In the thread entitled "Service to Humanity vs Service to God", it was asked what the guiding principle that tells the Secular Humanist what the "right thing" is, to which audible replied:
Himself.
An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.
An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment." mary murray-o'hare


The enlightenment of atheism is that...

* There is no heavenly father.
Humankind must protect the orphans and foundlings, or they will not be protected.

* There is no god to answer prayer.
Man must hear and help man.

* There is no hell.
We have no vindictive god or devil to fear or imitate.

* There is no atonement or salvation by faith.
We must face the consequences of our acts.

* There is no beneficent or malevolent intent in nature.
Life is a struggle against preventable and unpreventable evils. The cooperation of humankind is the only hope of the world.

* There is no chance after death to "do our bit."
We must do it now or never.

* There is no divine guardian of truth, goodness, beauty, and liberty.
These are attributes of humankind. We must defend them or they will perish from the earth.
I replied:

Not to offend you (as I'm sure this will), but that actually sounds like quite a religious attitude. Not superstitious, mind you, but certainly religious. It actually sounds like something of a practical religion built around self-reliance and removal of the spiritual crutch which traditional religion often becomes. It's actually quite beautiful, but in a realistic rather than poetic fashion.

The only thing that Secular Humanism (since that seems to be the major belief system of most Atheists, at least around here) lacks in comparison to older religions is some form of mysticism, i.e. a recognition of that which is beyond the individual's ability to directly comprehend (I suppose that's an acceptable definition of mysticism, for me anyhow). A sense of genuine awe and reverence for the world, although it seems to be found in some Secular Humanists. It's simply not built into the philosophy. Perhaps that is what separates a philosophy from a religion? Mysticism.

I know that many of the ardent Secular Humanists around here will decry my description of their belief system as a religion, but hold your criticism for just a moment. It is my sincere belief that religion is merely the formalized practice of a particular philosophy, with a sense of the mystical, a sense of wonder at things unknown. You may say that the Secular Humanist delights in discovering and unveiling the unknown, but of course so does the traditional Religionist. The difference is esotericism. Secular Humanists seem to want everyone to know of their discoveries, and traditional Religionists keep their insights to themselves, passing them on to a select few.

The thing that Secular Humanistic Atheists use to differentiate themselves from traditional Religionists is mythology. As I have said before (and it has been largely ignored) myths are not there to explain the natural world, I think, but rather to provide a context for living to the common man. But there seems to also be a deeper purpose, that in the absence of a standard system of acquiring knowledge (science, perhaps?) there needs to be some kind of outlet for the curious, for those who question their beliefs and wish to know.

As someone here once said (I think it was baumgarten), that is what splits the religious. Those who accept the myth at face value, who go no further with it and who live their life according to it, and those who seek to learn more, to question their faith and know the secrets of the world they live in. It seems to me that mythology serves this double purpose (as an almost unconscious cultural mechanism), both to provide a context for those who will accept and move on with their lives, and those who will delve endlessly into whatever intellectual outlet they can find. Myths are obviously incredibly deep. They can be interpreted in a myriad of fashions, from morality tales, to examples of the behavior of people (often exaggerated, of course, for dramatic effect), or simply for poetry. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, mythology is meant to be used by the individual for their own internal growth, in whatever way is necessary for that particular mind.

It is a mental tool. It shapes your thinking, your views on the world, not directly (for the intellectual) but by implication. You imply certain things about your life, about the people and events which make it up, and about the common experiences which you share with others, while recognizing your uniquity. There is no inherent truth or falsehood to these notions. I'm a firmly pragmatic thinker (at least I try to be), and so I don't care about any kind of misty notion of "truth". What works, works. Traditional religion has worked for the entire length of man's existence as an animal apart from all the others. Religion is part of what separates us from the rest of the organisms on this planet, and it will continue to do so. You can't escape it. It's everywhere, it's hardwired into every one's brain. It's an intrinsic part of what it is to be human. It's form may change dramatically, it may be used in different ways, but it will always be here.

Secular Humanists think that they are eliminating religion by "enlightening" the world. Well, that is a very religious aspiration.

It is, in fact, my contention that Secular Humanism is a truly modern religion. Many of you will, I'm sure, disagree (and probably with great vehemence and derision), but I am very interested in knowing your responses to my assertion.

Secular Humanism=religion you are joking

religion
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
only in the second reason could possibly call it religion, and thats tentative to say the least, religion is a belief/beliefs you aquire from your indoctrination, sadly in some case from want.

however :
Secular humanism

promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.

the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural

1. An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
2. Secularism.

Secular humanism is born from the natural, it is not forced on you, your not indoctrinated with it, it is your natural state.
religion is a set of beliefs, whereas Secular humanism is the natural way: it is what you are before you are forced or sadly choose.
it is a million miles from ever being a religion.

Secular Humanism isn't a religion? Let's use your own (the dictionary's) definition of religion, shall we? And then compare them to your own (the dictionary's) definition of Secular Humanism.

Religion
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Secular Humanism

promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.

the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural

1. An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
2. Secularism.
See those parts in bold? As I said, it's a fully modern religion, which means that it rejects certain traditional religious ideas, such as the supernatural, but at it's core it is the same type of value system as any religion, which is why it comes into conflict with them.

The point is, it's a set of ideals that contributes to a specific worldview, in much the same way as any religion, in fact that is what I believe a religion is, at it's most fundamental level. Ritual, and mythology, those things are there to add to the experience of religion, not the defining characteristic of it.

Secular Humanism isn't a religion? Let's use your own (the dictionary's) definition of religion, shall we? And then compare them to your own (the dictionary's) definition of Secular Humanism.
shall we play idiot ping pong or shall we try to understand the difference, one is a belief forced onto us from an early age, the other is what we are naturally, at the very core, (what it is to be human). it cannot be deemed a specific worldview, it is not something you learn, therefore it cannot be a religion, that would mean humanity itself was religion, humanity is real, religion is just a set of inane beliefs

shall we play idiot ping pong or shall we try to understand the difference, one is a belief forced onto us from an early age, the other is what we are naturally, at the very core, (what it is to be human). it cannot be deemed a specific worldview, it is not something you learn, therefore it cannot be a religion, that would mean humanity itself was religion, humanity is real, religion is just a set of inane beliefs
How do you know this?

Secular Humanism isn't a religion? Let's use your own (the dictionary's) definition of religion, shall we? And then compare them to your own (the dictionary's) definition of Secular Humanism.

“ Originally Posted by mustafhakofi
Religion
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. ”

“ Secular Humanism

promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.

the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural

1. An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
2. Secularism. ”


See those parts in bold? As I said, it's a fully modern religion, which means that it rejects certain traditional religious ideas, such as the supernatural, but at it's core it is the same type of value system as any religion, which is why it comes into conflict with them.

The point is, it's a set of ideals that contributes to a specific worldview, in much the same way as any religion, in fact that is what I believe a religion is, at it's most fundamental level. Ritual, and mythology, those things are there to add to the experience of religion, not the defining characteristic of it.
How do you conclude that SH is a religion by selectively bolding some parts of the definition of religion? By your logic any "value" system that people hold is a religion. Which is, of course, absurd. I think this really is a game of idiot ping-pong. The defining characteristic of a religion is belief in a fundamentally supernatural entity, force, or "essence", limited dictionary def's not withstanding.

My value system regarding my collection of beer mugs is not a religion. Unless I claim they magically fill themselves on the 12th of October every year. Sweet!

How do you know this?
How many thousands of years of zero evidence, completely conflicting theisims, and pure human misery does it take to convince one that religion is no more than a set of inane beliefs?

How many thousands of years of zero evidence, completely conflicting theisims, and pure human misery does it take to convince one that religion is no more than a set of inane beliefs?
That's not the premise I was calling into question. Mustafhakofi posited that the belief system called secular humanism is innate in all humans from birth. This is far from the (still quite bold, and in my mind unjustified) proclamation that theistic religion is worthless.

How do you conclude that SH is a religion by selectively bolding some parts of the definition of religion? By your logic any "value" system that people hold is a religion. Which is, of course, absurd. I think this really is a game of idiot ping-pong. The defining characteristic of a religion is belief in a fundamentally supernatural entity, force, or "essence", limited dictionary def's not withstanding.

My value system regarding my collection of beer mugs is not a religion. Unless I claim they magically fill themselves on the 12th of October every year. Sweet!

Actually, I didn't conclude that it was a religion by selectively bolding some parts of a definition of religion. It was a retort to a post made to silence my position by using the "authority" of a dictionary.

Look, I am actually interested in reconciling our respective views (a goal which I do not believe you share), and in order to further this goal I would ask you to give a definition of religion (not a dicitonary definition), and since you have said explicitly that the concept of the supernatural is fundamental to religion, a definition of that as well. Thank you.

SECULAR HUMANISM, steals all that is good about religion, and cuts alot of the bad... but in their haste.. they cut out GOD, Jesus, Krishna, Moses, Mohammed, and probubly by their standards... Buddha as well.

its sad.

-MT

How many thousands of years of zero evidence, completely conflicting theisims, and pure human misery does it take to convince one that religion is no more than a set of inane beliefs?

People who actually study world religions tend not to have this view - of course if one studies, or makes the pretense of studying world religions, in a mood of animosity they will tend to make superficial claims

That's not the premise I was calling into question. Mustafhakofi posited that the belief system called secular humanism is innate in all humans from birth. This is far from the (still quite bold, and in my mind unjustified) proclamation that theistic religion is worthless.
do come on, if we were born with religion we would not need it taught.
we are human with human core values.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence. are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

HUMANISM

Humanism is a natural philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, it's our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
Guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience, it encourages us to live life well and fully.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing these things, from things, we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanism core value is human welfare, shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consistent with responsibility.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and our lives are animated with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality where mutually dependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

A Barnet

do come on, if we were born with religion we would not need it taught.
we are human with human core values.
That goes with any belief system, including Secular Humanism. The point I was trying to make was that religiosity is something a person is born with. It's a matter of behavior, not philosophical ideals. Secular Humanists act with the same kind of religiosity that traditional Religionists act with, and I'm not talking about "mass murder and superstition", as you would probably point out, I'm talking about the zeal with which ideals are pursued. That kind of behavior is an inherent human quality.

Yes, we are human, with human core values. Those core values are enshrined in religion, whatever that may be. That's what religion is for, primarily.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence. are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
And nothing about what you just said contradicts my point about Secular Humanism being a religion. When you hear the word "religion", you automatically associate it with "blind faith", "superstition", "stupid", "ignorant", "delusional", etc... This is an unfair list of attributes to assign to the religious, as most religious people who understand their own religion, and what it teaches, do not fit the description.


HUMANISM

Humanism is a natural philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, it's our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
Guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience, it encourages us to live life well and fully.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing these things, from things, we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanism core value is human welfare, shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consistent with responsibility.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and our lives are animated with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality where mutually dependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

A Barnet
Like I said before, this sounds like a fully modern religion. It rejects traditional religion, but it occupies the same place in a person's mind as the very beliefs it seeks to supplant.

Stop treating religion as a dirty word.

do come on, if we were born with religion we would not need it taught.
we are human with human core values.
This implies both that all humans are born with a set of core values and that this set of core values is the same as secular humanism. The supportability of either implication is far from obvious; quite the opposite, in fact. Any innate, i.e. instinctual, "values" we may possess are animal in nature. However, you describe secular humanism as follows.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence. are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
All these activities which you describe as the basis of secular humanism are products of will and reason, not instinct. Given a man's freedom to choose not to arrive at any particular philosophy through the process of reason, how do you reconcile this basis with the belief that secular humanism is innate?

Actually, I didn't conclude that it was a religion by selectively bolding some parts of a definition of religion. It was a retort to a post made to silence my position by using the "authority" of a dictionary.

Look, I am actually interested in reconciling our respective views (a goal which I do not believe you share), and in order to further this goal I would ask you to give a definition of religion (not a dicitonary definition), and since you have said explicitly that the concept of the supernatural is fundamental to religion, a definition of that as well. Thank you.
What is the thing people have with definitions?

Religion: A set of beliefs not reliant on fact or evidence and revolving around a core supernatural entity. force, or essence.

Supernatural: Beyond nature in the sense that there is zero evidence or correllated effect of the "supernatural" element.

What is the thing people have with definitions?

Religion: A set of beliefs not reliant on fact or evidence and revolving around a core supernatural entity. force, or essence.

Supernatural: Beyond nature in the sense that there is zero evidence or correllated effect of the "supernatural" element.
So, in effect, what you're saying is that supernatural things by definition don't exist, or at least can't be known. Not only is this circular logic (as this is the same as your premise), it also disagrees with those who use the word 'supernatural' in a positive sense. For example, the phenomena of consciousness and perception are often described as supernatural since, by their qualitative nature, they escape the reach of scientific inquiry; they certainly cannot be described in the same terms as other natural phenomena (hence "supernatural"). Note here the distinction between the electrochemical processes which cause the phenomena, and the phenomena themselves.

It may be time to rethink your connotation of the word. In your current usage of the word, I find myself inevitably sympathetic to your position, but that is because any reasonable human being would agree that something does not exist, in fact does not exist. It is a true statement, but it is meaningless. Why even bother making it?

So, in effect, what you're saying is that supernatural things by definition don't exist, or at least can't be known.
Correct. As any theist will attest.

Not only is this circular logic (as this is the same as your premise),
Not my premise. It's direct from religious dogma.

it also disagrees with those who use the word 'supernatural' in a positive sense.
Ok.

For example, the phenomena of consciousness and perception are often described as supernatural since, by their qualitative nature, they escape the reach of scientific inquiry;
No they don't. They are current cutting-edge topics in the sciences of neurobiology and human cognition.

they certainly cannot be described in the same terms as other natural phenomena (hence "supernatural"). Note here the distinction between the electrochemical processes which cause the phenomena, and the phenomena themselves.
No. No distinction. You are just unaware of the illusion because you are the illusion.

It may be time to rethink your connotation of the word. In your current usage of the word, I find myself inevitably sympathetic to your position, but that is because any reasonable human being would agree that something does not exist, in fact does not exist. It is a true statement, but it is meaningless. Why even bother making it?
No reconsidering necessary. Theists are not reasonable and have a dichotomous split in their cognitive facilities. The word(s) apply perfectly to the typical theist.

Not my premise. It's direct from religious dogma.
This is news to me. I have been under the impression from childhood that religions taught that not only did the supernatural exist, it very much could be known. This is in fact the premise of all forms of mysticism and by association religion.

No. No distinction. You are just unaware of the illusion because you are the illusion.
If the self is to be defined as an illusion, then illusion too loses its meaning; what, if not myself, the only thing whose existence I cannot deny, is real?

It is logically necessary to distinguish between the mental process of consciousness and the experience of it. There is a clear semantic distinction between process and experience, the former being quite objective and quantitative, the latter the complete opposite. Do not cast away this postulate just because it is convenient. Try to fight it. Of exactly how much are you aware currently? Can you come up with a unit to quantify your whole perception? Is it possible to escape your own consciousness and look upon it as any other object? You can physically describe the processes even in your own brain that cause consciousness, but your consciousness itself is inescapable; you cannot impartially observe it. With every observation you make of it, you influence it. The totality of that of which you are aware changes to include itself even as you inspect it. You are thusly surrounded by a "shell" of subjectivity which separates you from the objective world, indeed even the brain which causes you, and it is impossible to circumvent. The presence of this shell is not to be found within the electrochemical processes of the brain (as it is of the same quality as the theorems of math and logic, not contained within any single mind, and true regardless of one's awareness of it), making it a valid and undeniable mark of distinction between process and experience.

No reconsidering necessary. Theists are not reasonable and have a dichotomous split in their cognitive facilities. The word(s) apply perfectly to the typical theist.
Oh? Are theists also not reasonable by definition?

This is news to me. I have been under the impression from childhood that religions taught that not only did the supernatural exist, it very much could be known. This is in fact the premise of all forms of mysticism and by association religion.
You have been misled.

If the self is to be defined as an illusion, then illusion too loses its meaning; what, if not myself, the only thing whose existence I cannot deny, is real?
Very pretty.

It is logically necessary to distinguish between the mental process of consciousness and the experience of it.
No, it's not.

There is a clear semantic distinction between process and experience, the former being quite objective and quantitative, the latter the complete opposite.
Ok.

Is it possible to escape your own consciousness and look upon it as any other object? You can physically describe the processes even in your own brain that cause consciousness, but your consciousness itself is inescapable; you cannot impartially observe it. With every observation you make of it, you influence it. The totality of that of which you are aware changes to include itself even as you inspect it. You are thusly surrounded by a "shell" of subjectivity which separates you from the objective world, indeed even the brain which causes you, and it is impossible to circumvent. The presence of this shell is not to be found within the electrochemical processes of the brain (as it is of the same quality as the theorems of math and logic, not contained within any single mind, and true regardless of one's awareness of it), making it a valid and undeniable mark of distinction between process and experience.
I completely disagree. When I examine another person, no matter what the level of detail, I will find only processes. All the way down to the atomic level. Your experience of things is completely nonexistent to me just as mine are to you. The only way for you to experience what I do would be for you to be me. Thus the illusion you describe as "experience" is inseperable from, and indeed is one with, the process of "experience". Your confusion about the identity of the process and the "experience" being one and the same is understandable. Your most egalitarian ruminations are nothing more than the spinning of gears taken to high levels of complexity. You cannot bottle experience because experience is the spinning of the gears. Don't be suprised when one day, any state of consciousness can be synthesized and simulated in the mind by technological means. We can measure the simple properties of the spinning gear such as angular momentum. Your thoughts are that spin propertiy multiplied by tens of billions. Yet qualitatively the same. Physical properties.

Oh? Are theists also not reasonable by definition?
We are the epitome of reason. The paragon of rationality by which all others shall be measured.

You have been misled.
No, really, I haven't. The supernatural is supposedly both real and visible. Quick demonstration:
Ghosts are supernatural entities. Many people claim to have seen ghosts. Therefore, many people believe supernatural entities to be visible.

So, in popular 'supernaturalist' opinion, the supernatural must be at least partially tangible.

I completely disagree. When I examine another person, no matter what the level of detail, I will find only processes. All the way down to the atomic level. Your experience of things is completely nonexistent to me just as mine are to you. The only way for you to experience what I do would be for you to be me. Thus the illusion you describe as "experience" is inseperable from, and indeed is one with, the process of "experience". Your confusion about the identity of the process and the "experience" being one and the same is understandable. Your most egalitarian ruminations are nothing more than the spinning of gears taken to high levels of complexity. You cannot bottle experience because experience is the spinning of the gears. Don't be suprised when one day, any state of consciousness can be synthesized and simulated in the mind by technological means. We can measure the simple properties of the spinning gear such as angular momentum. Your thoughts are that spin propertiy multiplied by tens of billions. Yet qualitatively the same. Physical properties.
You're mostly right, but the dependence of experience on process does not imply that they are one and the same; and dependence is all that your description necessitates. I do not argue against the fact that I cannot leave my brain and exist only as some abstract "standalone consciousness." Of course there is a strong connection between the processes in the brain and the perceptions they generate. One causes the other. However, were I to try to treat my experiences as processes under the premise that they are one and the same, I would quickly find myself proven wrong.

Let's say that I was somehow able to become aware of the totality of my consciousness; that I was completely self-aware, conscious of every process in my waking brain; or in experiential terms, I am conscious of my entire consciousness. However, in order to be conscious of my entire consciousness, I must also be conscious that I am conscious of my entire consciousness; and then I must in addition be conscious that I am conscious that I am conscious of my entire consciousness, and so forth ad infinitum. It is a feedback loop of new knowledge that goes on forever. I have acquired infinite knowledge before the loop terminates.

It is impossible, however, to have infinite knowledge, therefore it is impossible for me to be fully aware of everything going on in my own mind, and therefore, whereas I may be able to fully and completely know what you know, your current processes, it is impossible for me to exhaustively examine every current process in my own brain. As any natural process can be fully examined, my experience must necessarily not be a process. Of course, you could still fully examine me; to you, my experience is nothing more than processes. So it is only subjectively true that experience != process. Nonetheless, with respect to the self, they cannot be the same.

As always, I would be grateful if you could point out to me where the fallacy is in my defense of this.

We are the epitome of reason. The paragon of rationality by which all others shall be measured.
Likewise pretty.

In fact, I maintain that they still cannot logically be one and the same; though I would be grateful if you could point out to me where the fallacy is in my defense of this.

I shall cogitate upon this and deliver my synopsis unto thine eyes bearing upon the nearest moment at hand.

This discussion has veered off into the completely absurd. Did any of you bother to complete your homework and look up some definitions of the word "secular"? They're all consistent and here are several:

Not religious
Nonreligious
Lay
Other than religious
Not related to religion
Not having any connection with religion
Not regarded as religious

Could this be any clearer? Perhaps you can twist the word "humanism" to embrace some kind of weird neopagan or universalist religion. But if you put the word "secular" in front of it you have limited it to only those types of humanism that are not religious.

I decided to check up on you guys and look at the definitions of the word "religion" in the same generally acknowledged authorities. In each one of them, the first and primary definition includes a reference to a deity or something else supernatural.

Secondary definitions don't have it, but secondary definitions are clearly veering off into the metaphorical.

"She brushes her teeth religiously."
"Quality assurance is a religion in this company."
"Environmentalism is the new religion."
"Music is the only true religion. It says it will make you happy and it does."

That last one is a quote from Frank Zappa.

So come on guys, put this to rest. You've got it wrong. "Secular" and "religious" are opposites.

You can say that people treat secular humanism as if it were a religion, they defend it with religious zeal, it has a place among the world's religions, it competes with religion, or even that in some people's lives it serves the purpose of a religion. But secular humanism cannot be a religion because that would be an oxymoron.

English is a consensus language rather than an academy language and people can say whatever they want and if enough people say it some dictionary somewhere is going to print it. I'm sure one of you is going to display one of them in your next post. The fact that you found it on the internet doesn't mean it's not stupid!

But let's try not to degrade the language by making our words self-contradictory, okay?

I shall cogitate upon this and deliver my synopsis unto thine eyes bearing upon the nearest moment at hand.
Many thanks. I apologize for all the editing I did, but I hope it offers a useful clarification to my position.

Sir Fraggle,

I believe Mr. Jaster's central idea is not that secular humanism is literally a religion, but, as you suggested, that as a belief system or way of life it serves many functions traditionally fulfilled by actual religion. 'Tis a metaphor. Or I'm wrong.

So are quality assurance, dental hygiene, environmentalism, and music. The use of the word as a metaphor is too vague. Without an element of the supernatural I don't understand how we're going to agree on a definition that will make for a sensible discussion.

Perhaps an umbrella term that embraces the religions, secular humanism, and other philosophies/communities upon which people base their lives can be devised. In On the Nature of the Psyche, Carl Jung calls it an "ism." Three letters. Distinctive. Fun to look at and say. I for one like it.

What is the thing people have with definitions?

Religion: A set of beliefs not reliant on fact or evidence and revolving around a core supernatural entity. force, or essence.

Supernatural: Beyond nature in the sense that there is zero evidence or correllated effect of the "supernatural" element.

Even the american constitution is transcendental because it states that all men are equal - on what basis? Is it height?

This implies both that all humans are born with a set of core values and that this set of core values is the same as secular humanism. The supportability of either implication is far from obvious; quite the opposite, in fact. Any innate, i.e. instinctual, "values" we may possess are animal in nature. no, "it does what it says on the tin", we dont get taught to be human, we are human with human values, is that to hard to grasp.



All these activities which you describe as the basis of secular humanism are products of will and reason, not instinct. Given a man's freedom to choose not to arrive at any particular philosophy through the process of reason, how do you reconcile this basis with the belief that secular humanism is innate?remember humans have core human values,which human interests, values, and dignity predominate, they can be nought else.
it is the basis for humanity, observation, experimentation, and rational analysis, aid this.
however if you wish to belief the imaginary, that is your prerogative.

That goes with any belief system, including Secular Humanism. The point I was trying to make was that religiosity is something a person is born with. you've got it so wrong, there is nothing religious about being human.
Yes, we are human, with human core values. Those core values are enshrined in religion, rubbish, religion first has to be indoctrinated/taught.

Perhaps an umbrella term that embraces the religions, secular humanism, and other philosophies/communities upon which people base their lives can be devised. In On the Nature of the Psyche, Carl Jung calls it an "ism." Three letters. Distinctive. Fun to look at and say. I for one like it.
I believe in German (who are more imaginative with language) there is the term "Weltanschauung" meaning "Worldview". I think Jung also used the term?

Perhaps that would describe both religion and secular philosophies like Marxism and Humanism....

An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.
An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment." mary murray-o'hare

I think audible's secular humanism sounds a great set of values to aspire to - it is the best of religion without the mystical (as Jaster said).

However, the reason I am a theist is I am not able by use of reason to transform myself into this loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic person - I need a catalyst to make the transformation over time.

Even Clark Kent needed a phone-box!

you've got it so wrong, there is nothing religious about being human... rubbish, religion first has to be indoctrinated/taught.
Religion is very old. It seems to have come naturally to us as humans at a very early stage in our history. The concepts, beliefs and values of a religion need to be taught, but the drive is already there (at least in some people).

Religion is very old. It seems to have come naturally to us as humans at a very early stage in our history. The concepts, beliefs and values of a religion need to be taught, but the drive is already there (at least in some people).

Replace religion with superstition in your above post.

I think audible's secular humanism sounds a great set of values to aspire to - it is the best of religion without the mystical (as Jaster said). it is a great set of values, and it is the natural way, it's taken from a court case begun in 1959 by the Murray family which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools. That case – Murray v. Curlett – was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of the First Amendment rights. It began:

"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows.
the rest you've read.
here: http://www.atheists.org/

However, the reason I am a theist is I am not able by use of reason to transform myself into this loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic person - I need a catalyst to make the transformation over time.
exactly, how sad is that.
have you ever thought that you might already be this reasoning, loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic person, it's just been suppressed, under the weight of religious indoctrination.

Religion is very old. It seems to have come naturally to us as humans at a very early stage in our history. superstition causes this sort of reaction especially in a populous of un and undereducated people.( as they were then)The concepts, beliefs and values of a religion need to be taught, but the drive is already there (at least in some people).some humans do have a capacity to belief the inane and irrational, as I said if you wish to belief the imaginary, that is your prerogative.

no, "it does what it says on the tin", we dont get taught to be human, we are human with human values, is that to hard to grasp.


remember humans have core human values,which human interests, values, and dignity predominate, they can be nought else.
it is the basis for humanity, observation, experimentation, and rational analysis, aid this.
however if you wish to belief the imaginary, that is your prerogative.
You only reiterated your position in this post. I'd like you to make a more earnest attempt to convince me, if that isn't asking too much.

There is the idea that the rituals and paraphernalia of (religious) worship automatically manifest in persons or communities of persons that perceive something greater than themselves - whether you be talking about the cargo cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_Cult) or the unlimited number of totems and rituals that surround modern technology - the real question remains wat tings are actually more worshippable than others

You only reiterated your position in this post. I'd like you to make a more earnest attempt to convince me, if that isn't asking too much.
are you not sure, your human, why do you need convincing of your humanity, or is it you believe the core human values are religion, are we to take it that you belief that we are born with religion, and not humanity. or is it we born with some other animal natural instincts, if so which one.
perhaps it's that your eyes are so blinkered and your will so suppressed, you dont realise your human, with human values.

this may clarify, why humanism is inherent.
humans are much better than the Abrahamists give us credit for. Our greatest challenge is of our own making. We have the instincts of Mesolithic people, to live cooperatively and peacefully among a few score pack or tribe mates with whom we are personally acquainted and almost all of whom are blood relatives. Basically an extended family. The Neolithic revolution launched by the invention of agriculture increased the size of our tribes to several hundred and required us to learn to live in peace and harmony with people whom we didn't instinctively regard as kin, and we managed to do that. Essentially by augmenting our instincts with learned behavior that was passed down by elders to succeeding generations. The Dawn of Civilization increased the size of our communities by another order of magnitude, and we were able to learn to live and work with complete strangers. As cities grew and assimilated diverse tribes, we learned to get along with people who didn't look like us, spoke funny, and had different customs.

And we did that all without Moses, Jesus or Mohammed.

The rate of growth of our cities has increased geometrically. Unfortunately our instincts are starting to lag behind. Most of us are at the point where we live in peace and harmony in cities of 20,000 people, but we have cities a thousand times larger.

We will catch up, but Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are not helping us.
---------
Once again, you're ignoring the role of biology in this. We have perfectly good instincts to follow here. As pack animals we're quite capable of getting along with one another without the help of a fairy tale creature. The problem we're up against at this moment in history is that our packs have merged and grown to the size of a herd, and as pack animals we don't have the instincts of herd animals to live peacefully and cooperatively among endless hordes of anonymous strangers. Nonetheless we've clearly found the path to that particular enlightenment since such a huge number of us are in fact able to live in peace in today's civilization. And roughly half of us have done it without the monotheistic model for guidance
with the greatest respect to fraggle rocker

exactly, how sad is that.
have you ever thought that you might already be this reasoning, loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic person, it's just been suppressed, under the weight of religious indoctrination.
Hmmmm, well I'd like to believe you but the evidence is against it... I don't think 'religious indoctrination' has much to do with it. Look around you - is the world being run by reasoning, loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic people?

It may be sad, but we need something more than good intentions!

superstition causes this sort of reaction especially in a populous of un and undereducated people.( as they were then)some humans do have a capacity to belief the inane and irrational, as I said if you wish to belief the imaginary, that is your prerogative.
I don't accept your analysis that it's all 'inane and irrational' superstition? The values you espouse for secular humanism, derive, and were developed as christianity. The Romans (for instance) had very different ideas on the value of human life!!

Religion satisfies people's deepest needs for love, peace, hope and fulfillment, and provides a reason to be altruistic (love of God = love of fellow man). That is why it remains so popular. Secular humanism misses the point, because it provides no reason to be loving, altruistic etc. Why not look after number 1 and say f*ck to the rest? Evolution does not reward altruism towards strangers!

Religion is very old. It seems to have come naturally to us as humans at a very early stage in our history. The concepts, beliefs and values of a religion need to be taught, but the drive is already there (at least in some people).Religion--or superstition, or belief in the supernatural--is an archetype, to use Jung's term. It occurs in all cultures and all eras. We have a hard-wired instinct to believe in something that can never be proven or disproven, in order to explain things that we don't understand or that bother us.

Like most instincts, it can be overridden by reason. Things our elders teach us or things that we experience on our way through life. But it can also be strengthened by those things.

Humanism can be seen as a codification of certain other, deeper instincts. Our instincts to improve productivity by working cooperatively and to improve health and safety by caring for each other increase the survivability of the species and motivated us to become a social species of pack animals. (As opposed to herd animals who gather in larger, anonymous, passively cooperative groups for peaceful grazing and defense against predation.) This occurred in our primate ancestors, several species differentiations back, and became much stronger as we evolved into the only predatory primates. (Other apes eat small animals casually caught but they subsist on vegetation, fruit, and bugs.)

Everything that humanism sets forth as reasonable rules for a harmonious civilization derive from our instinctive need to get along with each other so we can be healthy, productive, long-lived, and raise healthy, productive, long-lived offspring, while diverting as little energy, attention, and resources as possible to protecting ourselves from each other.

Religion claims to do this by relying on the supernatural and following often arbitrary rules whose relationship to reality is not obvious and often counterintuitive. As a result religions often veer away from the common-sense principles of peace, tolerance and cooperation.

The essence of humanism is that we are in touch with our nature, which leads us toward peace, tolerance and cooperation.

Humanism is natural, religion is supernatural. That is the fundamental difference. To call humanism a religion is to ascribe a supernatural element to it that it does not have, and must not have in order to work.

I don't accept your analysis that it's all 'inane and irrational' superstition? The values you espouse for secular humanism, derive, and were developed as christianity.

Are you saying that Christianity is the source of all positive aspects of human nature and that our current standards of civilisation would not be possible without Christianity (even though we had to kick it out of power to truely progress as a free and tolerant society)? Isn't it insteresting that even if that is the case, that the rest of Christianity remains superstition without the ethics, which would just as easily exist outside the confines of religious text?

Religion satisfies people's deepest needs for love, peace, hope and fulfillment, and provides a reason to be altruistic (love of God = love of fellow man). That is why it remains so popular.

Then why are the most densely religious regions on the planet not shining examples of the above? They are by far being out-done by their secular counterparts.

Secular humanism misses the point, because it provides no reason to be loving, altruistic etc. Why not look after number 1 and say f*ck to the rest? Evolution does not reward altruism towards strangers!

People do not have to be guided by way of superstitious practices to become decent. When people aren't forced into religion, they are no more or less likely to become better people. I for one could have done without faith schooling due to all the strife it created in my area due to Catholics versus Protestants.

Accepting evolution and rejecting religion, for me, shows that we are all the same. Segregation by religion has the opposite effect.

About secularism read this (or just go to the "soul" thread ) ....

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57675&page=9&pp=20

The superiority of secularism is self evident !!!

;)

are you not sure, your human, why do you need convincing of your humanity, or is it you believe the core human values are religion, are we to take it that you belief that we are born with religion, and not humanity. or is it we born with some other animal natural instincts, if so which one.
perhaps it's that your eyes are so blinkered and your will so suppressed, you dont realise your human, with human values.
The most needed clarification here is that humanism is not the same thing as being human. As Fraggle pointed out, humans have a built-in tendency to believe in and worship the supernatural, and so are apparently not humanist "by default" as you claim. Findings in the fields of psychology and anthropology point to this behavior; the developments of religion and spirituality simultaneously in different parts of the world, and the existence of Jungian archetypes in the unconscious, both suggest that "magical" thinking is a natural process of the human psyche. In fact, a popular argument against religion (often used by, of all folk, secular humanists) is the natural tendency of the human mind to hallucinate supernatural, dream-like images, and to draw causal connections where none are necessary. How, then, is secular humanism -- which is based, by your own claim, on reason and not these built-in irrational tendencies -- a more "natural" state?

Everything that humanism sets forth as reasonable rules for a harmonious civilization derive from our instinctive need to get along with each other so we can be healthy, productive, long-lived, and raise healthy, productive, long-lived offspring, while diverting as little energy, attention, and resources as possible to protecting ourselves from each other.

Religion claims to do this by relying on the supernatural and following often arbitrary rules whose relationship to reality is not obvious and often counterintuitive. As a result religions often veer away from the common-sense principles of peace, tolerance and cooperation.

I'd have to disagree on this point, in that religion does provide rules that are necessary for the survival of whatever culture that particular religion developed within. The rules may seem arbitrary now, to peoples who have little or no direct connection or relation to the original practitioners of that religion, but to believe that the rules set forth in religion are mostly arbitrary is to completely ignore the impact of these ideas and practices on humanity's development. Can you honestly imagine a world where there had never been any religion? You may think you can, and you may think it would be an altruistic, peaceful, cooperative world, but you'd probably be wrong. Religion has helped man survive the stresses of his environment for his entire existence. There has never been a society in the past that lacked religion, and to me this speaks volumes about religion's necessity to human survival.

Instead of writing off religious practices as arbitrary, a more useful approach would be to actually try to figure out why that particular practice developed. I can almost guarantee to you, that if you remove those rituals that are designed specifically to propogate mythology, then all of the other rules, practices, and customs of whatever religion you are studying will be perfectly explainable in terms of environmental or social necessity, even if it takes a bit of thought.

Humanism is natural, religion is supernatural. That is the fundamental difference. To call humanism a religion is to ascribe a supernatural element to it that it does not have, and must not have in order to work.

Look, the difference between the natural and the supernatural really is semantic. There are religions which do not recognize any concept of the supernatural at all, saying instead that all of the things which they believe in, although some are very mysterious and possibly unknowable in a rational manner, are nevertheless perfectly natural. Hinduism is a great example of this, as are many animistic, tribal religions. I'm afraid that all of you are stuck assuming that all religion follows the Abrahamic style, and this serverely limits any kind of analysis of religious ideas.

That's not my point anyway, though. What I'm trying to say is that religion, or religiosity, has little to do with belief and everything to do with behavior. People seem to require some kind of outlet for religious behavior, even if the ideas don't necessarily match up to traditional religion. That's unimportant. One must not believe in a supernatural world in order to consider oneself religious. I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in supernatural entities, but I would still consider myself quite religious, as would a good number of people that I know. So, the standard which you are setting is entirely dependant on your preconceived notion of religion, and mostly because you grew up in a society who's dominant set of religious ideas were Abrahamic. Have you ever known someone who had once been a seriously religious Hindu, or Buddhist, who understood the teachings of their religion to great depth, who now denies any kind of cultural identification with their former religion? I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone who fits that description.

The most needed clarification here is that humanism is not the same thing as being human. is not the very core of being human where human interests, values, and dignity predominate?
if so what is humanism

is not the very core of being human where human interests, values, and dignity predominate?
if so what is humanism
Humanism is a philosophy that emphasizes the development of the so-called "human qualities," or beliefs and behaviors among those considered secular that are thought to have positive value. In the context of its classical origin, these human qualities are as implicitly opposed to "divine" qualities, or those most valued by the church.

As for human interests, values, and dignity, remember that the very core of being human, as you put it, is also where the opposites of all these lie. Hatred and jealousy are very human qualities, as much a part of the human experience as their polar opposites love and generosity; but they are not encouraged by humanism.

you posited that humanism was'nt the same as being human, The most needed clarification here is that humanism is not the same thing as being human. is not the very core of being human where human interests, values, and dignity predominate?yet you agree with the above hereAs for human interests, values, and dignity, remember that the very core of being human, as you put it, is also where the opposites of all these lie.dictionary dot com
devines humanism thus : any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
so am I right in thinking that humanism is the same as being human, if not then why call it humanism.

you posited that humanism was'nt the same as being human, yet you agree with the above heredictionary dot com
devines humanism thus : any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
so am I right in thinking that humanism is the same as being human, if not then why call it humanism.
I don't follow. Where is the implication that humanism's draw on human qualities for its values equates it with the whole of human being? As I explained, it's called humanism because of the aforementioned emphasis on human qualities -- but, as I pointed out, not all of them by far. Rather, a tiny subset of the spectrum of human expression is selected and valued above the rest, just as in any other religion or world view. There is nothing inherently "blessed" about this particular selection that makes it more natural than other world views; the philosophers who established humanism made their conclusions on rational grounds, not instinct or other irrational sources of knowledge. One is therefore not born with humanistic values; they must be arrived at through reflection. Humanism's values, again as previously explained, are called "human" to differentiate them from the so-called "divine" values of the church. As a human, can you truly conceive of a value which is not literally human? The very fact that you hold the value makes it so.

Humanism constitutes a belief in the intrinsic value of certain human qualities. The exact same thing could be said about almost every existing belief system, save nihilism. If humanism is to be defined so vaguely, what is the point of having the term?

The specific values espoused by humanism are what make it humanism, not the obvious fact that they are human values.

Are you saying that Christianity is the source of all positive aspects of human nature and that our current standards of civilisation would not be possible without Christianity (even though we had to kick it out of power to truely progress as a free and tolerant society)? Isn't it insteresting that even if that is the case, that the rest of Christianity remains superstition without the ethics, which would just as easily exist outside the confines of religious text?
I think he's saying that Humanism wouldn't exist without Christianity as a root from which it grew. I tend to agree, since the ideals sound quite Christian (without, of course, the mythology behind it). There is no such thing as an entirely new belief system.

Then why are the most densely religious regions on the planet not shining examples of the above? They are by far being out-done by their secular counterparts.
Well, actually, I would agree with you in a way. I think that everyone here is kind of misinterpreting the word "secular", to be honest. Nothing about it implies atheism, just a focus on worldly concerns. Countries who have a tendency to concern themselves more with practical, worldly, tangible things, rather than spiritual ideals, or philosophy, often do much better than countries that concern themselves with spirituality, or philosophy. So, in a sense, I would say that secularism is a good thing, because it allows a people to focus on things which are directly at hand.

Again, though, nothing about the word "secular" implies atheism.Whoa whoa whoa. We've gone around on this already, right here in this thread. I posted the definitions of "secular" from a bunch of respected dictionaries and they all agree.

Non-religious. Irreligious. Other than religious. Lay.

These are typical, there is no disagreement among any of them.

And they all define "religion" as having a supernatural component. Therefore:

"Secular" by definition means not religious, which means having no supernatural component, which means having no god since gods are supernatural, which means being atheistic.

Secular humanism, by the basic definition of the words, is atheistic.

Whoa whoa whoa. We've gone around on this already, right here in this thread. I posted the definitions of "secular" from a bunch of respected dictionaries and they all agree.

Non-religious. Irreligious. Other than religious. Lay.

These are typical, there is no disagreement among any of them.

And they all define "religion" as having a supernatural component. Therefore:

"Secular" by definition means not religious, which means having no supernatural component, which means having no god since gods are supernatural, which means being atheistic.

Secular humanism, by the basic definition of the words, is atheistic.

Look, there are plenty of people who, say, believe in God but are thoroughly secular. Hence, the words are not synonymous.

Also, I don't care if dictionaries all say that religion has a supernatural component. Peoples from a variety of non-western religions (Who understand the concept of "supernatural", by the way. I have a Hindu friend who is a religion major and also a member of the Brahmin caste.) who explicitly deny that their particular religion has any concept of supernaturalism. Stop using the dictionary as an authority, Mr. Fraggle.

Isn't it clear that I am using this philosophical discussion to redefine the words "religion", and "secular"? In fact, all philosophical discussions are about either redefining, or inventing, words. Stop throwing the dictionary at me.

Look, there are plenty of people who, say, believe in God but are thoroughly secular. Hence, the words are not synonymous.

Also, I don't care if dictionaries all say that religion has a supernatural component. Peoples from a variety of non-western religions (Who understand the concept of "supernatural", by the way. I have a Hindu friend who is a religion major and also a member of the Brahmin caste.) who explicitly deny that their particular religion has any concept of supernaturalism. are you serious!

Hindus believe, that they fundamentally understand the workings of the universe and could, through that understanding, manipulate the material and spiritual worlds through magic. In this sense, magic to them is a form of technology, that is, it is primarily efficient: it begins with an understanding of the mechanisms of the universe and exploits those mechanisms to make things happen (efficient=making something happen). The Hindu turns to prayer, spells, incantations, rituals, and sacrifices to bring about changes in the world, particularly the physical world. They named the power inherent in spells, prayers, and rituals "brahma" or "brahman."

Brahman, the one god of the universe, Brahma, the creator god, and brahmin, "priest." Since the priests were the keepers of the rituals and the incantations, it was the priests who had brahma.

? are you serious! lol

are you serious!

Hindus believe, that they fundamentally understand the workings of the universe and could, through that understanding, manipulate the material and spiritual worlds through magic. In this sense, magic to them is a form of technology, that is, it is primarily efficient: it begins with an understanding of the mechanisms of the universe and exploits those mechanisms to make things happen (efficient=making something happen). The Hindu turns to prayer, spells, incantations, rituals, and sacrifices to bring about changes in the world, particularly the physical world. They named the power inherent in spells, prayers, and rituals "brahma" or "brahman."

Brahman, the one god of the universe, Brahma, the creator god, and brahmin, "priest." Since the priests were the keepers of the rituals and the incantations, it was the priests who had brahma.

? are you serious! lol

Actually, I am serious. Hindus don't consider any of the things you just listed to be "supernatural", but totally natural. You said it yourself:
magic to them is a form of technology, that is, it is primarily efficient: it begins with an understanding of the mechanisms of the universe and exploits those mechanisms to make things happen

SECULAR HUMANISM, steals all that is good about religion, and cuts alot of the bad... but in their haste.. they cut out GOD, Jesus, Krishna, Moses, Mohammed, and probubly by their standards... Buddha as well.

its sad.

-MT

Well cutting out the rubbish is never a bad thing, also it "steals" more than just what is good about religion. Secular humanism has a greater moral code than any religion, don't make me bust some bible quotes :( .

Actually, I am serious. Hindus don't consider any of the things you just listed to be "supernatural", but totally natural. You said it yourself:

It doesn't matter if they consider it supernatural or not...

It doesn't matter if they consider it supernatural or not...

Actually, since it's their religion, what they think of it matters more than what you think of it. If they understand what the concept of supernatural means, and they say that their religion contains nothing supernatural, then it doesn't.

Your arrogance is astounding. It's like I'm telling you my favorite color is green, and you're telling me it doesn't matter that I say my favorite color is green, because it's actually yellow.

Actually, since it's their religion, what they think of it matters more than what you think of it. If they understand what the concept of supernatural means, and they say that their religion contains nothing supernatural, then it doesn't. so the hindus have redefined the meaning of supernatural, it's only supernatural if it's in any other religion, but thiers. even though it looks the same, acts the same, and smells the same, etc etc, it totally different.(I see)

Your arrogance is astounding. It's like I'm telling you my favorite color is green, and you're telling me it doesn't matter that I say my favorite color is green, because it's actually yellow. but are'nt you telling us that supernatural does'nt mean the same the world over.
so whats your favourite colour geel or vert.

are you serious!

Hindus believe, that they fundamentally understand the workings of the universe and could, through that understanding, manipulate the material and spiritual worlds through magic. In this sense, magic to them is a form of technology, that is, it is primarily efficient: it begins with an understanding of the mechanisms of the universe and exploits those mechanisms to make things happen (efficient=making something happen). The Hindu turns to prayer, spells, incantations, rituals, and sacrifices to bring about changes in the world, particularly the physical world. They named the power inherent in spells, prayers, and rituals "brahma" or "brahman."

Brahman, the one god of the universe, Brahma, the creator god, and brahmin, "priest." Since the priests were the keepers of the rituals and the incantations, it was the priests who had brahma.

? are you serious! lol

Even though there are nearly a billion people in INdia and most of them are hindus - I can't say that I have met all of them - but I have never heard of such fanciful descriptions of hinduism before - I have to ask what is your source for such descriptions

so the hindus have redefined the meaning of supernatural, it's only supernatural if it's in any other religion, but thiers. even though it looks the same, acts the same, and smells the same, etc etc, it totally different.(I see)
Well, since Hindu's ultimately believe that these things are capable of being understood fully, then they obviously do not regard it in the same fashion as Jews would regard God, which they consider unknowable in any true sense. It's not that Hindu's regard it as supernatural only if it's in some other religion, it's that they don't believe that there is any kind of supernatural existence, i.e. they believe that all of existence can be understood in a full sense. You see, the difference is that you use the term "supernatural" in a negative way. Not everyone does. Some people just don't believe in it, and consider things that some would think to be supernatural to be perfectly natural.

but are'nt you telling us that supernatural does mean the same the world over.
When have I made this claim? In fact, my position throughout has been that the words have no absolute meaning, and that to different people words like "religion", "supernatural", and "secular" have different connotations.

Even though there are nearly a billion people in INdia and most of them are hindus - I can't say that I have met all of them - but I have never heard of such fanciful descriptions of hinduism before - I have to ask what is your source for such descriptions

Well, although his description is crude and lacking in any kind of real understanding of Hinduism, roughly speaking, what he says is loosely correct. On a few points, however, his anti-religious bias shows through.

Even though there are nearly a billion people in India and most of them are hindus - I can't say that I have met all of them - but I have never heard of such fanciful descriptions of hinduism before - I have to ask what is your source for such descriptions
I dont think his wrong take a look here http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987/06/1987-06-03.shtml

I dont think his wrong take a look here http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987/06/1987-06-03.shtml
No, he is not wrong. However, the interpretation of Hindu beliefs as containing an element of supernaturalism is a western interpretation. As I have said before, I am personally very close to a devout Hindu, who is also of the Brahmin caste. I'd actually trust his interpretation over that web site, after only a cursory examination.

I dont think his wrong take a look here http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987/06/1987-06-03.shtml


This is actually a sub branch of the vedas - like for instance you will never find a vedic quote that establishes how astrology will save one at the point of death - its part of para vidya (knowledge for how to get by in the material world) as opposed to apara vidya (transcendental knowledge).

Its not like god requires crystals to work through, and it s not like a sincere worshipper of god requires crystals to get favours from god

Actually, since it's their religion, what they think of it matters more than what you think of it. If they understand what the concept of supernatural means, and they say that their religion contains nothing supernatural, then it doesn't.

Your arrogance is astounding. It's like I'm telling you my favorite color is green, and you're telling me it doesn't matter that I say my favorite color is green, because it's actually yellow.

What I was saying is that they shouldn't try to justify their religion based on a word they redefined.

so what IF some choose to label secular humanism as a "religion"?
Does that mean its on par with/comparable to other religions? No.
Does that mean that people who are devoted to it are just as likely to be wrong? No.

So at this point in time most of us "believe" we evolved from more primitive lifeforms, we "believe" the earth is roughly 4 billion years old, the universe roughly 13 billion.
Call it a "religion" if you prefer. At least its not bullshit. At least its not boogeymen in the sky. Do you have any idea how childish we think that is? Like the tooth fairy.
In fact, if you read them, the values of secular humanism seem quite admirable, if its a "religion", I think its long overdue.

so what IF some choose to label secular humanism as a "religion"?
Does that mean its on par with/comparable to other religions? No.
Does that mean that people who are devoted to it are just as likely to be wrong? No.

So at this point in time most of us "believe" we evolved from more primitive lifeforms, we "believe" the earth is roughly 4 billion years old, the universe roughly 13 billion.
Call it a "religion" if you prefer. At least its not bullshit. At least its not boogeymen in the sky. Do you have any idea how childish we think that is? Like the tooth fairy.
In fact, if you read them, the values of secular humanism seem quite admirable, if its a "religion", I think its long overdue.

Build a school of thought based around secular humanism. Perform intense combat drills. Create the greatest theocracy the wrld has ever seen, crush your political opponents. Bring forth the revolution. Secular humanism for all, accept it or nothing will happen to you.

Build a school of thought based around secular humanism. Perform intense combat drills. Create the greatest theocracy the wrld has ever seen, crush your political opponents. Bring forth the revolution. Secular humanism for all, accept it or nothing will happen to you.

well i suppose it has been done in the name of many other boogeymen and tooth fairies.

well i suppose it has been done in the name of many other boogeymen and tooth fairies.

Rise up and take what is rightfully yours. Have faith, and your will will give you the power to break your chains and overcome your enemies. You will fight your war and you will win, because your psychological superiority is your trump card, don't let your chance slip away. The balance of power is shifting, you have the oppertunity to take it for yourself, take that oppertunity.

Rise up and take what is rightfully yours. Have faith, and your will will give you the power to break your chains and overcome your enemies. You will fight your war and you will win, because your psychological superiority is your trump card, don't let your chance slip away. The balance of power is shifting, you have the oppertunity to take it for yourself, take that oppertunity.

i like it. do i need to recruit a new posse of followers? can i join one that already exists for this purpose? or can i acheive this all on my own?