DiscussMormonism.com

...or sad. Secular humanism has the purpose of explaining our surroundings and life experiences in solid conclusions devoid of sensationalist declarations.

Art, family, education, culture and much more can drive happiness. SH can prop up these endeavors but one does not have to be a secular humanist to gain happiness from these things.

Tal, I see you are misrepresenting secular humanism as a replacement for religion.

We have religions that don't claim to bring happiness to their followers.

Mercury wrote:...or sad. Secular humanism has the purpose of explaining our surroundings and life experiences in solid conclusions devoid of sensationalist declarations.

Art, family, education, culture and much more can drive happiness. SH can prop up these endeavors but one does not have to be a secular humanist to gain happiness from these things.

I see you are misrepresenting secular humanism as a replacement for religion.

Excellent post.

Mercury wrote:...or sad. Secular humanism has the purpose of explaining our surroundings and life experiences in solid conclusions devoid of sensationalist declarations.

Art, family, education, culture and much more can drive happiness. SH can prop up these endeavors but one does not have to be a secular humanist to gain happiness from these things.

I see you are misrepresenting secular humanism as a replacement for religion.

I see that your ignorance extends far beyond the realms in which you have previously waxed grandiloquent on this board.

I may not agree with Tal on much, but I do know enough of the foundations of secular humanist thought to know that his interpretation of its original intent is correct.

Go do another bong hit and leave the heavy intellectual lifting to those better suited to its rigors.

William Schryver wrote:Go do another bong hit and leave the heavy intellectual lifting to those better suited to its rigors.

Your belief in Elohim the space god from the star base Kolob is a clear indication you have no intellectual credibility.

Mercury wrote:

William Schryver wrote:Go do another bong hit and leave the heavy intellectual lifting to those better suited to its rigors.

Your belief in Elohim the space god from the star base Kolob is a clear indication you have no intellectual credibility.

"Are you there God ? Its me Margaret..." Really has the potential of being a cool movie with this theory in mind....

I don't consider myself a secular humanist. The few I've become acquainted with in the real world have been annoying and take themselves way too seriously. Video clips I've watched of secular humanist organizations lead me to believe I'd just want to kill myself if I ever attended one of those meetings. The Humanist Manifesto is also kind of gay.

It would be crazy to think secular humanism doesn't strive for the betterment of self and humanity and this would in fact demand a minimal conception of happiness, and obviously since they denounce faith, they would have to believe reason then would be a primary vehicle in achieving those ends. How the details would be fleshed out when truth conflicts with fun, honestly, I doubt have a rigorously defined and universal accepted answer.

I of course think they are too optimistic, that humanity just isn't built to be happy, overall. I don't hink there are any obvious answers for solving the problem of happiness. And I think, even given how negative I may come across, that I am happier than any secular humanist I've met in person.

But back on target, I think to really compare the happiness aspect to religion it has to be understood that religion is offering eternal bliss and complete fulfillment. If secular humanism thinks that reason will lead to a utopia, then I can handle the comparison to religion. But it doesn't. And any life philosophy that doesn't have minimal happiness as part of the objective would be moronic.

It's all about happiness and that includes secular humanism, atheism, theism, agnosticism, etc. etc. It's a simple matter of pain vs. pleasure. We want to know the truth to avoid pain and find pleasure both temporary and lasting.

Even if you're down on the bare survival level, you're trying to survive because you would be happier surviving that not surviving.

Mercury wrote:

William Schryver wrote:Go do another bong hit and leave the heavy intellectual lifting to those better suited to its rigors.

Your belief in Elohim the space god from the star base Kolob is a clear indication you have no intellectual credibility.

ROFLMAO!!!

Gadianton wrote:I don't consider myself a secular humanist. The few I've become acquainted with in the real world have been annoying and take themselves way too seriously. Video clips I've watched of secular humanist organizations lead me to believe I'd just want to kill myself if I ever attended one of those meetings. The Humanist Manifesto is also kind of gay.

It would be crazy to think secular humanism doesn't strive for the betterment of self and humanity and this would in fact demand a minimal conception of happiness, and obviously since they denounce faith, they would have to believe reason then would be a primary vehicle in achieving those ends. How the details would be fleshed out when truth conflicts with fun, honestly, I doubt have a rigorously defined and universal accepted answer.

I of course think they are too optimistic, that humanity just isn't built to be happy, overall. I don't hink there are any obvious answers for solving the problem of happiness. And I think, even given how negative I may come across, that I am happier than any secular humanist I've met in person.

But back on target, I think to really compare the happiness aspect to religion it has to be understood that religion is offering eternal bliss and complete fulfillment. If secular humanism thinks that reason will lead to a utopia, then I can handle the comparison to religion. But it doesn't. And any life philosophy that doesn't have minimal happiness as part of the objective would be moronic.

Maybe I don't know what a secular humanist is. OK, I looked it up on Wiki:

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives.

I can't figure out which part I am supposed to reject. The part about trying to be happing without supernaturalism?

I don't know why people think they have to declare a personal "ism" but I am willing to bet that most people that call themselves secular humanists spend time doing what most of a us do.
Looking for a nice meal, some sunshine, a good book, some love and sex, and persuing some life interests like science or music or skepticism.

I am beging to think Tal has just discovered that everything is up for deconstruction especially if one is feeling nasty.


Falsificationism can't be falsified.
Verificationism can't be verified.
Empiricism can't be empiricaly tested.
Rationality can't be defended rationally (its all circular).
No axiomatic system can contain all mathematical truth.
Science can't be tested scientifically.
Knowing the truth doesn't make us necessarily happy and there is no final formula for truth discovery anyway.

*sigh*

And yet religion is still mostly bunk and I am not going to fault Dawkins for pointing it out.