• 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

Cherub786

Cherub786

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
180
Reaction score
26
Location
America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
Finally, somebody said it!
 
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...

Totally with you on this one.

Those militant Humanists flying planes into buildings, creating rogue states and bombing cities around the World in order to impose a single political and cultural identity on humanity are a nightmare.
 
William Rea said:
Totally with you on this one.

Those militant Humanists flying planes into buildings, creating rogue states and bombing cities around the World in order to impose a single political and cultural identity on humanity are a nightmare.
Click to expand...

Weak sarcasm. I’m not criticizing humanism for being violent. I’m criticizing its core premise.
 
Cherub786 said:

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

It was great sarcasm in comparison to the Gish gallop you made in which you asserted so much crap without any evidence.

The actual evidence is that it is religion, and not Humanism, that seeks to impose a single political and cultural identity on humanity and is prepared to use violence to do so.
 
William Rea said:
The actual evidence is that it is religion, and not Humanism, that seeks to impose a single political and cultural identity on humanity and is prepared to use violence to do so.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the likes of Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton are motivated by power, not religion.
 
William Rea said:
It was great sarcasm in comparison to the Gish gallop you made in which you asserted so much crap without any evidence.

The actual evidence is that it is religion, and not Humanism, that seeks to impose a single political and cultural identity on humanity and is prepared to use violence to do so.
Click to expand...

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
 
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...

Funny that you should accuse me of straw man arguments since that is one of many things that you have consistently done from the OP to here so far. I found you interesting solely because you targeted 'Humanism' rather than atheism so, for ****s and giggles, I'll go along with it, for now.

So, Humanism is 'invariably coupled with secularism'; do you not believe that the state should be separate from religious affiliation?
 
William Rea said:
Funny that you should accuse me of straw man arguments since that is one of many things that you have consistently done from the OP to here so far. I found you interesting solely because you targeted 'Humanism' rather than atheism so, for ****s and giggles, I'll go along with it, for now.

So, Humanism is 'invariably coupled with secularism'; do you not believe that the state should be separate from religious affiliation?
Click to expand...

Your last question is irrelevant because when I said secularism I meant cultural secularism, in other words, humanism seeks to have society secularized and prefers that people were not divided along religious and metaphysical lines, hence, it is assimilationist and does not appreciate the diversity of thought and belief within our species.
 
Cherub786 said:
Your last question is irrelevant because when I said secularism I meant cultural secularism, in other words, humanism seeks to have society secularized and prefers that people were not divided along religious and metaphysical lines, hence, it is assimilationist and does not appreciate the diversity of thought and belief within our species.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what the word 'secularism' means?
 
William Rea said:
Do you understand what the word 'secularism' means?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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...

Many tribes and ideologies have taken that position openly. As a mild statement it is a truism in any society with a social system or an economy that works well over time.
 
William Rea said:
Funny that you should accuse me of straw man arguments since that is one of many things that you have consistently done from the OP to here so far. I found you interesting solely because you targeted 'Humanism' rather than atheism so, for ****s and giggles, I'll go along with it, for now.

So, Humanism is 'invariably coupled with secularism'; do you not believe that the state should be separate from religious affiliation?
Click to expand...

The last statement cum question is interesting. I'm not totally sure it's true.
 
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...

So, in the context that you have just clarified, you assert that rejecting religion leads to a less deluded society, we agree.

I am still left wondering what that has to do with Humanism?
 
I imagine if I came across some primitive tribe that lives in harmony with nature, going about in the nude, not having any technology, intellectually inferior as evidenced even by their underdeveloped language, I would view them and get the same feeling I get when viewing some exotic animal at the zoo. This is not to say I have a lack of respect for such people, only that I find it difficult to identify with such people as my “fellow human beings” who are the same as me which is the premise of humanism. Being anatomically Homo Sapien simply isn’t enough.

Perhaps such humanism would make sense if we were living in a world where there were other intelligent life that were competing with us for resources. I’m sure it would come more naturally to be a humanist if we were living in some space-faring civilization where we had to interact with extraterrestrial intelligent species that were some kind of challenge or threat to us. But in this time and place I don’t see any benefit in humanism other than to efface our positive differences which should in fact be affirmed and even celebrated.
 
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...

I fail to see much (if any) difference in your stated "basic human rights" and the need (for some authority?) to impose a "set of universalist values" which seems required to form (and enforce?) those "basic human rights".

The bottom line is that rights and values (laws?) are worthless without an enforcement mechanism (government and its agents?) or we are right back to might makes right or the law of the jungle.
 
William Rea said:
So, in the context that you have just clarified, you assert that rejecting religion leads to a less deluded society, we agree.

I am still left wondering what that has to do with Humanism?
Click to expand...

If the whole world collectively rejected religion and embraced the kind of modern materialist atheism that came out of 19th century Europe, I’m pretty sure that would be a net loss for us rather than a positive. Better to be “deluded” than boring. It wasn’t my intention to argue about religion, only to say that humanism is bad because it seeks to remove our spiritual and religious diversity and make us all think and therefore act the same more or less. Humanism is inherently secular because it wants to alter our primary identities rooted in our unique histories and experiences such as being Muslim or Jewish, with an identity that we have most often not even been that conscious of, i.e., “I’m a human being”. I argue that most people don’t think of themselves, at least primarily, as being “Earthlings” let alone “Human beings”. So humanism is a rather modern concept that ironically fails to even understand the human condition, yet audaciously seeks to impose artificially created identity for a political and social objective, and its preferred method of accomplishing this is social engineering.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I fail to see much (if any) difference in your stated "basic human rights" and the need (for some authority?) to impose a "set of universalist values" which seems required to form (and enforce?) those "basic human rights".

The bottom line is that rights and values (laws?) are worthless without an enforcement mechanism (government and its agents?) or we are right back to might makes right or the law of the jungle.
Click to expand...

I don’t necessarily agree with the premise that you need some authority to enforce and protect human rights. Often times that authority itself (the State) tends to be the greatest abuser of human rights. This is not to say I’m an anarchist, I recognize the need for social organization and governments to protect people’s rights. I am merely rejecting humanism not basic human rights. But pretty much all various human cultures respect basic human rights. I don’t think anyone would ever say it is good to go around randomly murdering and torturing people. Although humanism champions the basic human rights, its flaw is that it wants us to primarily identify ourselves as human beings which should take precedence over our other identities based on religion, race, caste, gender, language, etc. From this angle, humanism is assimilationist and seems to reject the human condition of being different and organizing ourselves based on those very significant differences.
 
Cherub786 said:
I imagine if I came across some primitive tribe that lives in harmony with nature, going about in the nude, not having any technology, intellectually inferior as evidenced even by their underdeveloped language, I would view them and get the same feeling I get when viewing some exotic animal at the zoo. This is not to say I have a lack of respect for such people, only that I find it difficult to identify with such people as my “fellow human beings” who are the same as me which is the premise of humanism. Being anatomically Homo Sapien simply isn’t enough.

Perhaps such humanism would make sense if we were living in a world where there were other intelligent life that were competing with us for resources. I’m sure it would come more naturally to be a humanist if we were living in some space-faring civilization where we had to interact with extraterrestrial intelligent species that were some kind of challenge or threat to us. But in this time and place I don’t see any benefit in humanism other than to efface our positive differences which should in fact be affirmed and even celebrated.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a ridiculously ignorant view.

A lack of machinery does not indicate a lack of intelligence, or complexity. There are many ways to be a complex human, and I guarantee you those people have thousands of skills you would probably never even be able to learn, by this age. Actually, that's the thing that always strikes me when I watch documentaries about such tribes: how utterly helpless I would be to their society, and how little I know about any of the things they have an encyclopedic knowledge about, including geological history -- something the aborigines have kept accurately for 20,000 years.

Also, I would say there's something quite intelligent about learning not to **** where you eat until you drive yourselves to ecological disaster.

Tired of this colonialist BS...
 
Cherub786 said:
If the whole world collectively rejected religion and embraced the kind of modern materialist atheism that came out of 19th century Europe, I’m pretty sure that would be a net loss for us rather than a positive. Better to be “deluded” than boring. It wasn’t my intention to argue about religion, only to say that humanism is bad because it seeks to remove our spiritual and religious diversity and make us all think and therefore act the same more or less. Humanism is inherently secular because it wants to alter our primary identities rooted in our unique histories and experiences such as being Muslim or Jewish, with an identity that we have most often not even been that conscious of, i.e., “I’m a human being”. I argue that most people don’t think of themselves, at least primarily, as being “Earthlings” let alone “Human beings”. So humanism is a rather modern concept that ironically fails to even understand the human condition, yet audaciously seeks to impose artificially created identity for a political and social objective, and its preferred method of accomplishing this is social engineering.
Click to expand...

id rather people not make **** up to entertain you

edit prefer they not belive the **** they make up to entertain you
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Wow, that's a ridiculously ignorant view.

A lack of machinery does not indicate a lack of intelligence, or complexity. There are many ways to be a complex human, and I guarantee you those people have thousands of skills you would probably never even be able to learn, by this age. Actually, that's the thing that always strikes me when I watch documentaries about such tribes: how utterly helpless I would be to their society, and how little I know about any of the things they have an encyclopedic knowledge about, including geological history -- something the aborigines have kept accurately for 20,000 years.

Also, I would say there's something quite intelligent about learning not to **** where you eat until you drive yourselves to ecological disaster.

Tired of this colonialist BS...
Click to expand...

It’s unfortunate that you didn’t understand the purpose behind my remarks. I am completely against colonialism. I said I respect such people and their cultures, but that I recognize the huge gulf between us. Colonialism is the opposite sentiment, that we should conquer these people and make them in our image. As someone of East Indian descent I can assure you I absolutely detest that kind of colonialism which my own people were subjected to. And you are right, such people living in isolation in nature possess many skills that we have no clue about and we wouldn’t be able to survive in such a lifestyle because we are accustomed to an altogether different standard of living. So at the risk of repeating myself, my intention is not to disrespect those that are different, only to point out that we are different and those differences are significant, the opposite sentiment of humanism, which ironically promotes a kind of cultural colonialism itself to efface our significant differences.
 
Cherub786 said:

It’s unfortunate that you didn’t understand the purpose behind my remarks. I am completely against colonialism. I said I respect such people and their cultures, but that I recognize the huge gulf between us. Colonialism is the opposite sentiment, that we should conquer these people and make them in our image. As someone of East Indian descent I can assure you I absolutely detest that kind of colonialism which my own people were subjected to. And you are right, such people living in isolation in nature possess many skills that we have no clue about and we wouldn’t be able to survive in such a lifestyle because we are accustomed to an altogether different standard of living. So at the risk of repeating myself, my intention is not to disrespect those that are different, only to point out that we are different and those differences are significant, the opposite sentiment of humanism, which ironically promotes a kind of cultural colonialism itself to efface our significant differences.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you respect them, you just think they are, in your own words, inferior and not as human as you. :roll:

Save it, dude.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah, you respect them, you just think they're, in your own words, inferior and not as human as you. :roll:

Save it, dude.
Click to expand...

I said intellectually inferior. And do you honestly think all human beings are always equal and there is no superiority or inferiority, even based on behavior? Nor did I say that they are less “human” than me. I only accept the term human or homo sapien as a biological reality, but don’t find it to be a useful term to describe something that is sociological.
 
Last edited:
Cherub786 said:
Your last question is irrelevant because when I said secularism I meant cultural secularism, in other words, humanism seeks to have society secularized and prefers that people were not divided along religious and metaphysical lines, hence, it is assimilationist and does not appreciate the diversity of thought and belief within our species.
Click to expand...

What does "secularism" mean to you?
 
Cherub786 said:

I said intellectually inferior. And do you honestly think all human beings are always equal and there is no superiority or inferiority, even based on behavior? Nor did I say that they are less “human” than me. I only accept the term human or homo sapien as a biological reality, but don’t find it to be a useless term to describe something that is sociological.
Click to expand...

Individuals obviously vary. But do I think tribal people as a whole have the same intellectual potential? Uh, yeah. There's no evidence otherwise, and like I said, they have plenty of complex and knowledge-intensive stuff that most of us in the West can't wrap our heads around, for the way we were taught to employ our brains.

Beyond that -- and I'm speaking as someone on the high end of the IQ curve -- there is no "superiority" with being intelligent. Intelligence has nothing to do with how good of a person you are, how much you will accomplish, or how positively you will impact other people. Truth is, the vast majority of highly intelligent people never do anything with it (in fact, highly intelligent people actually accomplish less, on average, than less intelligent people), and some percentage of them choose to do something evil with it. Even if there was any reason to believe they're "not as intelligent" as we are, which there isn't, I still struggle to see how the hell that would make them "inferior."

The problem here is your need to feel "superior" to people you obviously know nothing about. I see no reason to believe that some tribesperson with 20,000 years of history in their head, plus a thousand different plants and all their uses, who can guide themselves across entire continents without so much as a compass, and who can build their own house in a day is "inferior" to me simply because I have Google. My ego isn't that damaged.

So if you'd kindly deal with your ego problem rather than projecting it onto what are, in fact, Earth's longest-lasting and most stable societies ever, that'd be great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom