fisherman bob wrote:It's extremely disturbing when somebody blindly follows drivel such as this. And it's even more disturbing that I should feel it necessary to have to explain some of the statements on this "manifesto." But here goes:
"A progressive philosophy of life without supernaturalism". I.E. It must be regressive to believe in religious miracles. Religion, therefore, is irrational, regressive thinking. Miracles can't possibly be real, and those many millions of people who have experienced miracles, must by definition be regressive.
"Affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives that...aspire to the greater good of humanity". I.E. Somebody cannot by, by definition, be ethical if they are not guided by a sense of doing good for humanity. I guess somebody doing their own thing, regardless of whether it's legal or not, regardless of whether they are only doing good for themselves, cannot be ethical. And who is to judge whether somebody is doing good for humanity? What are the criterion? Is it up to the state, I wonder? Hmm..
"Knowledge of the world is derived by...rational analysis." What is ratonal analysis? Who decides what is rational or irrational? A billion people who believe in the miracles of their religion must be irrational. This is why in the Soviet Union and Communist China, many religions were banned.
"Humans are the result...of unguided evolutionary change." Prove it. Billions of years ago by complete dumbass luck random molecules in a primordial ooze evolved into life. And advanced forms of life such as hummingbirds are the result of this dumbass luck.
"Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness." Really? And work shall set you free. Joseph Stalin asked millions of farmers in the Soviet Union to give the state all their crops, so that the crops could be redistributed to benefit society. When they refused 10 to 20 million were slaughtered. It must be a universal truth then that working to benefit society MUST maximize individual happiness, huh.
I'm sorry Mike. You keep posting this far left drivel. It really doesn't take into acount individuals. It doesn't take into account personal religious beliefs. In all "progressive" ideology what inevitably happens is that a central authority dictates what's right and wrong for indviduals to think and do. It's as simple as that.
The humanist "doctrine" to me is a warm, touchy feely, acceptable version of hard-line socialist or communist thinking. I don't buy it, not for one second.
I think you're reading way too much into this.
Someone on BM called me a humanist.
I'm not really into following "clubs" or authority figures.
I guess you missed my George Carlin post that everybody else liked so much.
But, I happened to see this and it looked like something I'm pretty much in agreement with, more or less.
I posted it for the person who called me such, that's all.
I'm more into Star Trek, not Josef Stalin.
I think I mentioned it at some point that I do consider myself more of a Left-Libertarian.
I'm not supportive of power being concentrated too much ANYWHERE; the state, corporations, Republicans, someone's mother, wherever.
