What the World Needs is Less Religion, and More Humanitarians...Desperately

reply to post by bigbert81
Extremely enlightening excerpts, bigbert!

Although while reading your post, a question came into my mind: I wonder if the religious opposition mentioned is because of an actual religious problem with nanotech, or if it is based more on a fear of the unknown? Nanotech is a very cutting-edge field, with much to be discovered (and the obvious infinite possibilities to help mankind). As such, the average layman, I am sure, knows little or nothing about it. Could it be that people unfamiliar with the science are somehow equating it to the RFID chips (which I oppose as well, but for more than just religious reasons) or something like the Borg from Star Trek: TNG.

There is something inside many people that seems to resist the idea of being less than fully human. Despite great advances using such devices as pacemakers, prosthetics, artificial joints and valves, etc., new concepts which include mechanical components integrated with the human body seem to find resistance on some basic instinctive level. Perhaps technology is moving too fast for the average person to accept, or perhaps it is some deep-seated fear of technology inherent in some people. In either case, I believe (and hope) that worry about nanotechnology being abandoned due to religious fervor is unwarranted. As long as the technology is sufficiently 'proven' to be safe and free from worry of abuse, I personally see no problem with it.

That's not to say I personally would necessarily want to use it. But that's different than being against research.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


The fear of the unknown can never be discounted.

It just seems that, whenever something new like this comes along that might help people, it is immediately jumped upon as immoral by several religious nuts, and I'm extremely glad to hear that you are not one of them.

But you certainly do raise a good question, one which I cannot give an answer for, but certainly something to consider.

reply to post by bigbert81


You call for the eradication of religion and when we don't like it, you call us 'religious nuts'?
You came out asking for dissent.....



[edit on 22-5-2008 by Clearskies]

Hi Bert.

I was just wondering why you dont call for further humanitarianism rather than a diminishing of religion.

Why are religion and humanitarianism mutually exclusive in your opinion?

One could say that the most humanitarian people in the world are religious as Redneck et al have shown in the previous posts.

Might I suggest modifying that rallying call to "Use religion to further humanitarianism" rather than "eradicate religion in favour of humanitarianism".

Ill leave you with a quote to give you what is hopefully a new perspective:

"I endeavour to see God through service to humanity, for I know that God is neither in heaven, nor down below, but in everyone on earth."

reply to post by Clearskies
Hello clearskies.

I really don't think bert is calling any specific person a religious nut, but rather a select roup. you have to admit there are such people. Westside? Westgate? Baptist Church (don't remember the exact name,but the zealots who came out to soldiers' funerals to protest), Jerry Falwell, the list just goes on and on.

These people harm the name, the mission, and the spirit of Christianity, through their intolerance and their inappropriate actions. If you follow the words of Christ, they say that everyone, from the worst sinner to the greatest saint, is a child of God and deserving of the salvation offered. That includes those who disagree and even blaspheme the religion.

I tend to agree with most of your posts, although the way they come across is frequently less than ideal. Be careful of that chip on your shoulder, for within it lies the real root of evil.

TheRedneck

Thank you Redneck for understanding my point and trying to help others see it too. He is right, the 'nuts' are the far out religious type, although they are not the only people this thread was intended towards. How do you know if you're a nut? You protest things that can and will help save people for your own religious morals. Tell me Clearskies, do you oppose stem cells and nanotech because of religious reasons?

I am not calling all Christians 'nuts', one of my best friends is very devout. What I AM saying is that I believe religious boundaries are holding us back as a society.

The thing with this thread is that, I'm not saying the 2 are DIRECTLY related, rather that (including other things which I've tried to state in my OP) religion is holding us back from achieving what we are capable of and making people focus more on that than focusing on societal efforts and the people. It's not like a scale, where I take away one and it adds to another, rather, my statement is more of a 'we need less religion, AND we also need more humanitarians', whereas part of the religion I'm referring to ALSO affects the humanitarian effort as well.

Here, let me go a bit further. Imagine being one of just a few people alive on the planet, millions and millions of years ago. Would you get further building up your society and accomplishing great feats by focusing on religion, or the society and it's people as a whole?

If you choose 'religion', you spend your efforts and money building churches, controlling people through 'moral' laws, keeping society from growing to it's full potential because you find things immoral or biblically unsound, putting your resources into furthering worship, keeping people from living how they choose because it doesn't coincide with your beliefs. And this is just a fraction of things. I could get further into detail in regards to how religion has separated people (the inquisition, religious wars) throughout history while we are still advancing as a people.

If you choose the 'humanitarian' efforts, you main focus is on helping each and every individual to live better lives, not putting your resources into churches and worship, but instead into advances in civilization, everyone is one and helping each other out, as opposed to setting boundaries or shunning people due to different beliefs. There would not be religious wars, or witch burnings, and we would focus on learning WHY things like this occur instead of just setting boundaries (Hell, blue laws) and saying 'no'.

I could go on much further about which options you could choose, religion or humanitarianism, but I'm tired of typing.

People forcing their moralities/beliefs upon others and not focusing on understanding or helping each other to grow as a society are the real problems here.

Live and let live. And if they can't, help them.

reply to post by bigbert81
"The biggest problem I have to helping people is organized religion."

God, through the mouth of Kenneth Copeland.

TheRedneck

Interesting quote, Redneck...and from such a lovely person...

Here's something I probably should have posted awhile ago:

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality.

Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests.

Humanism clearly rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving human affairs but not necessarily the beliefs themselves; indeed some strains of Humanism are compatible with some religions. It is generally compatible with atheism and agnosticism but doesn't require either of these.

Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that each and every person is capable of living up to the Humanist ideals of rationality and morality. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to one's potential is hard work and requires the help of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species, also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings. The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world better for those who come after.

Humanitarianism is an informal ideology of practice, whereby people practice humane treatment and provide assistance to others; it is the doctrine that people's duty is to promote human welfare.

Humanitarianism is based on a view that all human beings deserve respect and dignity and should be treated as such. Therefore, humanitarians work towards advancing the well-being of humanity as a whole.

SRC: en.wikipedia.org...

Hmmm, it would seem that Wikipedia does a better job of explaining this than I do.

Now, I hope people can better understand what I'm trying to get across.

[edit on 5/22/2008 by bigbert81]

Originally posted by bigbert81
Imagine the future, and what we can become...

no wars...

no prejudice...

no famine...

no poverty...

I really don't see it myself. Do you believe Iraq was invaded for any religious reasons? What about the current events in South Africa? What of dodgy elections the world over? Is all racism, sexism, other-ism's related to religion in any way?

I think if those who are of like-mind want to do more for others (and there should be a lot more like this, we can all agree we can always do more for others) then that is fantastic. But I think if you remove religion, you create a bigger society all centered around me, me, me. What is in it for anyone to help someone else with or without religion? How is religion honestly stopping us? Does religion tell us not to help anyone, or we should help them? Why wouldn't money rule everything, everywhere, as it always has?

Removing religion will not stop some people watching the latest on Britney or Pop Idol instead of sparing a thought for someone who has nothing. Humanity sucks, and the good among us have to try our best without telling everyone else what's best for them and let them make that decision.

I just don't see how religion stops you giving up what you REALLY don't need and putting that money to far better use for someone else. Sell that TV in the bedroom and donate the cash to victims of a natural disaster. Don't go for a Sunday drive, but spend the day volunteering at a homeless shelter. Does the significant other really need more jewelery or can you sponsor a rare animal? It really should be that simple and, the best part is, everything is already in place for us to do this and so much more! Nothing could stop us but ourselves

Sorry if I'm gibbering a little; it's a dizzy, snot-filled day

reply to post by bigbert81

That depends;

Embryonic Stem cells
or
Adult Stem cells

Using a person's OWN stem cells has had great benefits seemingly.
Diabetes cured with stem cells
Plus Adult Stem cells seem to be more stable;
Genome education

Where is the line drawn on the sanctity of human life?
I personally would rather die than the possibility of a dead baby saving my physical life!


If you think I'm a nut;
At least I'm attached to the right bolt!
Jesus.




[edit on 22-5-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies

I personally would rather die than the possibility of a dead baby saving my physical life!

Of course, it's easy to speak for yourself.

But if I were to somehow gather all the babies, children, and adults into one area who can/will be saved by this research now and future generations, would you be able to give the same speech? Telling them that you fought against the research that will save them? And tell them because that it's immoral in your eyes, or what God wants?

Also, my last post I posted a Wikipedia excerpt that explained my point of views very well, so if you haven't read that, do please. It might help to clear up some confusion.

[edit on 5/22/2008 by bigbert81]

reply to post by Muppetus Galacticus


You bring up good points.

Wars are still fought, but that is because we are still in early stages of development as a civilization. IMO, religion has helped to keep us there, but it is not the only thing.

Also, according to the timing of your post, you were probably typing when I posted the Wikipedia excerpt above. Please read that, as I think that will help to answer some of the other points you have brought up in your post.

Thanks for the input.

reply to post by bigbert81


Bert I completely agree with you in regards to the progress of technology.

Within what limits we humans may set for ourselves in terms of our capabilities to safely utilize technology, the march of said technology must be unrelenting.

I am of the firm opinion that whatever is possible in technological terms must be undertaken if it can be of benefit to humanity.

Why? I am not so presumptuous as to think that God's will on earth can be defied by the actions of humanity. What will come to pass will only come to pass due to the plan of God.

Nanotechnology, Stem cells of ESC and HSC varities, Hox gene 8 research etc must not be legislated against.

I can understand not allocating federal funding for these areas, because it may indirectly mean a devout Christian is funding embryonic stem cell reasearch. However to ban these areas in totality would be a case of religion crossing the line of the separation of church and state.

In so far as religion being a "wasted enterprise" in your opinion, I would have to disagree. I think that people are free to follow their own will, spend their time, effort and money as they choose to.

Would I personally rather fund a church or give money to Oxfam?

Well in honesty, neither. I would rather allocate that money to scientific research into combating a certain issue. For example, spending a dollar to feed a child for a day may keep the child out of hunger; but spending a dollar on high variety yield crop science will keep generations of children free from the clutches of hunger.

Its all a matter of where your conscience takes you; its all a personal decision and in my opinion, ought to be kept as such.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


Good post and you make some good points.

I don't really know what to say to it, except we shall have to agree to disagree. I'm very glad to see that you are another person who feels that we should push for as much technology and research as we can, without worrying about what religion says.

The Wikipedia excerpts say it best, we should act as though we are alone in the world (whether we are or not is a different matter), and allow humans to find human corrections to human problems.

Thank you for your opinions.

religion and Christians are used by the power control centers for mobilization and control. Because Christians exist and are ripe for mobilization that is exactly why humanitarian activities exist there. You also find humanitarian activities in many other secular venues as well where mobilization efforts have some efficacy.

I do see your point however, but Christianity in the west is the majority of people, not the minority, so really there's no need to be defensive. Nevertheless of course they do some good...but understand that Christianity, or religion in general does not hold a monopoly on morality. That post made it sound as if only Christians are able to do good, and the rest of us be damned as no good tyrants, and that's a bogus myth and this is why i'm calling B.S. on it. The two are not mutually inclusive. Where there is a need, there are those who seek to help find solutions with or without religion. Once you get past denial you see that not one of us are more pure than another no matter what sort of mythology or belief system you adopt.

Humans are good and humans are bad (studies have shown no difference in crime rates among those with or without going to church). Belief in a god, or membership in an organized religion no matter how hard you may want to convince yourself otherwise, makes no difference. Welcome to reality, denial sucks, and by your own faith you read that the prostitute is as pure as the temple manager.

reply to post by Clearskies


This is the post I was making my reply too...

Originally posted by bigbert81
Imagine the future, and what we can become...

no wars...

no prejudice...

no famine...

no poverty...

no God...

no love...

no morals...

no rights...

no humans...
_____________

= humanism
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bigbert probably has the best of intentions. I do applaud his alleged concern for humanity. I really do. However, secular humanism is an amoral philosophy. It has historically led to the worst human atrocities known to mankind. It never fulfills its stated goal of "thriving humanity."

It is the philosophy of Karl Marx. Marxist theory speaks of a "workers paradise" very similar to what bigbert's literature is saying. Sounds good on paper. In practice, it is the same philosophy that allowed Stalin to slaughter over 20 million people.

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it

Let please please us not forget the lessons of the cold war please!

Humanism on Paper

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests.

vs.

Humanism in Practice

Stakin's Killing Field
Ideas do have consequences.


Humanism is a logically inconsistent philosophy in that it completely undermines the foundation of human morality. There is a Moral Law defined by God alone. That law is written into the conscience of every healthy human being.

Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means

This reduces morality to mere human opinion. Thank God that is false! Morality supersedes human opinion and it provable by sheer logic. By the doctrine of humanism there is no difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa. Hitlers opinion - Mother Theresa's opinion - no good & evil - preference- chocolate & vanilla- just choose what suits you.

The Moral Law is an absolute objective standard of morality. You can not explain that in Darwinian terms. Here's an illustration:

~~~~~~~~ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
which line is straighter?

The first because it is closer to the absolute standard of a straight line which you know is this :
______________

Now if there was no absolute objective standard for straightness then the question would be meaningless.


This is exactly the same thing you do when you compare the behavior of Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. You must appeal to an absolute moral standard: The Moral Law. The moment you say one set of moral ideas is better than another it is because you are comparing both to a standard. Just like the line.

If the moral law does not exist then there is no difference between the behavior of Hitler and Mother Theresa. It's just ones preference. Thank God we all know better! Because there is an objective standard, that standard is written on our hearts.

Thus, I have demonstrated by pure reason there has to be a Moral Law.

I think a person of logic and reason will concede that it follows every law has a law giver. Prescriptions have a prescriber.

In summation, please consider that:

1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a moral law
3. Therefore there is a moral law giver.
Q.E.D.

Who else but GOD could it write on the hearts of all of humanity?

Nothing personal bigbert. Humanism is evil. I sincerely love you heart for helping people but I won't allow you to preach secular humanism unchecked. It would be against The Moral Law for me to do so.



[edit on 5/28/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I've just replied in the other thread, as it appears you will not take me leaving lightly.

So, are we now bolding all of our characters to get more UMPH?

Pathetic.

Your delusions that hold you together of a God who has inscribed what you 'know to be right', are starting to really get disturbing.

It's hilarious how you have to edit your posts 500 times, but I'm not going to go back and fix mine. I've already typed.

Oh, and I see you've found an image with a bigger impact...good for you. Of course, God would never let this stuff happen, so it's those damned atheists, correct? You seem to really be having a hard time with atheism vs. humanitarianism. Go back and do some reading, please.

Your mistakes are that you feel that for some reason, morals do not exist without your God, and I think the threat of you being wrong against your self-indulged proof of him is much too devastating to handle.

Morals are created through society. Go read my other post in the other thread. Hmmm, let's see what the currently accepted model for developing morals is, and see if it mentions God in there anywhere, shall we?

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation

(How can I avoid punishment?)

2. Self-interest orientation

(What's in it for me?)

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity

(The good boy/good girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

(Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles

SRC: en.wikipedia.org...

Nope, no God. BTW, if you click on the link, you WILL see several references to SOCIETY. Yeah, hard to believe that these atheist animals could have morals, huh?

If the moral law does not exist then there is no difference between the behavior of Hitler and Mother Theresa. It's just ones preference. Thank God we all know better! Because there is an objective standard, that standard is written on our hearts.

Ummm, here's what you're missing there, big boy. You are saying that ALL moral laws stricken, Hitler and Mother Theresa would be the same. Here's what I'm saying (try and keep up):

Moral laws are variant depending upon the society we live. What Hitler did was wrong according to not just your damned heart-inscribed views, but also in the ideals of humanism. (I hope you got that, because I can almost guarantee I'm going to have to repeat it over and over and over again, as has become custom in speaking with you).

You and your damned straight lines you use to signify the 'standard'. Well, I don't know if it's ever crossed your mind, but the 'standard' doesn't necessarily have to fit in with your standard. Humanists have standards too, not just you lucky Christians.

Humanism In Real World Application

THE LEGERDEMAIN OF EVIL

"In spite of everything we knew about Nazi Germany, we had an inexplicable confidence in German culture and humanism."

In his memoirs, Elie Wiesel writes of the period before the Holocaust spread to his Transylvanian hometown:

"We were told of arbitrary arrests, systematic humiliation, collective persecution, and even of pogroms and massacres. And yet. The truth is that, in spite of everything we knew about Nazi Germany, we had an inexplicable confidence in German culture and humanism. We kept telling ourselves that this was, after all, a civilized people, that we must not give credence to exaggerated rumors about its army's behavior."

The trap was not of history. History, if objectively observed, would have warned that in Europe both educated and uneducated, religious and secular, left-wing and right-wing gentiles have murdered, maimed, raped, and savaged Jews for the last two millennia. Jews at the advent of the Holocaust, no less than Daniel Pearl, fell into the trap not of history, but of humanism.

Humanism is the philosophy "that emphasizes the dignity and worth of the individual, with the basic premise that people are rational beings who possess the capacity for truth and goodness."

We are created by our choices. The person who chooses to not report a bank error in his favor will go on to choose to cheat in small ways, which will grow to bigger, more egregious deceptions. Enron executives are not born swindlers; they got there by a myriad of graduated choices.

The word "evil" to a humanist is like the word "God" to an atheist.

A small excerpt please follow this link to continue



bigbert I still think you mean well, but are just ignorant of philosophy. I can not let your sophistry prevail unopposed. It would be immoral.

Humanism is Evil

There is an evil under the sun lurking amongst mankind known as humanism..."An insane form of thinking that invades the human mind convincing it of it's superiority over God and His Word." I will repeat that definition of humanism again...

An insane form of thinking that invades the human mind convincing it of it's superiority over God and His Word.

Humanism is a direct enemy of Christianity and therefore Christ Himself. God hates humanism, but He surely loves the humanist. One must not confuse hatred against humanism with the love of God. As Christians, we are to love all people of all races of all nations. However, we are to hate the damnable heresies and evils that destroy the same people.

Humanism is Evil





[edit on 5/28/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by bigbert81


Bert pure reason will prevail -as usual- against the lies of evil. There is an absolute moral law that transcends the mere preferences of humanity.

originally posted by bigbert
Moral laws are variant depending upon the society we live. What Hitler did was wrong according to not just your damned heart-inscribed views, but also in the ideals of humanism. (I hope you got that, because I can almost guarantee I'm going to have to repeat it over and over and over again, as has become custom in speaking with you).

Bert I will repeat it again and again the so called "values" of humanism are just not true. Humanism = no values. I doesn't matter what your book says. It is logically incoherent drivel. Wake up. Read some history for Gods sake. Marx invented your humanism. He wrote nice pretty things about the betterment of mankind. That's why I am posting those pictures. You don't get it. That is where relative morality leads. Look what Marxism has accomplished.

Moral laws are NOT variant depending upon the society we live. I will disprove you once again. Damn you are hard headed.

In India they say killing cows is immoral. In the USA we eat cows. Bigbert says that means we have a different moral law. Bigbert is wrong. Indians believe that people are reincarnated into cows. So your grand pa might be in a cow. Do Americans believe in eating grandpa? No. See the The Moral law is the same. Only the circumstance of the observers are different. Thus Bert's sophmoronic attempt at an argument for cultural differences utterly and irrevocably fails.

The Moral Law does not change. Only peoples perceptions of the ethical dilemmas they are judging do. For instance people used to burn witches. Now we don't. Did the moral law change. No. People used to believe witches murdered people and destroyed crops by cursing them. We no longer believe that hence we no longer burn witches. We still believe murder and destroying crops is wrong we just don;t believe witches do it anymore. Because people interpret the facts surrounding a particular issue does not change the objective moral standard.

Is it ok to kill babies? Hell no! That's why pro choice people have to force themselves to believe that life doesn't start a certain number of weeks - or they would have to face the fact that they are guilty of murder. Everyone agrees killing innocent children is wrong - so to kill babies - you have to convince yourself they aren't human. How do you do that? Enter the atheist humanist scientists to tell you they aren't human...

Innocent Children Are Slaughtered by Humanism!

Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000

www.abortionno.org...



HUMANISM






[edit on 5/28/2008 by Bigwhammy]