Humanism and Theism are not diametrical opposites. If anything, they
are interpenetrating opposites. As humans (some of us also aspire to
be more than human) we have no other standard to apply than humanism,
what is good for our race as we know it. We don't know what animals
experience and we don't know what angels experience. We certainly
don't know what some ephemeral spirit on Mt. Sinai experiences. I
conclude that we are right to apply standards of humanism to anything
that ingresses into our human world.

That does NOT mean, however, that we in any sense reject Theism. We
can recognize full well that although we play a central role in our
human world, our human world is not self-sufficient. We do not keep
our own bodies alive, apart from some basic laws of health and well-
being. That is done for us by what or who we know not. We do not
create our own consciousness or sustain the integrity of our minds or
souls. So it is right to be open to any and all claims at a higher
reality and stage of experience. We must weigh those claims according
to the standard of humanism, because we simply have no other viable
standard to act upon.

That's kind of meaningless, since it is ONLY zealous theists who bellow
about "humanists".
Though "Humanism" can be traced back to an organized group, in early 19th
century America,
it CERTAINLY does not mean that any and all that is not "theist" is humanist
(contrary to what zealous believers pretend).

IOW you are arguing a whole major belief system (theism) against a minor,
flash in the pan, philosopy.

As humans (some of us also aspire to

Since there is absolutely NO evidence for ANY supernatural being - that is
ALL anyone has.
Delusional believers are the ones acting as though their, usually
egomaniacal, beliefs mean something more.

On Jun 11, 10:07 pm, "John Smith" yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 7:07 pm, "John Smith" yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 2:44 pm, saint7pe...@hotmail.com wrote:

I think this all depends upon how you defne humanism. Here is a
popular definition;

Ten central propositions:

(1) Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward
the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and
that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly
changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any
mind or con-sciousness.

(2) Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science,
believes that we human beings are an evolutionary product of the
Nature of which we are a part; that the mind is indivisibly conjoined
with the functioning of the brain; and that as an inseparable unity of
body and personal-ity we can have no conscious survival after death.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:44:38 -0700 (PDT), saint7peter@hotmail.com
wrote:

Crap.

Humanism is about humans, not about magic pixies or magic pixies
having anything to do with humans.

Stop trying to latch on to the best of human values. Superstition
is plain bullshit. It has nothing to do with humanism. As reference.
look at the fucking world. Humanism has nothing to do with hate, fear
or intolerance.

Your post is another sick perversion of superstition trying to take
credit for something it doesn't deserve.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

Elohim are not humanists. Fuck the Humans, but do it gently and with
lube.

I'll do anything to avoid being the second coming. ANYTHING.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:25:32 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
yahoo.com> spake thusly:

Humanism is about denying God exists and promoting
the idea of evolution. And while evolutionists try to
deny it and wiggle out of it, evolution does deny God!
Humanism also demands that religion bow to whatever
modern scientists claim and as do most people, equates
what modern scienTISTS say, to science ITSELF.

See the following...

http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

"A certain number of religious rationalists, as well as non-religious
people, criticize implicit faith as being irrational, and see faith as
ignorance of reality: a strong belief in something with no evidence.
Bertrand Russell used to note that no one speaks of faith in the
existence of such entities as gravity or electricity; rather, resorts
to arguing faith occur only when evidence or logic fails. The issue is
more than theoretical.[3] People can agree on the reality of that
which is evidential or reasonable, but what is based on faith is not
usually communicable except by common inculcation, which makes faith a
divider and thus a phenomenon commonly correlated to intolerance and
warfare. In the rationalist view, belief should be restricted to what
is directly supportable by logic or scientific...

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:31:20 -0700 (PDT), turtoni fastmail.net> wrote: