I believe the world would be better served by a humanist philosophy.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) defines humanism as

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

J.S. Brown summed the problems with religion well in his article "The Dangers of Religion",
"When we explore the origins of religion, we see a number of motivations coming together into one neat little package:

The consolidation of power over the masses Creating a common moral code of living The fellowship of human beings in one place The accumulation of wealth which is untaxable Political influence and peddling behind the "scenes""

John Lennon sang:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Humanity can do without religions. The world would still rotate, there would be no fire from the sky as a punishment, and anarchy would not take over. We would all be better off if people gave up their religions and realized that we can manage our lives better than any mythological deity.

As a humanitarian at one time, I can agree with this statement. I can only say that if we can shift our minds to accept that every human being is valuable regardless of what background, ethic, culture, nationality, color, or belief system, we CAN coexist in peace and appreciate other lifestyles if we want to.

I have travelled to over 27 countries in my lifetime serving those that were less fortunate then the average American and do understand that some people live great lives with very little and are helpful in every means possible even though they have little to offer in doing so.

We take so many things for granted and when we don't see this we act and do things irrational hurting others in the process without even realizing it. Change your ways and perhaps we as a people can live in peace once in for all.

Peace smiless

I have been told I am a humanist, I don't label myself anything spiritually, I find it constricting to label. But I agree with this.

Respecting others lives no matter how different they are from you is really not a hard thing to do if you allow others to live without your judgements on their lives.

Truly.

Unfortunatley religions are engaging in some pretty aggressive proselytizing aimed at non-believers. It's called "Bridge Stragety"

http://www.web-evangelism.com/resources/bridge-strategy.php

They also try to discredit and silence anyone who points out the inconsistencies and flaws in their doctrine. It's easy to call someone a 'basher' for disagreeing with their doctrine.

But that ultimately leads to the idea that no one can point out the flaws in the doctrine or raise serious questions about it without being labeled a 'religion basher'.

So in a very real sense they are attempting to silence those who try to educate the public on why the doctrine doen't hold water.

But education is important. People need to know that these ancient doctrines are inconsistent and don't even truly support the things that these religions claim they support.

Humanists really need to actively fight for the right to question any doctrine that claims to be the word of any supreme creator without being accused of 'bashing' a religion.

That's just a tool that religions use to prevent people from becoming educated to the the truth.

Humanists need to defend our right to question ancient doctrines without being accused of 'bashing' any religions that might attempt to claim to 'own' them.

If those doctrines were indeed written by some supreme creator like they claim, then every human has a right to question the doctrine. And no one 'owns' it. Thus the very concept that someone is being 'bashed' is utterly unfounded and truly absurd.

These accusations that people are 'bashing' a religion when they question an ancient doctrine that claims to be the word of God is just not right. It's just an excuse to prevent people from openly discussing these issues without having their posts deleted or being banned or 'bashing' the beliefs of others.

That's just not a valid claim.

All humans have the right to comment on any book that claims to have been written by the creator of all humans.

Period.

This idea of 'bashing' religions is nonsense.

i have to dissagree with you.

tell me if your a humanist how do you tell right from wrong?
if you actually believe you are a humanist then you believe you come from animals and animals have no apparent morals and the biggest and strongest rule.

i know from your parents and so on but where did morals start in the humanist point of view?

it's easy for me THUS SAYS THE LORD.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Yep, that's a good thing to do...

try quoting something from the new testiment!!!!!
besides if humanism is what we should think then i guess it's alright to rape murder and steal because without the bible people wouldn't have a clue as to right and wrong.you didn't answer my question, where do you get em?
there was another thread about this very thing

You do realize that there are several passages in the bible that endorse rape as okay, right?

Here is your NT for you:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Why must I be a christian to have morals?

"One of the misconceptions about Humanism is that we have no moral code and that we and the churches are sworn enemies. That's not the case. There is common ground between us; we do have a moral code. The only difference is how we arrive at our ethical beliefs."

"Where we differ is our starting point for moral decision making. Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason. We believe that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text. Humanists encourage and celebrate human diversity and welcome opportunities for all to develop their potential and achieve happiness."
- http://ptt-blog.blogspot.com/2008/09/humanism-is-misconceived.html

people like you amaze me why don't you read the whole chapter and then put it in context.instead of taking verses that are negitive to you and putting ur thoughts to it instead of what it meant to be. all you see is me against you and the meaning is follow Christ or you won't be worthy of forgivness

besides you still didn't answer the main question

Humanists think for themselves...

oops...

And I find people like you absolutely hilarious. We post the first part of the passage, and you say "You didn't read the whole passage, it's out of context" Now, I put the whole passage, and the best you can come up with is "You didn't read the whole chapter" Guess what? I have. Not only have I read the whole chapter, I have read the whole damn book.
There are many things that aren't taken out of context, they are just taken out of the book. "Out of Context" is apparently a catch-all for things that modern religious people don't agree with, so that they can still claim that morality comes from their holy book...


As my previous post was pointing out, there are many things that are condoned in the bible, that we as society, would frown upon, and punish. If you were to stone me to death, because I am a "heathen", then, according to the bible, you are doing good. Guess what? Your butt would still wind up in jail. That isn't coming from a holy book, that is coming from society.

You've got to be joking me.

When I read the moral teachings of Jesus all I do is shake my head in agreement. It would be impossible for me to "follow" Jesus since he thinks just like I do. How do you follow someone who already thinks the same way that you do?

In fact, if you think that Jesus has such great morals then you must also agree. So you're basically just supporting that you think that the morals of Jesus are cool by you!

So all you're really doing is condoning them yourself! You're the one who has chosen to accept them as 'good morals'. If you didn't think they were good morals you woudln't have accepted them!

And then you say this:



What's wrong with the Old Testament?

Do you feel that the God of Abraham was an immoral God?

I can't blame you there.

So there you go, you're passing judgements on both Jesus and the God of Abraham. You've decided that Jesus has good morals (in your opinion) and the God of Abraham does not.

In fact, the Bible makes it pretty clear that Jesus didn't like the moral values of the God of Abraham either.

That's why everyone LIKES Jesus! Because Jesus denounced the nasty things that the God of Abraham had commanded people to do!

In fact, the God of Abraham had commanded people that it is their duty to stone heathens to death (a "heathen" being anyone who disagrees with the teachings of the God of Abraham).

Well, Jesus disagreed with the teachings fo the God of Abraham.

The God of Abraham clearly taught people to judge each other and stone sinners to death (after all you can't very well stone a sinner to death unless you've first judge them to be a sinner).

Jesus denounced the teachings of the God of Abraham. Instead he taught that we should not judge others, and he clearly disapproved of stonning sinners to death. In fact, how could you stone a sinner to death if you don't first judge them to be a sinner?

Clearly Jesus rejected the teachings of the God of Abraham.

The God of Abraham also taught people too seek revenge and take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

But Jesus renounced that and taught instead to forgive those who trespass against you and turn the other cheek.

Clearly Jesus rejected the teachings of the God of Abraham.

So Jesus didn't care for that mythology either.

Also, if the Jews had Jesus crucified for blaspheme could the God of Abraham have blamed them?

NO! That's precisely what HE had commanded that they must DO as their duty to HIM!

If the Jews had Jesus crucified they were only doing precisely what the God of Abraham had instructed them to do.

The God of Abraham would have no one to blame but himself! He commanded that they must do this!

The God of Abraham would have had to have been a complete and utter fool if the Bible is true!

There's no way that Jesus could have been the son of the God of Abraham. That scenario just makes absolutely no sense at all. The God of Abraham would have had to have been a complete idiot to teach people to murder anyone who disagrees with his word, and then to send his only begotten son to do precisely that!

That's would have been ludicous!

If this story is true we can only assume that God is suffering from Alzheimer's disease or some other mental handicap.

In order for the Bible to be true, the God of Abraham would need to be a completely baffoon.

There's just no two ways about it.

Clearly Jesus was not the son of the God of Abraham.

The God of Abraham was just a myth, and Jesus was a mortal man who tried to teach the people some basic manners.

And that's why people like Jesus, and not the God of Abraham.

This is so true!

Christians keep saying READ THE BIBLE!

And then when you read it and come back to point out all the conflicts you find they scream, "Your bashing our religion!"

Excuse me?

I read the Bible and then come back and tell what my impressions are. Why should that be considered 'bashing'.

Just because I see a myriad of conflicts in the book?

Three major things I see in the Bible are the following:

1. The God of the Old Testament was nasty.

2. Jesus could not have been the son of that God.

3. Even the Bible claims that Jesus specfically said that everything he was saying would be fulfilled before that generation passed!


That would be the generation that he was actually speaking to!

Jesus never wrote down anything!

And even the Bible doesn't say anywhere that Jesus even asked anyone to write anything down for future generations.

On the contrary the Bible is written like Jesus was speaking live to the people he was directly talkign to.

Therefore if Jesus told them in no uncertain terms that everything he was saying would be fulfilled within that generation, then why should people 2000 years later think any of those things would happen today?

I just don't see where the Bible even begins to support the religion called "Christianity", or how Jesus could have possible been the son of the God of Abraham.

The more I read it, the more I'm convinced that it can't possible be true. And even if it was true, it doesn't appear to be saying anything beyond what might have happened to the people that Jesus was directly speaking to.

There was no warnings by Jesus that something would happen two millennia down the road. That's not supported by the Bible at all.

It was a long time before I realized what that song mean. I like the idea, and agree that people would look at eachother very differently with out religion.

Deke I am sure you believe what you have been taught, but you are amazingly unaware. Please read about humanists before you post, please. I don't label myself so I won't call myself a humanist but even the first post explained what it is and that should have given you at least a hint that you missed the fact that your question was already answered.

This discussion was not about christianity, it was about humanists.

Humanists think, live and get on with it.........by themselves.

I've never understood why a person's religious beliefs must be all-consuming so as to discount other spiritual/philosophical beliefs...and scientific theories or truths, for that matter. Why is it that many cannot believe that they may be both a Christian/Jewish/Muslim/etc. and a humanist? Why must religion and humanism be mutually exclusive? From what little I know about the major religions, it seems they all include principles which can be seen as being in common with humanism.

Perhaps the problem lies with in the 'my way or the highway', 'if not with me, then against me' or 'the one true salvation/religion' tenets of many religions? Shame...people really think a God would sanction this feuding among those he created.