The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[Thor]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Now it's elitist, discriminatory, and more inclined to care about the greater good of a select few. Exclusion by a religious group? No sir. Exclusion by a humanist group? Well, you're not part of the greater good. Humanism has also birthed some of the worst atrocities in the world, right up there with religion.

Care to expand on this rant? As a humanist, a very active one here in Iceland, everything you said has absolutely any real connection to reality with modern humanism. Also examples of the Humanist atrocities would be nice.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Care to expand on this rant? As a humanist, a very active one here in Iceland, everything you said has absolutely any real connection to reality with modern humanism. Also examples of the Humanist atrocities would be nice.

200 years of really bland writing would be a start.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by peter12

200 years of really bland writing would be a start.

Well yes, obviously the most common criticism towards the writing of, say, John Lennon or Stephen Fry or Tim Minchin or Christopher Hitchens or Umberto Eco or Kurt Vonnegut or Margaret Atwood or Neil deGrasse Tyson or Karl Popper or Jean-Paul Sartre is that they're "bland".

Or you know, Gloria Steinem. Or Christopher Hitchens.

I'll give you Asimov though. And Roddenberry.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Thor

Care to expand on this rant? As a humanist, a very active one here in Iceland, everything you said has absolutely any real connection to reality with modern humanism. Also examples of the Humanist atrocities would be nice.

I disagree entirely, and as a humanist I don't necessarily expect you to have a non-bias view of your own theology.

You can't think of any atrocities born from humanism? None? Not a huge one that is one of the worst atrocities in human history?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Itse

Well yes, obviously the most common criticism towards the writing of, say, John Lennon or Stephen Fry or Tim Minchin or Christopher Hitchens or Umberto Eco or Kurt Vonnegut or Margaret Atwood or Neil deGrasse Tyson or Karl Popper or Jean-Paul Sartre is that they're "bland".

Or you know, Gloria Steinem. Or Christopher Hitchens.

I'll give you Asimov though. And Roddenberry.

All of those guys and gals are really bland.

I don't think you can call Sartre a humanist.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by peter12

All of those guys and gals are really bland.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I don't think you can call Sartre a humanist.

You are of course entitled to this opinion too.

Personally I'll go with Sartres opinion though.

Jean-Paul Sartre: Existentialism is a Humanism

Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a
conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.

And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach
against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower.

And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Itse

Well yes, obviously the most common criticism towards the writing of, say, John Lennon or Stephen Fry or Tim Minchin or Christopher Hitchens or Umberto Eco or Kurt Vonnegut or Margaret Atwood or Neil deGrasse Tyson or Karl Popper or Jean-Paul Sartre is that they're "bland".



Or you know, Gloria Steinem. Or Christopher Hitchens.



I'll give you Asimov though. And Roddenberry.

I wouldn't even view most of those people as humanists. They may have some humanist tendencies and be celebrated by humanist organisations, but I don't know that hey prescribed to the movement.

And (this isn't in response to you directly) my point isn't that each aspect of humanism is laughable, but that it as a whole (and specifically as a movement) is mostly ridiculous and ignorant.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I wouldn't even view most of those people as humanists. They may have some humanist tendencies and be celebrated by humanist organisations, but I don't know that hey prescribed to the movement.

Humanism is not a "movement" that you "prescribe to". It's a philosophical / ethical stance.

I'd be interested to hear who exactly on that list you don't consider a humanist.

And (this isn't in response to you directly) my point isn't that each aspect of humanism is laughable, but that it as a whole (and specifically as a movement) is mostly ridiculous and ignorant.

Again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even ridiculous and ignorant opinions.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Itse

Humanism is not a "movement" that you "prescribe to". It's a philosophical / ethical stance.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

I guess you can say that, but I'd like to point out that it was YOUR argument that "prescribing to a movement" is somehow a definition of a humanist.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Most estimates seem to put the death toll around 5-20 million people a year after 2050. Higher or lower - that's a lot.

Why do people need to be "passionately misinformed" for this enterprise, however? We already have those in the guise of real religion - I would propose this be based on our best science.

The death toll implies we do nothing to save them. We could save them if we choose to marginally reduce our standard of living.

If you propose people follow this based on rational thought then it won't fufill the spiritual need of the in groups. The whole attractiveness of religion is belonging based on a simple set of rules and ritual. So you can bring what is attractive about religion into politics and movements but you inherently destroy the rationality in them.

I think the need to belong in humanity that drives religion is fundamentally driven by irrational thinking. So trying to build a rational structure to replace it wont work. Look at what happens when Nationalism grows to a religious level.

So I would argue keeping religious type fervor and needs fulfillment as far away from government policy is important.

[peter12]

I just want to jump into this off-topic humanist debate for a second, and say that Thor probably thinks of himself as a secular humanist, but as a Northern European, he is probably more unconsciously acting out as a Protestant humanist - even though he is kind of an atheist, but really more of a school-marm.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Most estimates seem to put the death toll around 5-20 million people a year after 2050. Higher or lower - that's a lot.

Why do people need to be "passionately misinformed" for this enterprise, however? We already have those in the guise of real religion - I would propose this be based on our best science.

Science requires scepticism, resisting irrational impulses, and a willingness to challenge norms. As environmentalism evolves into a kind of secular religion (which we are seeing already), it loses those essential scientific qualities in favour of piety, conformity, and the comforts of simple moralistic thinking. Dissent is quashed with shaming, while complex interactions and trade-offs are dismissed in favour of the most simplistic course of action.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Science requires scepticism, resisting irrational impulses, and a willingness to challenge norms. As environmentalism evolves into a kind of secular religion (which we are seeing already), it loses those essential scientific qualities in favour of piety, conformity, and the comforts of simple moralistic thinking. Dissent is quashed with shaming, while complex interactions and trade-offs are dismissed in favour of the most simplistic course of action.

This paragraph could have been written during the Reformation.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GGG

The whole attractiveness of religion is belonging based on a simple set of rules and ritual.

There are lots of very different aspects that draw people into religions. I know a good bunch of openly religious people, and that does not sound like any of them.

Well except maybe my brothers ex, who converted into a Hare Krishna. (Krishnaism?)

So you can bring what is attractive about religion into politics and movements but you inherently destroy the rationality in them.

There are many attractive things about religion that don't inherently contradict rationality, such as rituals, feeling of community and shared ethical values.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Science requires scepticism, resisting irrational impulses, and a willingness to challenge norms. As environmentalism evolves into a kind of secular religion (which we are seeing already), it loses those essential scientific qualities in favour of piety, conformity, and the comforts of simple moralistic thinking. Dissent is quashed with shaming, while complex interactions and trade-offs are dismissed in favour of the most simplistic course of action.

While I agree somewhat - there are many silly environmentalists - many of the most moral, pious, and satisfied people I know are scientists and environmentalists. They're certainly not into shaming and definitely do not resemble your caricature.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

off-topic humanist debate .

The off-topic parts of this thread have generally been the better parts.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I wouldn't even view most of those people as humanists. They may have some humanist tendencies and be celebrated by humanist organisations, but I don't know that hey prescribed to the movement.

And (this isn't in response to you directly) my point isn't that each aspect of humanism is laughable, but that it as a whole (and specifically as a movement) is mostly ridiculous and ignorant.

Have you read much Hitchens? I suggest you do. His assessment if Islam was brilliant and way ahead of his time.

He was more than 10 years ahead of everyone in predicting the current religious tensions created by radical Islam, he was a visionary and a genius that could analyze geopolitics with objectivity. More than Dawkins, Hawking or Einstein was he able to asses the true influencing factors in the world.

The only comparable is Chomsky imo, another notable visionary and objectivist. His analysis of the relationship between money, influence and legislation will be around for thousands of years.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Have you read much Hitchens? I suggest you do. His assessment if Islam was brilliant and way ahead of his time.

He was more than 10 years ahead of everyone in predicting the current religious tensions created by radical Islam, he was a visionary and a genius that could analyze geopolitics with objectivity. More than Dawkins, Hawking or Einstein was he able to asses the true influencing factors in the world.

The only comparable is Chomsky imo, another notable visionary and objectivist. His analysis of the relationship between money, influence and legislation will be around for thousands of years.

I can't even.

[AcGold]

So no you haven't read Hitchens, Hawking, Einstein, Dawkins or Chomsky? Have you read the geopolitical essays, books, correspondences or dissertations any of them released?

They are some of the most brilliant people ever, thought you know, they're topical.