Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Humanism defined

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 5:20:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.iheu.org...

Would people agree that this definition is satisfactory, or is it too small/large?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 5:27:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Humanism contradicts itself because it apparently values reason and justice whilst rejecting Religion (which is where some morality comes from). Most of Humanism values comes straight from religion and has roots in religion. Instead of rejecting it, it should be thanking it.

Humanism is wishful thinking.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 5:31:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 5:27:50 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Humanism contradicts itself because it apparently values reason and justice whilst rejecting Religion (which is where some morality comes from). Most of Humanism values comes straight from religion and has roots in religion. Instead of rejecting it, it should be thanking it.

Humanism is wishful thinking.

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 5:32:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why is it whenever I ask something on the religious section that is about learning other views, someone jumps out and without any reference to the source just shouts "It's wrong", "it" being either atheism or theism, depending on the person, with the occasional moment of intelligence by people who read the Original Post?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 6:08:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."
- Kurt Vonnegut
TheDiabolicDebater
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2012 11:28:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 6:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."
- Kurt Vonnegut

That may be true, but who says you can't be rewarded for your actions within your lifetime?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 12:18:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 5:27:50 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Humanism contradicts itself because it apparently values reason and justice whilst rejecting Religion (which is where some morality comes from). Most of Humanism values comes straight from religion and has roots in religion. Instead of rejecting it, it should be thanking it.

Humanism is wishful thinking.

^contra this guy, I rather like humanism! Where I part ways however is secular humanism obv, since I think the fullest definition of what it means to be human is found in the man Jesus.

Given that, "human values" seem to be a very person-relative term. The doctor who considers it valuable to kill off the old and sick for the well being of the rest of the human race is simply acting in accord with his humanism... I don't see a consistent way around this. I'm open though--
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 12:24:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 5:20:32 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
http://www.iheu.org...

Would people agree that this definition is satisfactory, or is it too small/large?

I apologize... for a moment I thought you were posting this to be critiqued in a different way.

If it's just a formality I'm indifferent to the issue.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:08:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/28/2012 11:28:03 PM, TheDiabolicDebater wrote:
At 4/28/2012 6:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."
- Kurt Vonnegut

That may be true, but who says you can't be rewarded for your actions within your lifetime?

It's impossible to be truly and completely sincere about giving charity (for example) to others and getting rewarded for it in this life.

1. The reason is to get rewarded for an action in this life, other people need to know that you are doing these things. So you need other people to see you doing these good deeds. This questions your sincerity because you simply want to show others you are doing good and not doing it just for the sake of doing good but so others can say "hey what a nice guy".
Reward? Yes. Sincerity? No.

2. To be truly sincere about what you're doing, you must do your good deeds completely and totally anonymously. This will remove any doubts of your sincerity and shows that you are doing the good just for the sake of doing the good. However, now you will not get rewarded because no body knows you are doing it.
Reward? No. Sincerity? Yes

This is the dilemma of the humanist because everything is limited to this life since they don't believe.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:28:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 10:08:31 AM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:28:03 PM, TheDiabolicDebater wrote:
At 4/28/2012 6:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."
- Kurt Vonnegut

That may be true, but who says you can't be rewarded for your actions within your lifetime?

It's impossible to be truly and completely sincere about giving charity (for example) to others and getting rewarded for it in this life.

1. The reason is to get rewarded for an action in this life, other people need to know that you are doing these things. So you need other people to see you doing these good deeds. This questions your sincerity because you simply want to show others you are doing good and not doing it just for the sake of doing good but so others can say "hey what a nice guy".
Reward? Yes. Sincerity? No.

2. To be truly sincere about what you're doing, you must do your good deeds completely and totally anonymously. This will remove any doubts of your sincerity and shows that you are doing the good just for the sake of doing the good. However, now you will not get rewarded because no body knows you are doing it.
Reward? No. Sincerity? Yes

This is the dilemma of the humanist because everything is limited to this life since they don't believe.

What if you do good simply because that is your nature? It is cheap to do good just for reward in the afterlife.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 10:49:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 10:08:31 AM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:28:03 PM, TheDiabolicDebater wrote:
At 4/28/2012 6:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."
- Kurt Vonnegut

That may be true, but who says you can't be rewarded for your actions within your lifetime?

It's impossible to be truly and completely sincere about giving charity (for example) to others and getting rewarded for it in this life.

1. The reason is to get rewarded for an action in this life, other people need to know that you are doing these things. So you need other people to see you doing these good deeds. This questions your sincerity because you simply want to show others you are doing good and not doing it just for the sake of doing good but so others can say "hey what a nice guy".
Reward? Yes. Sincerity? No.

2. To be truly sincere about what you're doing, you must do your good deeds completely and totally anonymously. This will remove any doubts of your sincerity and shows that you are doing the good just for the sake of doing the good. However, now you will not get rewarded because no body knows you are doing it.
Reward? No. Sincerity? Yes

This is the dilemma of the humanist because everything is limited to this life since they don't believe.

Whoever said a Humanist needs immediate rewards?

The human brain is quite well developed to being social without external reward. Doing "good deeds" can be mentally satisfying even when there is no one to witness it.

A Humanists "reward" lies only in how he/she views him/herself.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 11:30:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 10:08:31 AM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:28:03 PM, TheDiabolicDebater wrote:
At 4/28/2012 6:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."
- Kurt Vonnegut

That may be true, but who says you can't be rewarded for your actions within your lifetime?

It's impossible to be truly and completely sincere about giving charity (for example) to others and getting rewarded for it in this life.

1. The reason is to get rewarded for an action in this life, other people need to know that you are doing these things. So you need other people to see you doing these good deeds. This questions your sincerity because you simply want to show others you are doing good and not doing it just for the sake of doing good but so others can say "hey what a nice guy".
Reward? Yes. Sincerity? No.

In other words, I do things for reward cos I am selfish, therefore everyone else is selfish. Cool beans.

2. To be truly sincere about what you're doing, you must do your good deeds completely and totally anonymously. This will remove any doubts of your sincerity and shows that you are doing the good just for the sake of doing the good. However, now you will not get rewarded because no body knows you are doing it.
Reward? No. Sincerity? Yes

This is the dilemma of the humanist because everything is limited to this life since they don't believe.

...There's no dilemma. I mean, let's look at the quote again:

"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."

In other words, a humanist is sincere, without caring about rewards.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 11:31:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 12:24:15 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 4/28/2012 5:20:32 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
http://www.iheu.org...

Would people agree that this definition is satisfactory, or is it too small/large?

I apologize... for a moment I thought you were posting this to be critiqued in a different way.

If it's just a formality I'm indifferent to the issue.

Sorry, I meant this questions to humanists or atheists really. As in, would humanists say this is all there is to being a humanist, or is there more, or is there less.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 12:40:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 11:30:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:08:31 AM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:28:03 PM, TheDiabolicDebater wrote:
At 4/28/2012 6:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."
- Kurt Vonnegut

That may be true, but who says you can't be rewarded for your actions within your lifetime?

It's impossible to be truly and completely sincere about giving charity (for example) to others and getting rewarded for it in this life.

1. The reason is to get rewarded for an action in this life, other people need to know that you are doing these things. So you need other people to see you doing these good deeds. This questions your sincerity because you simply want to show others you are doing good and not doing it just for the sake of doing good but so others can say "hey what a nice guy".
Reward? Yes. Sincerity? No.

In other words, I do things for reward cos I am selfish, therefore everyone else is selfish. Cool beans.

2. To be truly sincere about what you're doing, you must do your good deeds completely and totally anonymously. This will remove any doubts of your sincerity and shows that you are doing the good just for the sake of doing the good. However, now you will not get rewarded because no body knows you are doing it.
Reward? No. Sincerity? Yes

This is the dilemma of the humanist because everything is limited to this life since they don't believe.

...There's no dilemma. I mean, let's look at the quote again:


"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."

In other words, a humanist is sincere, without caring about rewards.

Fair, but the humanist can never be truly sincere AND get rewards or acknowledgement for their righteous deeds
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 12:46:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/29/2012 12:40:31 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 4/29/2012 11:30:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/29/2012 10:08:31 AM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 4/28/2012 11:28:03 PM, TheDiabolicDebater wrote:
At 4/28/2012 6:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."
- Kurt Vonnegut

That may be true, but who says you can't be rewarded for your actions within your lifetime?

It's impossible to be truly and completely sincere about giving charity (for example) to others and getting rewarded for it in this life.

1. The reason is to get rewarded for an action in this life, other people need to know that you are doing these things. So you need other people to see you doing these good deeds. This questions your sincerity because you simply want to show others you are doing good and not doing it just for the sake of doing good but so others can say "hey what a nice guy".
Reward? Yes. Sincerity? No.

In other words, I do things for reward cos I am selfish, therefore everyone else is selfish. Cool beans.

2. To be truly sincere about what you're doing, you must do your good deeds completely and totally anonymously. This will remove any doubts of your sincerity and shows that you are doing the good just for the sake of doing the good. However, now you will not get rewarded because no body knows you are doing it.
Reward? No. Sincerity? Yes

This is the dilemma of the humanist because everything is limited to this life since they don't believe.

...There's no dilemma. I mean, let's look at the quote again:


"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead."

In other words, a humanist is sincere, without caring about rewards.

Fair, but the humanist can never be truly sincere AND get rewards or acknowledgement for their righteous deeds

Why can't people just want to help others? Why do we have to be rewarded for doing t?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 1:00:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not sure exactly, but it seems like you guys are getting into the moral argument and I think it's a little misconstrued. The argument is not that atheists/naturalist can do good things, be good people, and know good from evil. That is moral epistemology when the argument is moral ontology that God's commands constitute our moral duties.