HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Religion is the Opposite ...

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:00 PM

Religion is the Opposite of Humanism

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/religion_is_the_opposite_of_humanism/

A liberally religious mind would assert that more than coincidence is involved where noble ethics and religiosity is concerned. Perhaps. Where far-seeing humanist ethics did arise, it never was due to traditional religiosity or established religion. The pioneering proto-humanist was always a heretic, a freethinker, a radical, a schismatic, a blasphemer, or something similarly dangerous. Some of these radicals founded new religious sects, some didn't, and some were murdered by the faithful. Its hard to see how religion deserves credit for anything but supplying the backdrop resistance to humane charity and universal dignity for all.


More at link.

20 replies, 1712 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Religion is the Opposite of Humanism (Original post)
edhopper Sep 2013 OP
cleanhippie Sep 2013 #1
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #2
edhopper Sep 2013 #3
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #5
edhopper Sep 2013 #7
PotatoChip Sep 2013 #10
cbayer Sep 2013 #4
edhopper Sep 2013 #6
cbayer Sep 2013 #8
edhopper Sep 2013 #9
cbayer Sep 2013 #11
edhopper Sep 2013 #12
cbayer Sep 2013 #13
edhopper Sep 2013 #14
cbayer Sep 2013 #15
edhopper Sep 2013 #16
cbayer Sep 2013 #17
edhopper Sep 2013 #18
rug Sep 2013 #19
Jim__ Sep 2013 #20

Response to edhopper (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:06 PM

1. Its hard to see how religion deserves credit for anything but supplying the backdrop resistance...

Its hard to see how religion deserves credit for anything but supplying the backdrop resistance to humane charity and universal dignity for all.


And there it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:09 PM

2. Ever hear of the Society of Friends?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:13 PM

3. Isn't that just a good example of what the

author says:

The pioneering proto-humanist was always a heretic, a freethinker, a radical, a schismatic, a blasphemer, or something similarly dangerous. Some of these radicals founded new religious sects, some didn't, and some were murdered by the faithful

From Wiki:
"The movement arose from the Legatine-Arians and other dissenting Protestant groups, breaking away from the established Church of England"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:29 PM

5. No. I believe that it is the exact opposite of saying "Where far-seeing humanist ethics did arise,

 

it never was due to traditional religiosity or established religion."

Saying that "The pioneering proto-humanist was always a heretic, a freethinker, a radical, a schismatic, a blasphemer, or something similarly dangerous" disregards the commonality and the deeply religious beliefs of the Quakers.

Many Protestant groups did not view themselves as heretics, freethinkers, radicals, schismatics, blasphemers, or something similarly dangerous, but believed that they were returning to the traditional Christianity that the Catholic Church, with all of its pomp and accumulated great wealth, had departed from.

Saying that "The pioneering proto-humanist was always a heretic, a freethinker, a radical, a schismatic, a blasphemer, or something similarly dangerous" is not negated by also saying "Some of these radicals founded new religious sects."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:34 PM

7. I read this as him saying

to the established religions these were heretics etc... Not to our viewing them by today's standards.

But as I said, my assumption, we would have to ask him further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 04:10 PM

10. Humanism among people of faith predates the Protestant Reformation.

I am aware of humanists within the Roman Catholic church in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. While there were others, the humanist Sir Thomas More immediately comes to mind; mainly because I find the Tudor period interesting.

Sir Thomas More (/ˈmɔr/; 7 February 1478 – 6 July 1535), known to Roman Catholics as Saint Thomas More since 1935, was an English lawyer, social philosopher, author, statesman, and noted Renaissance humanist. He was an important councilor to Henry VIII of England and Lord Chancellor from October 1529 to 16 May 1532. More opposed the Protestant Reformation, in particular the theology of Martin Luther and William Tyndale, whose books he burned and followers he persecuted. More also wrote Utopia, published in 1516, about the political system of an ideal and imaginary island nation. More later opposed the King's separation from the Roman Catholic Church and refused to accept him as Supreme Head of the Church of England, because such disparaged Papal Authority and Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Tried for treason, More was convicted on perjured testimony and beheaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:15 PM

4. Well it is if one uses the very narrow and biased definition of humanism that this

author does. Since there is not consensus of what the term even means, drawing a conclusion based on a single definition is a false premise.

He sounds like an evangelist to me.

There are people who are both religious and humanist. The author is not one of them.

There are as many kinds of humanists as there are religionists, but he bases his theory only on his kind.

One way! Sound familiar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:31 PM

6. And what he is saying that

in his opinion they are following their humanist principles, not the religious ones.

But I did not post this because I 100% agree, only because I thought it was very apropos to discussions here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 03:21 PM

8. It's an opinion piece and he can only really speak for himself.

There is no "they" there. His is a philosophy, not a review of the science.

And that's fine, but I'm not going to put much stake in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 04:09 PM

9. Again you think

no one can have an opinion about others beliefs.
Never point out that they find them illogical or wrong.
Yes there is a 'they" and he has an opinion about them. It is a well reasoned opinion, it can be debated no doubt, but you still think people shouldn't confront others' beliefs as if they are beyond reproach.

I want to make it clear I am debating and countering what you are saying, I have no ill feelings toward you and not trying to belittle you as a person, just engage in a vigorous debate, if you have felt insulted at any time, i apologize and can just say that languge got away from me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 04:24 PM

11. Again, you keep telling me what I think and, again, your assumptions are incorrect.

"You think no one can have an opinion about others beliefs"
No - anyone can have any opinion they want. My opinion is that his philosophy is faulty because he uses a narrow definition.

"You still think people shouldn't confront others' beliefs"
No - I have no problem with people challenging other people's beliefs or lack of beliefs. I object to telling them they are wrong when they have no evidence that they are wrong.

I sense no hostility from you and I hope you sense none from me. I am also engaging in the debate in the hopes that you will consider being more courteous and tolerant of those who see things differently than you do. Perhaps I will completely fail in this effort, but I honestly feel you will get more honest debate if you don't start from the premise that a belief in god is wrong on it's face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #11)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 04:34 PM

12. Okay

My stand on God is from years of looking at the idea, I did not just wake up one day and say, "there is no God". I was a believer at one time, and then agnostic, but all I read and all I saw, eventually showed me that there is no God. So I don't dismiss it on a whim, I still ask believers to show me why I should give credence to the concept, or at least not discount it. So far I have only seen confirmation of my non belief.

That is why atheist equate it with other concepts that have long lost veracity due to lack of any supporting information.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #12)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 04:54 PM

13. Why can't you just accept that you came to one conclusion and other people

came to another.

Good for you. You found your answer. You do not believe there are any gods. Cool.

If you are still asking believers to try and convince you, perhaps you are not so sure. Or perhaps being able to punch anything they say gives you the confirmation you need to hold on to your current position.

I honestly don't know what drives you, but you sure seem to need to be right about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #13)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 05:05 PM

14. No, I am pretty damn sure.

which i think shows. I just feel that if i only talk about this with other agnostics and atheist I am not testing the logic of my conclusions.
I feel I should hear what the opposing view says and critically look at it.
If people cam to another conclusion, I want to hear about it, if they have any convincing argument or reasoned analysis, I should listen.
A lot of the answers are of the "I just believe it or know it or feel it" variety. But a thoughtful statement is worth looking at. And if i see a flaw in that argument it is worthwhile to put it into a cogent reply.


Similar to how do I know the Republicans or Libertarians are so wrong about things if I don't hear their arguments?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 05:11 PM

15. If you are pretty damn sure, I'm not sure why you need to test your conclusions.

Sorry, I think your reasons are probably more complex than that, but that's really none of my business. You already know that they don't have an convincing argument or reasoned argument that would make you a believer.

I think the answer "I just believe or know or feel" is completely legitimate. I sometimes see theism and atheism as fundamental identity issues, not unlike sexual orientation.

While some people find themselves in grey areas, other experience belief or lack of belief as a part of who they are, just as people do with sexuality.

I think it is much different than a political position. Much different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 05:16 PM

16. Well it is

an awful lot of fun sometimes.

Better to come here and discuss a subject I find interesting that watch the Khardasians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 05:39 PM

17. You have a great point there!

I learn something new on this site every day.

And I meet new people.

I've enjoyed having this discussion with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #17)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 05:45 PM

18. Thanks

I with you as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 09:39 PM

19. This is what the article is rsponding to which has the, er, opposite, conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 3, 2013, 10:18 AM

20. Hear, hear!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread