amnestylaw:

THOMAS JEFFERSON oce said: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god;because if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than that of blindfolded fear".
Does anyone see senses in the above quote?

amnestylaw:

The point here is that ain't reason rather than blidfolded fear and science rather than religion better for us in Nigeria?

amnestylaw:

The point here is that ain't reason rather than blidfolded fear and science rather than religion better for us in Nigeria?

amnestylaw:

As a Humanist who knows that science does not have answers to all our problems, I see science, reason and critical thinking as what we need rather than a god or devil we cannot see, verify or feel. Man should be blamed for all the problems of this world and not god or devil because there are no enough evidence to prove they exist.

amnestylaw:

The point here is that ain't reason rather than [b]blidfolded fear and science [/b]rather than religion better for us in Nigeria?

davidylan:

Dont you just want to laugh when these atheists try to ascribe to themselves the exclusive ability to "reason" and "science"?
Who told you christians cant reason and are not scientists? You are not a christian . . . do you believe you have more intelligence than Isaac Newton who was a christian?

What "science" are you talking about? Are you scientifically knowledgeable yourself? I know many born again christians who are scientists, surgeons and engineers in the USA. What are you?

Pastor AIO:

Is that your point, or Thomas Jefferson's point?

amnestylaw:

Thomas Jefferson said it. Most people follow it and now am inviting you to come let us apply reason together instead of relying of blidfolded faith which is the substance of thing hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

amnestylaw:

The point here is that ain't reason rather than blidfolded fear and science rather than religion better for us in Nigeria?

amnestylaw:

Fellow Nairalanders, this is a response to PILGRIM.1 and many others who think they know Humanism or who know they know nothing about Humanism.

amnestylaw:
My good friends including (PILGRIM.1) should note that one who believes in any gods, devils or supernatural beings cannot be Humanists.

amnestylaw:

Even though many people, the world over, follow a Humanist philosophy, they may not have heard about Humanism.

amnestylaw:

Some who have heard about it, have a not so clear understanding of what Humanism realy is. I think that is one of the reasons why many religious persons claim to be Humanists today.

amnestylaw:

My friends, if you care to know, Humanism is a fairly new name for a very old philosophy which has as its basic princples-- skepticism of supernatural claims and an emphasis on living a fulfilling and ethical life  without religion.

amnestylaw:

Humanism is the study of what it means to be a good human being. It is a way of living, thinking and acting that allows every individual to actualize his or her highest aspirations and successfully achieve a happy and fulfilling life.

amnestylaw:

Humanists,  therefore, beieve that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs, that we can only have one life and we should make the best of it, creating meaning and purpose for ourselves and making sense of the world using  reason, experience and shared human values.

amnestylaw:

True Humanists are AGNOSTICS (A=without, GNOSTIC=knowledge) because they think we cannot know for sure the answers to some of the big questions about life, including whether god exists or not.

amnestylaw:

Because there is no evidence for the existence of god, for an afterlife, Humanists live their lives as ATHEISTS (A= without, THEIST = god), find other reasons for living good lives.

amnestylaw:

Fellow, Nairalanders, Humanism is open to all unbelievers and non-religious people---atheists,rationalists,secularists,marxists, and materialists.

amnestylaw:

Therefore, if you are unchurched, unmosqued, unshrined, that is, if you reject or are critical of supernatural beliefs, then Humanism is for you.

amnestylaw:

My good friends including (PILGRIM.1) should note that one who believes in any gods, devils or supernatural beings cannot be Humanists.

amnestylaw:

Those who believe in heaven, hell, an afterlife, another world, revelation, miracles and all forms of spiritual encounters cannot be Humanists.

amnestylaw:

One must reject religions and all its deities in favour of the advancement of humanity to find true Humanism

amnestylaw:

The Happy Human symbol was chosen in a competition organized by IHEU member organization the British Humanist Association in 1965. It was designed by Dennis Barrington. Since then, it (or one of many variations) has been widely adopted by Humanist organizations, including IHEU.

The British Humanist Association holds the trademark in the UK for both the original (upright) happy human and the newer (bendy) version. Hanne Stinson, executive director of the BHA writes: "The upright logo is now used in the UK and internationally as a Humanist emblem (something we are happy to see) -- we are content for any Humanist organisation to use this emblem, and would not prevent anyone from using it in that way."

amnestylaw:

IHEU member organization Norwegian Humanist Association paid for the symbol to be professionally re-designed in 2005 and the latest versions are shown below.

amnestylaw:

Beleif is usually a cultural or personal matter separate from occupation and no one, not even a scientist is immune from the irrational seductions of religion.

pilgrim.1:

@amnestylaw,

Thank you for your response. Let us assume that your initial concerns were about "reason", I fear you have demonstrated quite the opposite in your reply and have not been reasonable at all. First, I tried to come to a basic  premise and then offered a simple enough question:

        'what then do you think attracts many humanists to religious/spiritual humanism?'
 

    Quote from: amnestylaw on Today at 07:25:37 PM
      My good friends including (PILGRIM.1) should note that one who believes in any gods, devils or supernatural beings cannot be Humanists.

amnestylaw:

Most People argue that : "there are many scientists who believe in god. If many of the world's most intelligent people are theists, then belief in god must be sensible".
I wish to state here that is just a fallacy of appeal to authority, which atheists could equally do as well, or better, Academics, as a group, are much less religious than the general population.
Though [size=14pt]it is easy to find scientists who believe, none of them can scientifically demonstrate their faith.[/size] Beleif is usually a cultural or personal matter separate from occupation and no one, not even a scientist is immune from the irrational seductions of religion.

buda atum:



Its that last quote that makes me jump into this thread, the notion that a humanist cannot be religious, though, let me first attend to the dichotomy raised between religion and reason.

Maybe I should make it clear that because of the many groups and people who today call themselves Humanists,  a new term, Secular Humanism has come to dinstinguish real Humanism from the rest.Secular humanism and atheism are not identical. One can be an atheist and not a secular humanist or humanist. Indeed, some thinkers or activists who call themselves atheists explicitly reject humanist ethical values (for example, Stalin, Lenin, Nietzsche, and others). Nor is secular humanism the same thing as humanism by itself; it is surely sharply different from religious humanism.



On that note, going back to the idea that a humanist cannot be a religious person. Please consider first that humanism did not always mean one is an atheist, it pure meant one had concern for one's fellow humans, and I would assert that Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed, to name but a few exemplified this love of the humankind, in general. In my mind, religion that does not hold that human being at its core can be defined as devil worship, I would suggest.
should also make it clear that secular humanism is not antireligious; it is simply nonreligious. There is a difference.

Secular humanists are nontheists; they may be atheists, agnostics, or skeptics about the God question and/or immortality of the soul. To say that we are nonreligious means, that is, that we are not religious; ours is a scientific, ethical, and philosophical  This means that, as secular humanists, we offer good practical wisdom based on ethics, science, and philosophy.

Ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, independent of theological claims, amenable to rational scrutiny, testing value judgments by their consequences.
Ethical values and judgments are relative to human interests, needs, desires, ends, and values; they are open to objective criticism and evaluation.
Fulfillment, realization, and maximization of human freedom and happiness are what humanists seek, both for the individual and the community.
Thus there are ethical responsibilities that humanists hold toward others within the community, on the interpersonal level, the level of the democratic society, and the planetary community as well.
Clearly, secular humanism is not equivalent to atheism—it is far more than that. Similarly, secular humanism finds itself at odds with religious humanism, since its outlook is clearly nonreligious. It goes beyond any negative skeptical inquiry insofar as it seeks to provide a positive and affirmative alternative to customary moral and religious practices.

davidylan:

Christian scientists are not obligated to "scientifically demonstrate their faith" just the same way atheist scientists have consistently FAILED to demonstrate the basic premise of their own "faith" i.e. that God doesnt exist.
You argued earlier that faith is divorced from occupation THEN go right ahead to accuse christian scientists of being seduced by "irrational religion"?

I think many of you simply post without a clear understanding of what it is you wish to pass across.

JeSoul:

sister Pilgrim that reply na helele! If I were Amnesty I go throw in that wet (from wiping off the sweat) towel

Your return to NL did not go unnoticed certainly your scripture-boxing on the tithing threads has made your presence felt lol . . . and again if no one has said it, let me be the one to testify that you have been missed I hope all is well with you and yours.

amnestylaw:

My friend, it may please you to know that in any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe untill evidence is produced and substantiated.

amnestylaw:

Clearly, secular humanism is not equivalent to atheism—it is far more than that. Similarly, secular humanism finds itself at odds with religious humanism, since its outlook is clearly nonreligious. It goes beyond any negative skeptical inquiry insofar as it seeks to provide a positive and affirmative alternative to customary moral and religious practices.

amnestylaw:

Though it is easy to find scientists who believe, none of them can scientifically demonstrate their faith. Beleif is usually a cultural or personal matter separate from occupation and no one, not even a scientist is immune from the irrational seductions of religion.

pilgrim.1:

Please indulge me again. I think you're operating on an unhealthy premise. First, you recognize that science does not answer all the questions of our real world, no? If that is correct, on what basis would you justify using "science" to prove the validity or otherwise of the supernatural or the spiritual? As has been observed, people making statements the way you do only lead others to the opinion that you don't have a good grasp of "science". Perhaps what you're tending towards is not science per se, but a very queer form of empiricism which has been the harbinger of such idealism as you espouse.

davidylan:

I think the latter was correct. Many of these folks dont really understand science at all, they simply use it as a cloak for their unbelief.

davidylan:

I think the latter was correct. Many of these folks dont really understand science at all, they simply use it as a cloak for their unbelief.

C-NOETIC:

I am tempted to think that their unbelief is a function of angst at the system, hopelessness and rejection from society. The annoying part is how they tend to hide it under the cloak of science.

pilgrim.1:

Finally, a big. . . . [size=16pt]WOW!![/size]
Where have you been? Perhaps I didn't look hard enough, but I certainly missed you plenty-plenty as I did many others. Yes, everything's well with me. . . and I trust better for you! Many blessings.

davidylan:

It never ceases to amaze me either . . . i hate to use myself as an example but i'm a christian who initially got carried away when i first started research . . . until i realised that rather than debunk christianity . . . science itself is a powerful tool to convince the unbeliever that our world JUST HAS TO HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF DIVINE INTELLIGENCE.

the cell is the smallest unit of the human body, but the intricate mechanisms that control how a tiny cell behaves relative to the entire human system is beyond amazing. No one can convince me that evolution and chance made that up.

for instance . . . there are 2 types of cells in the lungs, when one set gets destroyed . . . the other set automatically gets prompted to convert itself into a version of the lost cell types. If this never occured, many of us exposed to serious air pollution would be needing lung transplants as early as 50yrs of age.
I just shake my head when i see all these scientifically illiterate folks come here bragging about "science". What about science do you really know?

davidylan:

It never ceases to amaze me either . . . i hate to use myself as an example but i'm a christian who initially got carried away when i first started research . . . until i realised that rather than debunk christianity . . . science itself is a powerful tool to convince the unbeliever that our world JUST HAS TO HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF DIVINE INTELLIGENCE.

the cell is the smallest unit of the human body, but the intricate mechanisms that control how a tiny cell behaves relative to the entire human system is beyond amazing. No one can convince me that evolution and chance made that up.

for instance . . . there are 2 types of cells in the lungs, when one set gets destroyed . . . the other set automatically gets prompted to convert itself into a version of the lost cell types. If this never occured, many of us exposed to serious air pollution would be needing lung transplants as early as 50yrs of age.

I just shake my head when i see all these scientifically illiterate folks come here bragging about "science". What about science do you really know?

toneyb:

How does this science you know help make the case for your god that says evil spirit cause disease? Is it not because of the science and biology of animals and how their digestive system works that we that Jonah couldn't have survived inside a fish for 3 days? Thanks to science and what it has explained to us we know that the biblical claim that your god first created all humans and animals as vegetarians is false. Thanks to science we know that the sun does not move from place to place as your bible says. Thanks to science we also know that evil spirits do not cause diseases and that striped sticks can not produce striped offsprings when breeding animals. Do the writers of the bible know anything about unicellular organisms and how the lung functions?