• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I reject Humanism

William Rea said:
To be fair, he has specified a particular definition of humanism but, it is one that I have never heard used by anyone claiming to have a Humanist lean.

In that respect he is creating a straw man but, has made it clear that he is except for a couple of flip flops I have noticed but, I'm saving those up.
Click to expand...

All the funerals that I have attended over the last 15 years have been at Humanist crematoriums. Humanism is doing fine here.
 
William Rea said:
To be fair, he has specified a particular definition of humanism but, it is one that I have never heard used by anyone claiming to have a Humanist lean.

In that respect he is creating a straw man but, has made it clear that he is except for a couple of flip flops I have noticed but, I'm saving those up.
Click to expand...

Creating his own definition of it is what makes it a classic straw man tactic. Might as well call the thread "I reject my false view of what humanism is."
 
Cherub786 said:
I go by the textbook definition of it, for example, from the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Humanism, term freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm.” I disagree with placing “central emphasis on the human realm” therefore I fundamentally disagree with humanism.
Click to expand...

What do you think the hunam real is?
 
Cherub786 said:

I don’t accept the concept of superior or inferior races as I already made clear. I don’t believe in blood donations or organ transplants from anyone due to personal religious reasons.
Click to expand...

You used the term in the post I responded to.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps you can cite an example (or two) of countries where you feel that humanism is a problem and why. All sorts of hypothetical social, economic and governmental problems could come to exist but I tend to concern myself with those that currently exist and actually affect me.
Click to expand...

Humanism is a tendency which is certainly gaining traction, but it is not as of yet politically empowered to the extent of being the basis of any State.
 
zyzygy said:
What proof do you have that shows you to be intellectually superior?
Click to expand...

What is the proof that Western civilization is intellectually superior to the Amazon Indians? It's pretty self-evident, but if you misunderstood me, I was not talking about my own individual superiority, but the intellectual superiority of the civilization I belong to over the primative and isolated tribes of the world such as the Amazon Indians and the Pygmies of Africa.
 
Cherub786 said:
What is the proof that Western civilization is intellectually superior to the Amazon Indians? It's pretty self-evident, but if you misunderstood me, I was not talking about my own individual superiority, but the intellectual superiority of the civilization I belong to over the primative and isolated tribes of the world such as the Amazon Indians and the Pygmies of Africa.
Click to expand...

It isn't self evident at all. you need to explain what you are measuring, how you are measuring it and show a difference in the objective measurement.
 
Cherub786 said:
Humanism is a tendency which is certainly gaining traction, but it is not as of yet politically empowered to the extent of being the basis of any State.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Cherub786 View Post
I go by the textbook definition of it, for example, from the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Humanism, term freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm.” I disagree with placing “central emphasis on the human realm” therefore I fundamentally disagree with humanism.
Click to expand...

What is the human realm?
 
William Rea said:
It isn't self evident at all. you need to explain what you are measuring, how you are measuring it and show a difference in the objective measurement.
Click to expand...

Simple, just compare the average IQ level. You will find that IQ level of Pygmies on average is much lower than that of the average New Yorker for example. And there are many other standards against which intellectual superiority can be measured and determined but that is one of the more basic ones.
 
Cherub786 said:
Simple, just compare the average IQ level. You will find that IQ level of Pygmies on average is much lower than that of the average New Yorker for example. And there are many other standards against which intellectual superiority can be measured and determined but that is one of the more basic ones.
Click to expand...

Really? Where will I find these studies?*

*You can answer but, I already know by the way
 
Cherub786 said:
Of course I do, it has multiple definitions and as a political philosophy multiple forms. In fact, if you consult any English language dictionary, you will often find that the philosophical definition of secularism precedes the particular technical political definition of “separation of religion and state” or that religion should have no place in civil affairs. When I mentioned secularism in the OP I was not referring to the technical definition of political secularism, but rather, cultural secularism of a society (not the State) in other words the “secularity” of society increases in places where humanism takes hold and is prevalent, and this is a negative thing because it effaces the beautiful diversity of metaphysical thought and expression.

As for the political or civic form of secularism, there are multiple forms of that. But I’d be curious to know what you think of the French version known as Laicite?
Click to expand...

Can you actully name a country where this has happened? Or is this just theory on your part.

I will give you a bit of a leg up and offer my country, new zealand. Christianity has been steadily decreasing with around 41.9 percent of the population reported they had no religion, That's if you do not count jediism as a religion of which New Zealand had the highest per capita population of reported Jedi in the world.

Our government is secular but the population has a wide and varied forms of religious beliefs. I would be interested if you could point out where there has been a decrease of diversity of metaphysical thought and expression.
 
Cherub786 said:
What is the proof that Western civilization is intellectually superior to the Amazon Indians? It's pretty self-evident, but if you misunderstood me, I was not talking about my own individual superiority, but the intellectual superiority of the civilization I belong to over the primative and isolated tribes of the world such as the Amazon Indians and the Pygmies of Africa.
Click to expand...
How would you be measuring intelligence? If you go by an IQ test as we know it you would be superior but you wouldn't last a week if you were left by yourself in a rain forest.
 
Cherub786 said:
Simple, just compare the average IQ level. You will find that IQ level of Pygmies on average is much lower than that of the average New Yorker for example. And there are many other standards against which intellectual superiority can be measured and determined but that is one of the more basic ones.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.ca/search?source....5.1987...0j0i19k1j0i22i30i19k1.0.n9LCCiuMdJo
IQ tests arent really that good for measuring intelligence, often they measure how much the way the person being tested thinks like the one creating the test. I remember doing an IQ test the military came up with back in WW1 or 2 cant remember was a while ago in college. The test was pictorial for illiterate recruits. One of the questions was to complete a drawing of a crab. truns out those living near the ocean all tended to get it wrong. The problem was they showed the left side of the crab and expected the recruits to draw the right side, only they drew a crab with 3 legs on the left. The recruits who knew what a crab was added a leg to the left and drew 4 on the right.

As they say if you judge a dolphin`s intelligence by its ability to climb a tree it will always come up short to an ant
 
Cherub786 said:
Simple, just compare the average IQ level. You will find that IQ level of Pygmies on average is much lower than that of the average New Yorker for example. And there are many other standards against which intellectual superiority can be measured and determined but that is one of the more basic ones.
Click to expand...

You are not really used to interlectual debate are you?

The measure of IQ is determined by interlectuals who are always going to be biased as to look for aspects of thinking that they think are beneficial. That's not even benefial to the society of the Westhern world just to the society of people who work as professional assors of intelligence.

If you are placed in a jungle you will do spectacularly badly at suvival compared to those Pigmies.

Does that make you thick?

Only in the jungle it does.

What dissapoints here is that you are unable to hold several ideas clearly in you head at once. Or even at all.
 
Cherub786 said:
I see more diversity and differences in human beings outweighing our biological and anatomical similarities. I think to unite us on the basis of being the same species is a weak premise. I mean apart from the same biology, having a head, two arms, two legs, etc., what do I have in common with a primitive Amazon tribal? I do believe that everyone in our species is entitled to some basic “human rights”, but even animals have certain rights, like the right not to be tortured or mistreated. Humanism is invariably coupled with secularism and this inevitably results in the effacing of cultural, ethnic and religious distinction within our species. It seeks to impose a set of “universalist” values on all manner of distinct and unique cultures inhabiting places as disparate as the Pacific Islands, the steppes of Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Amazon rainforest.
Click to expand...

Basically that is what most religions ahve tried to do, Christianity being very succesful at forcing its values on other, often conquered civilizations.
 
Cherub786 said:

This is totally misrepresenting my actual views. I do not subscribe to “race realism” or that IQ differences are based on race. I acknowledge that differences in intelligence are due to education and other external circumstances. But I am saying that there are societies which are superior and inferior to each other based on intellectual and technological development. This has nothing to do with race. It could be that there are two societies which are actually of the same race, but one society is more developed than the other. My point is not to emphasize superiority vs inferiority, but only to emphasize real differences among human beings which is why I reject humanism which seeks to erase or at least overlook those differences and make us all identify ourselves primarily as “human beings” which I find deeply problematic.
Click to expand...
The 1933 Humanist Manifesto I:

"Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture."

What you are asserting is your own personal opinion and has nothing to do with what Humanists believe. It is ironic that you accused me of misrepresenting your views, when you have been misrepresenting Humanism.
 
Cherub786 said:

Weak sarcasm. I’m not criticizing humanism for being violent. I’m criticizing its core premise.
Click to expand...

Until you find another planet to inhabit, those other homo sapiens are all you have no matter their cultural diversity.
 
zyzygy said:
How would you be measuring intelligence? If you go by an IQ test as we know it you would be superior but you wouldn't last a week if you were left by yourself in a rain forest.
Click to expand...

That’s besides the point. When did I ever imply the differences in intellectual levels among various civilizations is genetic and not circumstantial? My point is only to affirm and point out that there is a discrepency of level of intelligence among people based on their groups and civilizations, not to trace the reason for that discrepency.
 
Cherub786 said:
That’s besides the point. When did I ever imply the differences in intellectual levels among various civilizations is genetic and not circumstantial? My point is only to affirm and point out that there is a discrepency of level of intelligence among people based on their groups and civilizations, not to trace the reason for that discrepency.
Click to expand...

Being good at IQ tests means that you are good at doing IQ tests. You would not do well in a surviving in the jungle test.
 
zyzygy said:
Being good at IQ tests means that you are good at doing IQ tests. You would not do well in a surviving in the jungle test.
Click to expand...

You are arguing with the wrong person. All I’m trying to say is that we are different and should not be grouped together on the basis of being human. Besides I was talking about intellectual superiority, not plain superiority. Whatever the merits of your argument, the point is we are more different than alike and humanism wants to emphasize our superficial commanalities as the basis for its view that we should all be treated the same and primarily identify with the human cause, and not our own distinctive ethnic, religious or civilizational causes.
 
CriticalThought said:
Until you find another planet to inhabit, those other homo sapiens are all you have no matter their cultural diversity.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. This planet is more that big enough to accommodate all of us with our not only different ways of life, but contrary and opposing ways of life. Humanism says as humans we all have a common destiny. I disagree passionately with that premise. As diverse and distinct groups we each have our own destinies which we should pursue separately and not be coaxed into becoming one and pursuing a single destiny for the entire human race.
 
Cherub786 said:
You are arguing with the wrong person. All I’m trying to say is that we are different and should not be grouped together on the basis of being human. Besides I was talking about intellectual superiority, not plain superiority. Whatever the merits of your argument, the point is we are more different than alike and humanism wants to emphasize our superficial commanalities as the basis for its view that we should all be treated the same and primarily identify with the human cause, and not our own distinctive ethnic, religious or civilizational causes.
Click to expand...

Humanism is not about treating everybody in the same way. Religions do that. Humanism is not a system of control. There is no Humanist government anywhere. Religions are systems of control. In the case of Christianity the word flock and shepherd are used.
 
Cherub786 said:
I totally disagree. This planet is more that big enough to accommodate all of us with our not only different ways of life, but contrary and opposing ways of life. Humanism says as humans we all have a common destiny. I disagree passionately with that premise. As diverse and distinct groups we each have our own destinies which we should pursue separately and not be coaxed into becoming one and pursuing a single destiny for the entire human race.
Click to expand...

Different religions say that we have different destinies. Which one is true? Our destiny as individuals is to die someday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom