• 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

RAMOSS said:
Well, I find the people who do that sort of ignore the issue of WHY the subcategory of feminism exists, or WHY BLM exists.. because they are being treated substantially worse than the average. It's not a 'sum zero' game. Just because you think that women should have equal rights doesn't mean you don't think that everyone shouldn't have equal rights. As for the Black Lives Matters, the reason it came about is because of incidences where it appears blacks lives DON'T matter. There is an unspoken TOO in the BLM. They are coopting the term.
Click to expand...

Right, but the term humanist just seems silly to me because it implies that it's to improve the lives of all humans, but who exactly is it that is oppressing humans if it's not also other humans? To me it's important to highlight the reality that some humans are oppressing other humans and identifying which ones are actually the victims and which ones are the assailents is important. Humanism seems to imply an equality that simply isn't there.

The other way I've heard the term humanism used is about making logical descisions based on facts and science and a rejection of religious dogma. That's fine I guess, but to me that's called atheism or just science, maybe even philosophy. It's not really an ideology or a specific philosophy it's just a discipline.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is not a correct statement. There are a number of statements here that are incorrect. I don't think you will take a time to post postiive arguement's because you know that they do not hold up to scrutiny. Until you do, I"ll just assume you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Well, you started with unsupported assertions, so I suppose it is quite fitting you'd you end with them. You have been entirely unable to support your epistemological claims, and have just talked in a vague and confused way. If this is how you argue when defending your own position, why would I discus with you arguments of my own?
 
devildavid said:
Arguments have no bearing on reality. Anyone can make up anything using their imagination. What is in your mind can't be verified independently. What exists physically can be verified independently. Talking about something is not the same as observing something.
Click to expand...


This is just wrong, on numerous fronts. Firstly, argumens here means reasoning. Science uses reasoning, so you condemn science as well with your claims. Even science has to reason its conclusions from the facts and assumptions that make up its premises. Secondly, philosophical arguments are supposed to be based on true premises and valid (or cogent if inductive) reasoning. This is just the same as natural science. Indeed, you have given no reason why science is exempted or different from your blanket condemnation, as noted, unless we call the silly strawman about imagination. So far as what you are calling imagination is referring to valid acts of abstracting from or conceiving parts of reality, then there is nothing wrong with it, and you give no proper reason why this is different from reasoning in science. So far as it refers to what is vague or unsupported then the premises cannot be shown to be true. But this doesn't condemn all reasoning or philosophy in general.

What is it with gnus here asserting things and not backing them up properly? You, and Ramoss, have asserted radical empiricism or scientism, but have singularly failed to argue for it properly.
 
Wessexman said:
This is just wrong, on numerous fronts. Firstly, argumens here means reasoning. Science uses reasoning, so you condemn science as well with your claims. Even science has to reason its conclusions from the facts and assumptions that make up its premises. Secondly, philosophical arguments are supposed to be based on true premises and valid (or cogent if inductive) reasoning. This is just the same as natural science. Indeed, you have given no reason why science is exempted or different from your blanket condemnation, as noted, unless we call the silly strawman about imagination. So far as what you are calling imagination is referring to valid acts of abstracting from or conceiving parts of reality, then there is nothing wrong with it, and you give no proper reason why this is different from reasoning in science. So far as it refers to what is vague or unsupported then the premises cannot be shown to be true. But this doesn't condemn all reasoning or philosophy in general.

What is it with gnus here asserting things and not backing them up properly? You, and Ramoss, have asserted radical empiricism or scientism, but have singularly failed to argue for it properly.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the 'science' reasoning and the reasoning from the metaphysical reasoning. That is the reasoning is based on physical data, and the conclusions are based on testable models and predictions. The models make testable predictions, and if the results do not meet the predictions, the model is either changed or discarded. In the various arguments for dualism, there is no empirical data to test the validity of the premises, the various assumptions, or the conclusions.

Basically, because of the difference between the way the reasoning in science works, and the reasoning in metaphysics works, you are using the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'.

The ideas in science start with empirical data. The ideas in metaphysical quite often do not.
 
That's a little better. You are groping for a proper epistemology, if a flawed one.

Still, there are clear problems with your claims. Firstly, metaphysics does usually start in some sense with experience. It just often starts with basic experiences and analyses them. Arguments about qualia, for example, start with our phenomenological experience of qualia, as well as our understanding of material things, and analyse whether qualia can be reduced to the material. There's a different kind of interaction with experience here, but it is wrong to say there isn't one.

Secondly, it is hard to see why not being empirically testable is enough to rule out philosophical claims. For a start, that claim, like your whole argument here, is not empirically testable, so it seems self-defesting. Also, the same forms of inference and reasoning (deductive, inductive) are used in philosophy and in natural science. You will really have to spell out your position in more depth, and avoid it being self-defeating.
 
Wessexman said:
That's a little better. You are groping for a proper epistemology, if a flawed one.

Still, there are clear problems with your claims. Firstly, metaphysics does usually start in some sense with experience. It just often starts with basic experiences and analyses them. Arguments about qualia, for example, start with our phenomenological experience of qualia, as well as our understanding of material things, and analyse whether qualia can be reduced to the material. There's a different kind of interaction with experience here, but it is wrong to say there isn't one.

Secondly, it is hard to see why not being empirically testable is enough to rule out philosophical claims. For a start, that claim, like your whole argument here, is not empirically testable, so it seems self-defesting. Also, the same forms of inference and reasoning (deductive, inductive) are used in philosophy and in natural science. You will really have to spell out your position in more depth, and avoid it being self-defeating.
Click to expand...

"sense of experience' is not the same as physical data that can be examined. One is objective, the other,quite often is subjective. So, that is yet another logical fallacy of equivocation.
 
RAMOSS said:
"sense of experience' is not the same as physical data that can be examined. One is objective, the other,quite often is subjective. So, that is yet another logical fallacy of equivocation.
Click to expand...

Ironically, you are equivocating on the term subjective. You are using the term implicitly to mean entirely personal whims or fancies, or something of that sort. Philosophers do not, generally, start with such as their premises and assumptions. They either start with objective premises (for example, one version of the cosmological argument starts with the premise change exists, which is arguably at least an objective fact, though some do think change only exists as part of our subjective experience, not the external world) or they start with subjective premises like qualia exist. This latter is subjective in the sense that qualia, or qualitative experience, seems to be intrinsically subjective and first-person (though some argue otherwise). But only fringe people, like eliminative materialists, deny that we all do experience qualia. Such subjective facts are not the sort of whims and fancies you seem to be implicitly referring to.

And, again, your talk of physical data seems to just repeat your previous unsupported position. You need to show why only physical data that can be examined (presumably in the sense of being scientifically testable and measurable) is legitimate evidence for our reasoning. You need to show how this isn't a self-defeating claim, as we can't scientifically test or examine it, and you need to address the fact that philosophers and scientists use much the same kinds of reasoning and inference, and therefore how these are legitimate in one sense and not the other.
 
Wessexman said:
Ironically, you are equivocating on the term subjective. You are using the term implicitly to mean entirely personal whims or fancies, or something of that sort. Philosophers do not, generally, start with such as their premises and assumptions. They either start with objective premises (for example, one version of the cosmological argument starts with the premise change exists, which is arguably at least an objective fact, though some do think change only exists as part of our subjective experience, not the external world) or they start with subjective premises like qualia exist. This latter is subjective in the sense that qualia, or qualitative experience, seems to be intrinsically subjective and first-person (though some argue otherwise). But only fringe people, like eliminative materialists, deny that we all do experience qualia. Such subjective facts are not the sort of whims and fancies you seem to be implicitly referring to.

And, again, your talk of physical data seems to just repeat your previous unsupported position. You need to show why only physical data that can be examined (presumably in the sense of being scientifically testable and measurable) is legitimate evidence for our reasoning. You need to show how this isn't a self-defeating claim, as we can't scientifically test or examine it, and you need to address the fact that philosophers and scientists use much the same kinds of reasoning and inference, and therefore how these are legitimate in one sense and not the other.
Click to expand...

No, I mean subjective is internal to a person. Objective is external to the person, and can be observed and measured by multiple people. That is how I am using it. I was the first person in this thread to use that terminology in this discussion, so it's not an equivocation of someone else's use.
 
RAMOSS said:
No, I mean subjective is internal to a person. Objective is external to the person, and can be observed and measured by multiple people. That is how I am using it. I was the first person in this thread to use that terminology in this discussion, so it's not an equivocation of someone else's use.
Click to expand...

It is perfectly possible to use a term ambiguously without reference to someone else's use.

I have no idea why you think this subjective/objective distinction is important then. For a start, often philosophical arguments do appeal to what are, in your terms, objective facts - as I mentioned one version of the cosmological argument starts with the existence of change. For another thing, I don't see, then, why subjective facts should be looked down upon. When I pick up a red rose, most philosophers consider the qualitative experience of its colour to be subjective, but it is still real and important and can be reasoned from to help tell us important things about the world. Also, in the end, all human knowledge begins in subjective experience, in the sense that even science is done by humans and requires humans to do, and therefore experience, the measuring and reasoning involved.

The stuff about measuring and observing is yet again just another way of referring to your basic unsupported epistemological position. Basically, all your posts seem to assume some sort of radical empiricism or scientism. But you don't argue for this properly. You just assume it. Your references to the superiority of physical data or what is measurable and observable, all assume, rather than argue for, some sort of strong empiricism. But I don't accept such an epistemological position, and neither do most dualists, so you'll to actually argue for it. And in doing so you'll have to show, again, why your position isn't self-defeating and how you differentiate properly because the legitimate reasoning of natural science and the illegitimate ones of philosophy, where the same sort of inferences seem to be used.
 
Wessexman said:
It is perfectly possible to use a term ambiguously without reference to someone else's use.

I have no idea why you think this subjective/objective distinction is important then. For a start, often philosophical arguments do appeal to what are, in your terms, objective facts - as I mentioned one version of the cosmological argument starts with the existence of change. For another thing, I don't see, then, why subjective facts should be looked down upon. When I pick up a red rose, most philosophers consider the qualitative experience of its colour to be subjective, but it is still real and important and can be reasoned from to help tell us important things about the world. Also, in the end, all human knowledge begins in subjective experience, in the sense that even science is done by humans and requires humans to do, and therefore experience, the measuring and reasoning involved.

The stuff about measuring and observing is yet again just another way of referring to your basic unsupported epistemological position. Basically, all your posts seem to assume some sort of radical empiricism or scientism. But you don't argue for this properly. You just assume it. Your references to the superiority of physical data or what is measurable and observable, all assume, rather than argue for, some sort of strong empiricism. But I don't accept such an epistemological position, and neither do most dualists, so you'll to actually argue for it. And in doing so you'll have to show, again, why your position isn't self-defeating and how you differentiate properly because the legitimate reasoning of natural science and the illegitimate ones of philosophy, where the same sort of inferences seem to be used.
Click to expand...

And, I did so.

So, your claims that my position is not self defeating is not relevant, since you have not shown it is self defeating. There is a difference between a claim, and evidence.

Not only that.. you have not shown that any of your metaphysical arguments you referred to by name (but not even discussed) are valid, much less sound.

You are doing what is known as 'shifting the burden of proof' by shifting the argument to trying to claim my position is 'self defeating', so you can effectively ignore and not defend your claims... such as the various arguments you cited by name (but did not examine) as evidence of dualism.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, I did so.

So, your claims that my position is not self defeating is not relevant, since you have not shown it is self defeating. There is a difference between a claim, and evidence.

Not only that.. you have not shown that any of your metaphysical arguments you referred to by name (but not even discussed) are valid, much less sound.

You are doing what is known as 'shifting the burden of proof' by shifting the argument to trying to claim my position is 'self defeating', so you can effectively ignore and not defend your claims... such as the various arguments you cited by name (but did not examine) as evidence of dualism.
Click to expand...

I have shown how your position could be self-defeating. You haven't been explicit in stating your position, so I wasn't able to be explicit in showing it is actually self-defeating. But my overall point is that a claim like only empirical claims or arguments are legitimate is not an empirical claim or argument. Therefore, it is self-defeating. So far as you have at least implied things like that, or that only what is based on physical data or what is observable and measurable, are legitimate, then your position is self-defeating.

The burden of proof is not mine. You, and a couple of other atheists here, began by doing things like asserting the truth of naturalism and empiricism. It was in this context I mentioned various arguments for dualism and asked them if they'd refuted them. This doesn't put the burden of proof on me. I have not asserted or claimed the truth of dualist arguments. I have asked others to back up their own assertions with reference to the sorts of issues they'd need to consider.
 
Wessexman said:
I have shown how your position could be self-defeating. You haven't been explicit in stating your position, so I wasn't able to be explicit in showing it is actually self-defeating. But my overall point is that a claim like only empirical claims or arguments are legitimate is not an empirical claim or argument. Therefore, it is self-defeating. So far as you have at least implied things like that, or that only what is based on physical data or what is observable and measurable, are legitimate, then your position is self-defeating.

The burden of proof is not mine. You, and a couple of other atheists here, began by doing things like asserting the truth of naturalism and empiricism. It was in this context I mentioned various arguments for dualism and asked them if they'd refuted them. This doesn't put the burden of proof on me. I have not asserted or claimed the truth of dualist arguments. I have asked others to back up their own assertions with reference to the sorts of issues they'd need to consider.
Click to expand...

Uh.. NO you didn't. You made statements.. but those statements were not backed up with references, examples and logic.
 
RAMOSS said:
Uh.. NO you didn't. You made statements.. but those statements were not backed up with references, examples and logic.
Click to expand...

Prove it. This was my original statement on the arguments for dualism:

Wessexman said:
Thank you for your bald assertions. I look forward to your detailed responses to the arguments for dualism (the argument from reason, intentionality, qualia, abstract objects, etc.).
Click to expand...

Other than that, I began in this thread simply saying I didn't think it made much sense for secular humanists to use the term humanist because they did things like reject human agency, reduce the human to the material, etc, which are is to say they reject key aspects of traditional humanism, like renaissance humanism. I noted the Deweyite secular humanists explicitly stole the term humanists from the more traditional New or American humanists in order to neutralise this older kind of humanism. Whilst no doubt there are arguable points there, nothing in them asserts the truth of dualism. Rather, they are about the use of the term humanism.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Prove it. This was my original statement on the arguments for dualism:



Other than that, I began in this thread simply saying I didn't think it made much sense for secular humanists to use the term humanist because they did things like reject human agency, reduce the human to the material, etc, which are is to say they reject key aspects of traditional humanism, like renaissance humanism. I noted the Deweyite secular humanists explicitly stole the term humanists from the more traditional New or American humanists in order to neutralise this older kind of humanism. Whilst no doubt there are arguable points there, nothing in them asserts the truth of dualism. Rather, they are about the use of the term humanism.
Click to expand...

Well, you started out this thread with equivocations, and then when you moved to dualism, you continued them.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, you started out this thread with equivocations, and then when you moved to dualism, you continued them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you know what equivocations are. Equivocation is a material fallacy of ambiguity where terms with different meanings but which are homonymous are confused. By trying to distinguish between uses of the term humanist, I was clarifying ambiguities in its use, the exact opposite of equivocating. You can claim I'm nitpicking or just wrong, but not equivocating.

You started your responses to me with unsupported assertions and continued in the same way. I'm still waiting for you to back up your assertions of the truth of empiricism and naturalism.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
I'm not sure you know what equivocations are. Equivocation is a material fallacy of ambiguity where terms with different meanings but which are homonymous are confused. By trying to distinguish between uses of the term humanist, I was clarifying ambiguities in its use, the exact opposite of equivocating. You can claim I'm nitpicking or just wrong, but not equivocating.

You started your responses to me with unsupported assertions and continued in the same way. I'm still waiting for you to back up your assertions of the truth of empiricism and naturalism.
Click to expand...

Sigh. You are misstating my position, and you are not supporting your own claims , which came first.. so, bye
 
By the way, I think it shouldn be added that strictures against philosophical arguments should also apply to naturalist accounts of the mind. The ontological nature of the mind is primarily an argument to be settled philosophically, not scientifically.
 
RAMOSS said:
Sigh. You are misstating my position, and you are not supporting your own claims , which came first.. so, bye
Click to expand...
Given that the starting dogma of said poster is that we are 'gnus' and 'snowflake New Atheists' I figured it wouldn't go much further than bald assertions with nothing but apologetics to back them up coming from him.

It's not just a trend I have noticed on this forum either. I have noticed other forums having a string of theists using dualism as an apologetic tool. Must be a 'New Theist' it 'alt-Theist' thing.
 
William Rea said:
Given that the starting dogma of said poster is that we are 'gnus' and 'snowflake New Atheists' I figured it wouldn't go much further than bald assertions with nothing but apologetics to back them up coming from him.

It's not just a trend I have noticed on this forum either. I have noticed other forums having a string of theists using dualism as an apologetic tool. Must be a 'New Theist' it 'alt-Theist' thing.
Click to expand...

What assertions?

Dualism as apologetic tool? What does that even mean? Almost all theists are dualists, as naturalism precludes theism usually understood. But far from all dualists are theists. The truth of dualism wouldn't prove theism on its own, though it's falsity would preclude it. Anyway, none of that matters to assessing the trutb of either, which is what you should be doing rather than making the lamest of attempts at ridicule.
 
Last edited:
Some people on this planet will always be out of touch with reality.

But life will go on.

"One dead monkey doesn't stop the circus."

:lol:

Believe whatever you want to believe.Your ideas will have no effect on reality.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
What assertions?

Dualism as apologetic tool? What does that even mean? Almost all theists are dualists, as naturalism precludes theism usually understood. But far from all dualists are theists. The truth of dualism wouldn't prove theism on its own, though it's falsity would preclude it. Anyway, none of that matters to assessing the trutb of either, which is what you should be doing rather than making the lamest of attempts at ridicule.
Click to expand...
Note, you started the generalised attacks on forum members as part of your concern troll for your 'pure philosophy' so, don't rush to quickly to that moral high ground lest you be considered a hypocrite.

Look up the threads in which a poster named Angel tried to pull this crap.
 
Cherub786 said:
Once again you are making strawman arguments. When did I ever say that humanism is trying to impose itself through violence? Criticism of humanism does not automatically equate to promoting religion. This thread is only intended to discuss the flaws of humanism, not religion. Instead of deflecting from the issue of humanism and start attacking religion, you should defend humanism based on its own alleged merits.

So Lesson #1:
Just because an idea is non-violent doesn't mean it is a good idea
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And just because an idea is violent doesn't mean that it's a good idea either.

Check with Hitler and Osama bin Laden on that idea.

:lol:

What did their violence get them?
 
Wessexman said:
This is just wrong, on numerous fronts. Firstly, argumens here means reasoning. Science uses reasoning, so you condemn science as well with your claims. Even science has to reason its conclusions from the facts and assumptions that make up its premises. Secondly, philosophical arguments are supposed to be based on true premises and valid (or cogent if inductive) reasoning. This is just the same as natural science. Indeed, you have given no reason why science is exempted or different from your blanket condemnation, as noted, unless we call the silly strawman about imagination. So far as what you are calling imagination is referring to valid acts of abstracting from or conceiving parts of reality, then there is nothing wrong with it, and you give no proper reason why this is different from reasoning in science. So far as it refers to what is vague or unsupported then the premises cannot be shown to be true. But this doesn't condemn all reasoning or philosophy in general.

What is it with gnus here asserting things and not backing them up properly? You, and Ramoss, have asserted radical empiricism or scientism, but have singularly failed to argue for it properly.
Click to expand...

Science does not exist without physical evidence. Physical evidence is the basis of science.

My existence does not depend on philosophical argument, but on physical reality. Without that physical reality, philosophy does not exist as a human construct of the imagination. Lets start with the basics. Do you exist physically in a physical universe? If not, then philosophy doesn't exist and this forum doesn't exist. If you don't argue from a solid basis, you have nothing but idle philosophical speculation. I did not get argued into existence. I was physically born. How about you?
 
Wessexman said:
By the way, I think it shouldn be added that strictures against philosophical arguments should also apply to naturalist accounts of the mind. The ontological nature of the mind is primarily an argument to be settled philosophically, not scientifically.
Click to expand...

Why? Where is the mind without the physical brain and nervous system in a physical being? There is nothing to settle about the mind as it is simply a word that was created to describe the feeling we get from the use of our brains and nervous systems. The mind is not a thing separate from our physical existence. Nothing can ever be settled philosophically if philosophy ignores the need for physical evidence that is independently testable and verifiable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom