Humanism

[Tony]

What does it mean to be a humanists?

Is humanism a religion?

 

[Fade]

Humanism (I assume you are speaking in the context of Secular Humanism) is a generally atheistic philosophy that focuses on individual self worth, and promotion of human ideals through reason.

For a more human (no pun intended) look at what constitutes humanism, I suggest you read Judith Hayes' essay This is Humanism.

Edit-

Is humanism a religion?

Depends on the context. One could argue that there is a certain amount of dogma present in humanistic philosophies. The refusal to recognize supernatural ideaologies (which is a good thing) at all can be somewhat dogged. However, in the classical sense of religion, no. There is no organization in it, there are no classical dogmas, and there are no things that you really have to believe.

Humanism, to me, is the philisophical manifestation of beauty. Instead of looking towards the sky and seeing a figure of light to which we should all attempt to reach, we look towards ourselves and find the things that make us fantastic, wonderful creatures. Humanism is about love; love for yourself, love for others, love for the intellect that makes us human. Humanism is about accepting all the wonderful things that we are capable of, and promoting loving exchange of idea. Humanism is the final natural philosophy, one which I am happy to embrace.

 

[Guest]

What does it mean to be a humanists?

Is humanism a religion?

The secular humanists have a nice Bib... er... "Manifesto" you can read.

-Who

 

[Fade]

Re: Re: Humanism

The secular humanists have a nice Bib... er... "Manifesto" you can read.

-Who

Haha, comparing the Humanist Manifesto to the bible. You are incredibly pigheaded, you know that?

Edit-

Context:

Here is the opening statement of the Humanist Manifesto, written in 1933:

The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals whose signatures appear would, had they been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world.

What is contained within the original document is a lot of good philosophy, intermingled with some fluffery (talking 1933, after all) and some bad philosophy. It was created as an evolving document, and not canon. Thus, the comparison is ridiculous.