rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (11/11/83)
HUMANISM (or religionist assumptions about god and why individuality is feared) -------- >>This is one reason why the notion of "humanism" is so frightening to religion- >>ists; it promotes the idea of humans being in charge of their own destiny, as >>far as their bodies and minds can take them, and not subject to the whims of >>an incorporeal entity. (The other reason that religionists fear humanism is >>that such a belief, if widely held, would shake their power base out from >>under them.) >This sort of nonsense... Let me use the same form of argument: >"One reason why the notion of "religionism" is so frightening to humanists >is that it promotes the idea of human beings being held responsible for >their own actions, and accountable to a higher authority, rather than free >to indulge their every whim, no matter what the consequences to others. >(The other reason that humanists fear religion is that such a belief, if >widely held, would shake their power base out from under them)." Apparently there is something "nonsensical" about what I said regarding why religionists fear humanism. I hope that someday garys will tell me what that is. I will now (hopefully) clearly delineate why I think *his* analogy is nonsensical. (1) Religionism does not promote the idea of human beings being held responsible for their actions; it teaches that they MUST adhere to a written code that they had no say in, or face eternal damnation; how is that responsible?; the tenets of humanism state that human beings determine their own moral code, and that it adhere to the concept that one person's rights end when imposition an another begins. Thus it places limits on the indulging of whims. (2) Yes, humanists fail to see the need for people to be accountable to any extraspecial (ex-tra-spee'-shee-al: a made-up word meaning outside of the species) entity; why do you feel that there is such a need?; is it related to your low opinion of people? (3) The notion of any power group fearing the loss of their power base is a given, so TOUCHE', garys! What is happening today is that those who feel no need to depend on a possibly non-existent entity for daily guidance and control are making strides in determining their own destiny (including women, gays, atheists, artists, and others). The problem is that (and this is important): 1) this causes massive changes in the fabric of society, since many formerly controlled people now see themselves as free, 2) these changes affect society as a whole, 3) those unwilling to cope with the problems associated with these changes (because, while they are beneficial to other individuals, they are detrimental to their formerly taken-for-granted power and status) seek to re-establish the "old order" as described in, guess what, the bible. > [again in response to my statement above on "humanism"] You make humanism > sound like such a lonely and terrible thing! According to you... [we are] > stuck here to fend for ourselves, without assistance [from an external > deity]. Christians ... believe that we have an infinite source of help... > and that it is much better to have this source in charge of us... You are > afraid to abandon yourself [to a deity] who knows you better than you know > yourself... God will likely work through even if you're not aware of it... > The whole point is to have a personal relationship with God. And that > relationship will change you. Rather presumptive, there, aren't we? Lonely and terrible? Is that the way you see existence without a deity "in charge of you"? Am I alone in thinking that this line of thinking is quite childlike, like a child afraid to leave the protection of his/her parents? What's wrong with fending for ourselves? And what's so lonely about it? Just because you seem to need for there to be a god, doesn't make it so. Even if god should exist, why are you so sure that it feels any need or desire to be omnipotent over you? In this sense, religionism shows its true colors; it is not (hu)mankind supplicating before a supreme being---it is a supreme being existing to give significance to man's existence!!!! God created us, He watches over us, therefore we (humans) must be *real* important! Actually, the physical evidence shows that we're not that at all, but rather the product of chance processes (life was bound to occur somewhere based on chance, and this was [one of the??] place[s] ). If this makes you feel less significant, sorry. It doesn't do that to me at all. On the contrary. [NEXT: summaries of answers to the questions--in two parts] Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) (11/14/83)
Rich Rosen is at it again. Look at this statement from a recent article: Religionism does not promote the idea of human beings being held responsible for their actions; it teaches that they MUST adhere to a written code that they had no say in, or face eternal damnation; how is that responsible?; the tenets of humanism state that human beings determine their own moral code, and that it adhere to the concept that one person's rights end when imposition an another begins. Thus it places limits on the indulging of whims. Rich, if you have been reading this group for any period of time, or if you have any knowledge of popular religions, you know that this is quite simply not true of all religions. It is true of Christianity and Islam, but your use of the word "religionism" implies that you mean to say that it applies to all religions. My own religion, Thelemism, has no such idea of an externally-imposed standard of morality, nor of eternal damnation. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism are lacking in the idea of eternal damnation as well. Judaism is vague on this point, but there is no explicit concept of eternal damnation. It is extremely offensive to those of us in other religions to see you referring to all religions as if they were Islam or Christianity, two religions which I for one strongly disapprove of. It is as if I were to expound on the faults of atheism as being ugliness and obnoxiousness, when in fact I am only talking about Madelyn Murray O'Hair. I must assume that you either know nothing about religions other than those two, or are deliberately hurling unfounded insults at us; either way, you have no place on this group. The real irony here is that I agree with you about authoritarian religions, and the moral code of Thelemism is one which would be called "humanist" by your definition. By your overgeneralization, you have lost a potential ally. Let that be a lesson in morality. ________________________________________________________ Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)