn't think I had to spell it out , but if you insist. How does the Atheist humanist respond to the prospect of humanity screwing up the planet (and themselves) ? Would this not lead one to conclude that maybe the Bible isn't so far off the mark after all when it claims that humanity is fallen and in need of salvation? Would not one's belief in the reasonableness or rationality of human beings be shaken?

The most powerful nation on earth is INCREASING not decreasing it's CO2 emissions and it is responsible for 25% of all C02. Hurricane Katrina did not wake them up either.

A Christian is not overly surprised that mankind seems bent on self destruction by pursuing material greed over respect for the environment because he has already subscribed to the idea that mankind is in trouble (fallen) and needs salvation. So , as I said , what about you guys? Clear enough now?