Is a Humanity based religion where we should go ? Any god concept is excluded

[Sarkus]

When someone insists that the others person is "generalizing" and "evading", then such an insister is proposing themselves to be "The Judge, above the other party."

Is someone who insists 2+2 to be 4 also to be considered "The Judge, above the other party"?
Afterall, the person did generalise. That is a fact. It is not a subjective judgment.
They have since evaded (and continue to do so). That is also a fact and not a subjective judgment.
Care to argue that they haven't?

Actually, I find that you are the one who doesn't want to discuss, even though you continue the argument.

True, I've gone past wanting to discuss the issue of the OP with LG - and the issue of his evasion has taken over. That much is patently clear. So I continue to highlight his tactic of evasion and his intellectual dishonesty.
He could end it just by either retracting the generalisation or actually supporting it. Should be simple enough for him. Instead he continues to evade.

But if we follow your tack then every generalisation and other logical fallacy should just go unchallenged merely so the "discussion" can progress. And those discussions are inherently doomed to irrelevancy once logical fallacies are thus permitted.

 

[lightgigantic]

The unsupported generalisation within that post.
Care to retract it yet, or care to explain how Humanism (a godless philosophy) tends to exacerbate those problems?
It's a simple enough question, surely?

As I said earlier, you did have some point you were trying to make, but unfortunately you shrouded the whole issue in a massive strawman of your own creation. UUntil you can actually bring yourself back to the op and things that people actually say, you are venting an exercise in miscommunication.

 

[Sarkus]

As I said earlier, you did have some point you were trying to make, but unfortunately you shrouded the whole issue in a massive strawman of your own creation. UUntil you can actually bring yourself back to the op and things that people actually say, you are venting an exercise in miscommunication.

There was no shrouding, LG. There was no strawman (although do feel free to explain what you're peeceiving as such). The issue i have/had with your post was and remains clear, as detailed above. Everything since then has been solely due to your efforts at evasion. Your dishonesty in this regard, no matter how small with respect the thread topic, is indicative of your posting style in general. Hence the focus i give it.

 

[lightgigantic]

There was no shrouding, LG.

Your inability to address the point where you blatantly departed from the op simply takes you further down the path of miscommunication

 

[river]

The only problem is that there is no universally accepted idea as to what that "better life for people alive in the present and for future descendants" is or should be.

The better life would be sound health practices , now and into the future for Humanity

The psychology of Humanity believing in its self

 

[lightgigantic]

The better life would be sound health practices , now and into the future for Humanity

The psychology of Humanity believing in its self

Health doesn't require a metaphysical platform (or the absence of one) in order to surmount the challenges it faces

 

[river]

Health doesn't require a metaphysical platform (or the absence of one) in order to surmount the challenges it faces

How does what you state address the psychology of Humanity believing in it self ?

 

[lightgigantic]

How does what you state address the psychology of Humanity believing in it self ?

It states that there is no compelling argument to suggest a humanist outlook automatically defaults to a more effective health care reform

 

[river]

It states that there is no compelling argument to suggest a humanist outlook automatically defaults to a more effective health care reform

In my philosophy there certainly would be

 

[lightgigantic]

In my philosophy there certainly would be

If that's the case you are yet to provide an argument, compelling or otherwise

 

[river]

Health care would be based on whole foods , organic

Quality supplements , based on bio-avalibility

Prevention rather than after the fact

Holistic approach

 

[quinnsong]

Health care would be based on whole foods , organic

Quality supplements , based on bio-avalibility

Prevention rather than after the fact

Holistic approach

I am in, now can you send me some money to buy organic?

 

[lightgigantic]

Health care would be based on whole foods , organic

Quality supplements , based on bio-avalibility

Prevention rather than after the fact

Holistic approach

This is an argument for health reform determined by production and distribution (as evidenced by quinsongs response), not metaphysics (as outlined in your op)

 

[river]

This is an argument for health reform determined by production and distribution (as evidenced by quinsongs response), not metaphysics (as outlined in your op)

Yet the Humanity based religion would require the best healthy foods and supplements

No GMO's without long term research

 

[lightgigantic]

Yet the Humanity based religion would require the best healthy foods and supplements

No GMO's without long term research

Yet again, there are zero metaphysical requirements (as outlined in your op) that reform.

You are actually discussing production and distribution

 

[river]

Yet again, there are zero metaphysical requirements (as outlined in your op) that reform.

You are actually discussing production and distribution

Disagree

Metaphysics can be principle based

Hence my principles are quality based in foods and supplements

 

[lightgigantic]

Disagree

Metaphysics can be principle based

Hence my principles are quality based in foods and supplements

Sure
The problem is that you are discussing principles of production and distribution, not metaphysics

Plenty of religious communities out there eating and producing organic food .... Probably more effectively than you

In fact you can say it was the standard model except in the last hundred years or so

 

[river]

Sure
The problem is that you are discussing principles of production and distribution, not metaphysics

Plenty of religious communities out there eating and producing organic food .... Probably more effectively than you

In fact you can say it was the standard model except in the last hundred years or so

But mainstream food production is not organic , and who most of the world feeds

And where has religious communities stood up against GMO's

 

[lightgigantic]

But mainstream food production is not organic , and who most of the world feeds

However one could be a neonazi and still push strongly for organic foods .... namely because it's an issue dictated essentially by production and distribution.

]And where has religious communities stood up against GMO's

A quick Google of suitable keywords brings up a shortlist of such communities who have a field of activities more involved than posting on online forums ..... but now that you mention it, you are more likely to find humanists advocating a pro gmo ... not that they all do ... mainly because it's an issue encapsulated by issues of production

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
But mainstream food production is not organic , and who most of the world feeds

However one could be a neonazi and still push strongly for organic foods .... namely because it's an issue dictated essentially by production and distribution

Since I'm not " neo-nazi " then production and distribution is Humane