Leo Igwe, Nigerian Humanist, discusses religion and superstition in Africa

Started by Former Believer, April 01, 2012, 08:59:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

meAgain

Quote from: rickymooston on April 06, 2012, 03:13:36 AM

Many of the people willing watchng said commercial go to church. ||666||

Yes, but I don't think it's the Religious Right or Conservative Christians producing these commercials. They might be part of the ones watching them, but depending how important their faith is to them, they probably feel bad about it.  ||smiley|| and recognize such a worldview of women is not in the best interest of man or society.

Argyle

Wow.. meAgain are you really trying to imply that the objectification of women is driven by secularity?
Is it tiring carrying around all of those straw men?

You are aware of course that the current roles of women as sexual objects which are the property of their husbands is included in many religious interpretations, and that secularists are currently fighting against those religious forces to gain equality for women, sure they are joined by great numbers of religious groups, but non-belief in gods or the idea that religions should not be setting social policy is not a cause of female objectification, it just isn't.

Also, given the statistics, I would imagine that quite a few religious individuals were involved in the production of those commercials, but I'm sure you're going to say "but they're not true christian's!"

||tip hat||
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

meAgain

Quote from: Argyle on April 06, 2012, 04:20:04 AM
Wow.. meAgain are you really trying to imply that the objectification of women is driven by secularity?
Is it tiring carrying around all of those straw men?


I?m saying the secular culture can be just as guilty as the religious in doing so. Are you saying the objectification of women does not exist in the secular culture?

none

how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.

meAgain

Argyle, a few more thoughts about how religion has no right to shape social policy . . .

Why should humanist ideology shape social policy? How is it better than someone else?s ideology? The humanist does not simply base his beliefs on science, reason, and that which can be observed (I?ve already shown how the Catholic Church does this as well). The humanist projects, just like any ideology, his assumptions. The humanist may believe that religion serves as a disservice to man, but in reality he has no proof. As I mentioned before one could argue the flip side. His case is flimsy, as many a secular group has developed theories and practices that have been a disservice to man. 

And what exactly makes the humanist believe his belief is the correct one? Humanists will admit murder is still considered to be wrong, unless, of course, the victim is an unborn baby. How have you determined such? And how is how you have determined such any better than how a religious person determines right from wrong?

Argyle, you may actually believe you are free from dogma and constrained thought, but from where I stand, you simply espouse different dogma and insist they are reasonable.


none

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
Argyle, a few more thoughts about how religion has no right to shape social policy . . .

Why should humanist ideology .....[garbage].....
"humanist ideology" what is that?
how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.

rickymooston

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 12:59:23 PM
I?m saying the secular culture can be just as guilty as the religious in doing so. Are you saying the objectification of women does not exist in the secular culture?

The question is whether its caused by it or not. Many football games have prayers and hence lol, in theory its not. On the other hand,

Argyle, it s valid to say somebody is a poor christan if its obvious what they do violates the commands of christ. Jesus complaned about lustful stares and divorce. SPAG and sciiptural interpretaton belong in another thread tho
"Re: Why should any Black man have any respect for any cop?
Your question is racist. If the police behave badly then everyone should lose respect for those policemen.", Happy Evolute

Former Believer

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 12:59:23 PM
Quote from: Argyle on April 06, 2012, 04:20:04 AM
Wow.. meAgain are you really trying to imply that the objectification of women is driven by secularity?
Is it tiring carrying around all of those straw men?


I?m saying the secular culture can be just as guilty as the religious in doing so. Are you saying the objectification of women does not exist in the secular culture?

It does, but the difference is that no beer commercial says that a holy book or a deity or religious leader is the authority behind the objectification. 
Don't sacrifice your mind at the altar of belief

Argyle

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
Why should humanist ideology shape social policy?

I could give a rather lengthy argument for humanism, but I think that is for another thread. I think you are conflating humanism with secularism however. Humanism is a particular philosophical approach to morality, while secularism is merely the idea that governments should be religiously neutral. You blame secularism for the beer ads you dislike, my point was that secularism does not endorse such ads, it merely does not make the argument, say, that leprechauns are offended by them and therefore we should not make them for example.

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
How is it better than someone else?s ideology? The humanist does not simply base his beliefs on science, reason, and that which can be observed (I?ve already shown how the Catholic Church does this as well).

Humanism is not a purely secular philosophical stance. A great many historical humanists were religious, even catholic. I think you will find that the more recent "friendly" Christianity is based on a melding of humanism and Christianity which occurred during the enlightenment, during which the teachings of Jesus became more and more center stage because they coincide much closer with humanist values and the extrapolations of old testament law became less and less prominent.

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
The humanist projects, just like any ideology, his assumptions. The humanist may believe that religion serves as a disservice to man, but in reality he has no proof.

This appears to be yet another straw man. Nothing within humanist philosophy is anti-religious per-say, it is more that among secular humanists (a subgroup of humanists) an argument is certainly being made that certain branches of religion have demonstrably caused harm, and that there is a pattern in the way that harm comes about which should be dealt with. The cornerstone of that pattern being the acceptance of whatever is taught by the religious establishment as unassailable truth. This of course does not apply to all religious groups, and can apply to many non-religious groups. To the end of preventing such harm secular humanists tend to promote reason as an antidote. It should also be noted that there are a great many secularist humanists who are also religious. There are a great many reasons that a religious person might not wish any religious group to gain power in the government, even his own, and many religious teachings are quite compatible with humanism.

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
As I mentioned before one could argue the flip side. His case is flimsy, as many a secular group has developed theories and practices that have been a disservice to man.

Rather than have this discussion devolve into arguments of which group contained people which caused more harm, perhaps it would be better to look at those who caused harm in both groups and what mechanisms of social control were at play, and how best to prepare against it. I think you will find that education in reason tends to be one of the better inoculations against the adoption of dogmatic thinking.

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
And what exactly makes the humanist believe his belief is the correct one? Humanists will admit murder is still considered to be wrong, unless, of course, the victim is an unborn baby.

That sentiment can hardly be generalized to all humanists. You seem to have a very black and white view of the world. Humanism is simply one philosophical perspective which really any person of any political or philosophical stripe may employ when evaluating moral judgments.

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
How have you determined such? And how is how you have determined such any better than how a religious person determines right from wrong?

Well, in general the argument made by secular humanists with regards to why laws should be evaluated based upon empiricist and humanist approaches is that there are so very many religions which all claim to have a revelation of what the law should be, and in order for all of them to live together in a peaceful and productive society it is desirable that common ground be used to evaluate the best legal system under which all could thrive and battle in the marketplace of ideas, rather than in the streets with clubs. Humanist ideals seem to apply to nearly every religion, sure, they do not provide prescriptive morality EG: X is evil, Y is good, but they do provide a common ground perspective. Secularism seems to be beneficial to every religious group, as the merging of religion and government has historically led to the persecution of the non-dominant religious groups directly proportional to the level of power granted to the religious leadership.

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
Argyle, you may actually believe you are free from dogma and constrained thought, but from where I stand, you simply espouse different dogma and insist they are reasonable.

I am free from your model of imposed morality, yes, I do not claim to have a perfect understanding of what would be the ideal moral system, but my philosophical leanings are toward a system of moral evaluation which is not black and white. As Sam Harris says, morality is like healthcare. We may not necessarily know what is the absolute best treatment for your throat cancer, but we are fairly certain that drinking battery acid is not it. In the same way we may not know what the best solution is when confronted with a rape victim, but we are fairly sure that stoning them to death is not it.

Hopefully my post has been somewhat an antidote to your mistaken perspective on secularism and humanism.
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

meAgain

Quote from: none on April 06, 2012, 01:38:13 PM
Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
Argyle, a few more thoughts about how religion has no right to shape social policy . . .

Why should humanist ideology .....[garbage].....
"humanist ideology" what is that?

Awww come on ? a little honesty in debate please. I never find it all that fair when atheists/agnostics/humanists, etc. get to play the, ?we have no set of beliefs? card. LOL!

meAgain

QuoteI could give a rather lengthy argument for humanism, but I think that is for another thread. I think you are conflating humanism with secularism however.

No, I am simply using some generalizations for the sake of argument and in simplifying debate on an internet forum. I am aware of the numerous groups and sub groups and individuals that make up atheists/agnostics/humanists/secularists/etc . . . In the same way non-religious lump the religious into similar categories, I sometimes do so as well, usually for simplicity sake. We need to at least each acknowledge that we are well aware of the different views and beliefs of each individual, even those who give themselves a label.   

QuoteYou blame secularism for the beer ads you dislike,

No, I blame a certain worldview for the beer ads I dislike. A worldview that is IMO (and here comes another generalization), often formed from a lack of understanding about man. It is often shaped by a distorted view of men and women, love, sex, marriage, and life. And it has simply been my observation that this lack of understanding more often than not comes from a non religious mindset. 


QuoteHumanism is not a purely secular philosophical stance. A great many historical humanists were religious, even catholic.

Absolutely. Some Popes have been humanists. There is nothing wrong with humanism in its truest sense. It is simply a celebration of man. Of course Catholics would support such a philosophy. God created us. It would be right and good to study human nature and learn about what will help man achieve his greatest potential. Unfortunately, humanism has been secularized and when one refers to humanism today, it typically includes the belief that religion is a disservice to man and man would be better off to do away with such nonsense. Unfortunately, IMO, the very idea is ironic.

QuoteI think you will find that the more recent "friendly" Christianity is based on a melding of humanism and Christianity which occurred during the enlightenment, during which the teachings of Jesus became more and more center stage because they coincide much closer with humanist values and the extrapolations of old testament law became less and less prominent.

I do agree with this. However, I disagree that this is the humanism of today and the ideology espoused by those like the guest speaker who makes comments like this . . .

QuoteSuperstitions also included those of christianity and islam. In fact these two religions are the greatest obstacle to the process of eradicating superstition in Africa. While many traditional superstitious beliefs still persist, many have been christianized or islamized. In fact christianity and islam have introduced new ones that are causing additional damage. They have made fighting superstitions a very dangerous undertaking.

I want to spend the rest of my life waging the 'culture battle' A lot of damge is done in the name of religion, culture and tradition in Nigeria and Africa

Christianity like other faiths(and your overarching principle) was created by human beings. One of the greatest disservice religious faiths have done to humans including you, Maggie, is to attribute to an imaginary god feats achieved by human beings and again this mistaken idea that humans cannot achieve a better life through 'unaided reason'.

I think we should put religious teachings where it belongs- the archives. The myths should be treated as myths, the lies contained in the scriptures should not be propagated as truths, superstitions should not be preached as science or used to undermine science. It is surprising that we are still told in this 21st century that some doctrines were revealed or dictated by god/Allah many centuries ago. I mean this sacred lie is no longer sustainable.  The religions in question should tell us the truth about those who made their thoughts divine revelations.

The religions of today are the reasonings of yesteryears divinized, dogmatized and institutionlized.

Hardly a belief that humanism and Christianity ought to be reconciled.

Quoteit is more that among secular humanists (a subgroup of humanists) an argument is certainly being made that certain branches of religion have demonstrably caused harm

I have no problem with this. I shall join them in their crusade, as long as they also acknowledge when harm is caused by non religious groups.

Quote, and that there is a pattern in the way that harm comes about which should be dealt with. The cornerstone of that pattern being the acceptance of whatever is taught by the religious establishment as unassailable truth.

I already commented on this stereotype of yours. See my previous post.

QuoteThis of course does not apply to all religious groups, and can apply to many non-religious groups. To the end of preventing such harm secular humanists tend to promote reason as an antidote.

Do religious groups not also claim to be promoting reason? I know mine does and as I have shown based on facts, so they do appear to be promoting reason. Isn?t it wonderful how we all suggest we just need to all be more reasonable?  ||smiley||


QuoteRather than have this discussion devolve into arguments of which group contained people which caused more harm, perhaps it would be better to look at those who caused harm in both groups and what mechanisms of social control were at play, and how best to prepare against it.

I couldn?t agree more. In fact, I believe I said the very same thing. Perhaps you ought to re-read my posts.

QuoteI think you will find that education in reason tends to be one of the better inoculations against the adoption of dogmatic thinking

Oh, but I do. And I?m really hoping you see that this statement applies to yourself as well. Perhaps with a little education, you might give up some of your dogmatic views yet.  ||smiley||


QuoteHopefully my post has been somewhat an antidote to your mistaken perspective on secularism and humanism.

No, but it might serve as a bit of comic relief pointing out the humor in those who insist they are more reasonable than others.

Bob: Why are your thoughts more reasonable than mine?

Bill: Well, b/c they are mine ? of course!  ||smiley||

none

Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 05:17:08 PM
Quote from: none on April 06, 2012, 01:38:13 PM
Quote from: meAgain on April 06, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
Argyle, a few more thoughts about how religion has no right to shape social policy . . .

Why should humanist ideology .....[garbage].....
"humanist ideology" what is that?

Awww come on ? a little honesty in debate please. I never find it all that fair when atheists/agnostics/humanists, etc. get to play the, ?we have no set of beliefs? card. LOL!
so ascribe me some beliefs, build your strawman.
how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.

rickymooston

Back on topic:

We should be interviewing Leo.

Leo, have you traveled to other countries?

Do you feel the situation in Nigeria is getting worse or better?
"Re: Why should any Black man have any respect for any cop?
Your question is racist. If the police behave badly then everyone should lose respect for those policemen.", Happy Evolute

Argyle

Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

meAgain

I think Leo is on a bit of a hiatus, so until then . . .

Quote from: none on April 06, 2012, 07:16:45 PM

so ascribe me some beliefs, build your strawman.


Believe it or not none, a Humanist Manifesto actually existed.


http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3422

Although the first Humanist Manifesto did not actually deny belief in God, it suggests that he is, at best, irrelevant.

By 1977, when the second Humanist Manifesto was issued, traditional religion took even more of a beating. This document was signed by such people as the historian Sidney Hook; the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov; the famous scientist Crick; the well-known Soviet Dissident Andrei Sakharov; Betty Friedan, the founder of the National Organization of Women; Allen F. Guttmacher, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; and the behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner. This document asserted that:

1) Traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human need or experience do a disservice to the human species.

2) We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

3) We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.

The second Humanist Manifesto makes it very clear that traditional religion hurts man, but it never occurs to the secular humanist that religions may actually perform a service for man in giving him something to value above and beyond his own limited physical needs and experience; moreover, secular humanism fails to show that man has not demonstrated a need for religion. Despite the well-documented historical evidence that man seems to need religion, rituals, and revelation, secular humanism denies this need, asserting that man is responsible for his own secular salvation. In rejecting any absolute values or theological principles, secular humanism clears the way for its own undisputed authority. In dictating that all ethical questions be decided on a personal, experiential, and circumstantial basis, it essentially makes the individual his own god and gives him the right to formulate his own ethical system. In matters of sexuality, the secular humanist is convinced that religion exerts an unhealthy influence over believers. As corrective measure, he advocates that birth control, abortion, and divorce be bestowed as rights. The secular humanist does not explain, however, how he will protect man from the pain that these so-called "rights" can and do cause.

So yeah, even if you won?t admit it, I think it is perfectly fair to state that there are in fact a list of common beliefs shared by humanists/rationalists/atheists/free-thinkers/brights or whatever other label of the day you prefer. A few of those might be things like this  . . .

- the universe was not created but simply is self-existing

- belief in supernatural bases for human values is unfounded

- the "complete realization of the human personality" is the proper end of man's life. All progress or personal development must occur, insofar as it occurs at all, in the here and now.

-  traditional religious notions are now pass?

- man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the fulfillment of his dreams and that he himself has the power to achieve them.

. . .  to name a few

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3422



none

Quote from: meAgain on April 07, 2012, 01:00:05 AM
I think Leo is on a bit of a hiatus, so until then . . .

Quote from: none on April 06, 2012, 07:16:45 PM

so ascribe me some beliefs, build your strawman.


Believe it or not none, a Humanist Manifesto actually existed.


http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3422

Although the first Humanist Manifesto did not actually deny belief in God, it suggests that he is, at best, irrelevant.

By 1977, when the second Humanist Manifesto was issued, traditional religion took even more of a beating. This document was signed by such people as the historian Sidney Hook; the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov; the famous scientist Crick; the well-known Soviet Dissident Andrei Sakharov; Betty Friedan, the founder of the National Organization of Women; Allen F. Guttmacher, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America; and the behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner. This document asserted that:

1) Traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human need or experience do a disservice to the human species.

2) We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

3) We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.

The second Humanist Manifesto makes it very clear that traditional religion hurts man, but it never occurs to the secular humanist that religions may actually perform a service for man in giving him something to value above and beyond his own limited physical needs and experience; moreover, secular humanism fails to show that man has not demonstrated a need for religion. Despite the well-documented historical evidence that man seems to need religion, rituals, and revelation, secular humanism denies this need, asserting that man is responsible for his own secular salvation. In rejecting any absolute values or theological principles, secular humanism clears the way for its own undisputed authority. In dictating that all ethical questions be decided on a personal, experiential, and circumstantial basis, it essentially makes the individual his own god and gives him the right to formulate his own ethical system. In matters of sexuality, the secular humanist is convinced that religion exerts an unhealthy influence over believers. As corrective measure, he advocates that birth control, abortion, and divorce be bestowed as rights. The secular humanist does not explain, however, how he will protect man from the pain that these so-called "rights" can and do cause.

So yeah, even if you won?t admit it, I think it is perfectly fair to state that there are in fact a list of common beliefs shared by humanists/rationalists/atheists/free-thinkers/brights or whatever other label of the day you prefer. A few of those might be things like this  . . .

- the universe was not created but simply is self-existing

- belief in supernatural bases for human values is unfounded

- the "complete realization of the human personality" is the proper end of man's life. All progress or personal development must occur, insofar as it occurs at all, in the here and now.

-  traditional religious notions are now pass?

- man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the fulfillment of his dreams and that he himself has the power to achieve them.

. . .  to name a few

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3422
doesn't apply to me.
how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.

Leo666

Well I am back. And thank you all for the posts. I think it is not possible to be openly and expressly non religious and not always getting into a debate with friends. Even among atheists and humanists, the debate goes on. I just wish there were a god that could just sign in and bring an end to it all. But in the absence of one let the debate continue. We all have unique ideas and individual differences. So anytime I express my thoughts I expect people to disagree or raise objections no matter how stupid such points of disagreement or objections might appear to me. No idea or doctrine should be shielded from critical evaluation.
As Socrates said 'An unexamined life is not worth living'. One can also say that an unexamined(an unexaminable idea) idea is not worth entertaining. Sometimes I ask myself questions like...Why I should I respect my parents? Why should I support those in need? Why should I love and care for my friends? etc

Sometimes when I try to condemn the conflicts in Africa, some of my colleagues will ask me Are there no conflicts in other parts of the world? And I often reply by saying look, that there are conflicts on other parts of the world does not justify the mindless killing going on in parts of the continent. We should always try to identify the aspects of life where religion, ideology or an outlook is causing problem, shine the light on it and move on. That an atrocity has been committed for religious and secular reasons does not make it less. Rather it underscores the fact that no idea should be privileged. People should not privilege an idea by saying God said it is so and therefore it must be accepted. If God thinks 'his' idea is too wonderful, he should make it open and public.
If he revealed himself in the past nothing stops him from revealing himself today particularly now we are searching for solutions to problems connected with his past revelations.....

Former Believer

Poignant, brilliant, and beautifully and warmly stated, Leo.  +1, but that post deserves much more.
Don't sacrifice your mind at the altar of belief

Leo666

Quote from: rickymooston on April 06, 2012, 07:52:56 PM
Back on topic:

We should be interviewing Leo.

Leo, have you traveled to other countries?

Do you feel the situation in Nigeria is getting worse or better?

Yes I have traveled to other African countries- Benin Togo Ghana Liberia Gambia Senegal, Mail Burkina Faso, Cameroun Congo Brazzaville, Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, South Africa, Swaziland,...
The situation in Nigeria is getting better but we have a situation where Nigeria makes two steps forward then one step  and sometime 2 steps backward.....


meAgain

Quote from: Leo666 on April 07, 2012, 06:31:43 AM
People should not privilege an idea by saying God said it is so and therefore it must be accepted.


If it is a bad idea ? it is a bad idea ? whether some free-thinker believes it was developed thru applying science and reason or whether some religious believes God told him so.

Religious: God told me to kill the baby in my womb as an offering to Him.

Rationalist: I have the right to kill the baby in my womb b/c I have reasoned that it is my body.

IMO, these are both BAD ideas.

none

Quote from: meAgain on April 07, 2012, 12:20:28 PM
Quote from: Leo666 on April 07, 2012, 06:31:43 AM
People should not privilege an idea by saying God said it is so and therefore it must be accepted.


If it is a bad idea ? it is a bad idea ? whether some free-thinker believes it was developed thru applying science and reason or whether some religious believes God told him so.

Religious: God told me to kill the baby in my womb as an offering to Him.

Rationalist: I have the right to kill the baby in my womb b/c I have reasoned that it is my body.

IMO, these are both BAD ideas.
yes they are very bad, yet you thought them.
Rationalist/Religous : I have the right to kill the the baby in my womb b/c I have reasoned that my body is in danger.
how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.

meAgain

Quote from: none on April 07, 2012, 02:31:53 PM

yes they are very bad, yet you thought them.
Rationalist/Religous : I have the right to kill the the baby in my womb b/c I have reasoned that my body is in danger.

Rational?

Danger Will Robinson. Danger. Help!!!!! Save me from this innocent little baby!!!!!!!!!!

Rationalists only prove that anything can be rationalized. How convenient.

none

Quote from: meAgain on April 07, 2012, 04:01:30 PM
Quote from: none on April 07, 2012, 02:31:53 PM

yes they are very bad, yet you thought them.
Rationalist/Religous : I have the right to kill the the baby in my womb b/c I have reasoned that my body is in danger.

Rational?

Danger Will Robinson. Danger. Help!!!!! Save me from this innocent little baby!!!!!!!!!!

Rationalists only prove that anything can be rationalized. How convenient.
it was a topic for conversation that is all.
ever heard of maternal death?
how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.

rickymooston

Quote from: meAgain on April 07, 2012, 01:00:05 AM
Believe it or not none, a Humanist Manifesto actually existed.

This may be true but whether or not any given humanist agrees with any given statement in the manifesto is another story. Certainly, I'd be suspicious from the outset

Quote
1) Traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human need or experience do a disservice to the human species.

I don't necessarily agree with this statement

Quote
2) We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

This is a bit of a strawman in that religious people are no less likely to feel "humans are responsible" or to act than non-religious people.

Quote
3) We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.

I might agree with this blanket statement somewhat while stipulating that I think people divorce too frequently these days for my comfort level. I also think that there is a balance between "sexual represssion" and "sexual excess" which each individual must decide for him or herself.

I don't think its good to have "sex with everybody" 1960s style. Sex is a very intimate thing and it goes without saying that having sex with too many partners increases the risk of disease

Its further  true that sex is a rather superficial bond when it isn't accompanied by an actual relationship.

Quote
The second Humanist Manifesto makes it very clear that traditional religion hurts man, but it never occurs to the secular humanist that religions may actually perform a service for man in giving him something to value above and beyond his own limited physical needs and experience ...

Secular humanist believe in the "common good" which is beyond the physical needs of the individual. While the writers of the manifesto may feel  "traditional religion hurts man", individual humanists may have a spectrum of views on the spectrum of traditional religion.

What I can say is, practices exist, which are propped up by some religious conservatives that I find horrible; e.g., female circumcision, wife beating, wife burning, being obligated to have sex with your partner when you are not in the mood, and numerous others.
"Re: Why should any Black man have any respect for any cop?
Your question is racist. If the police behave badly then everyone should lose respect for those policemen.", Happy Evolute

meAgain

Quote from: none on April 07, 2012, 04:50:19 PM
it was a topic for conversation that is all.
ever heard of maternal death?


Yes, especially from the pro-abortion camp. You?d think it was a common occurrence. It is not.

FACT: The majority of abortions do not occur b/c the mother?s life is in danger.

none

how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.

meAgain

QuoteThis may be true but whether or not any given humanist agrees with any given statement in the manifesto is another story. Certainly, I'd be suspicious from the outset


I agree, but surely you must admit atheists/agnostics/humanists/free-thinkers often share a common set of beliefs. It?s a bit dishonest to not acknowledge this or feign outrage at the suggestion.


none

Quote from: meAgain on April 07, 2012, 08:45:56 PM
Quote from: none on April 07, 2012, 04:50:19 PM
it was a topic for conversation that is all.
ever heard of maternal death?


Yes, especially from the pro-abortion camp. You?d think it was a common occurrence. It is not.

FACT: The majority of abortions do not occur b/c the mother?s life is in danger.
so abortion is an argument reserved for rationalists?
how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.