Highly Offensive Lies about Humanism/Rationalism

Some Highly Offensive Lies about Humanism/Rationalism, from several sources:

"Humanism invariably leads to Moral Relativism: Anything is OK if you can get away with it because there is no objective Good and Bad."

"Humanism denies Christ."

"One cannot be intellectual and Christian."

"One cannot be humanist/rationalist and be moral."

"One cannot be rationalist and be religious."

"One cannot be atheist and be religious."

-- Discuss and expand as appropriate.

Tends to lead to moral relativism : yes.
Has to lead to moral relativism: NO.
Always leads to moral relativism: no.
Moral relativism leads to "anything is OK if you can get away with it": NO.



Denies as in "denies the divinity of": yes.
Denies as in "denies existed": no.
Denies as in "denies he had something good to say": no.




Humanism says that : no.



That is only true if you base your morality on something which, by its very nature, has nothing to do with humanity or rational thought.



Not sure if humanism implies that. I don't think it does, but I suspect that a lot of atheists believe it is true as well.



I'd have thought this was obvious?
EDIT: Being "obvious" does not imply being "correct" or being "accurate".

Finally, Finning, it would help if you actually linked to a website somewhere which explains what Humanism is

I agree

My only bone is that one can, actually, be atheist and be religious. I'm proof. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. Not all religions have deities.

Wikipedia does a good overview of Humanism, and Rationalism.

You really don't understand? or is this just a silly post attempting humor?

Thirded.

Does that mean someone can be an atheist Buddhist?

Buddha =/= a deity. There are many atheist Buddhists.

All religions are false. I would explain this further but it would be useless because I know how stubborn religous people are and I can't be bothered to repeat myself a thousand times.

All generalisations are false - I would explain further, but I feel it would be time poorly spent because it would involve a false generalisation.

or to realize that belief in God is more an emotional and spiritual way of thinking. I believe in God, yet I don't deny science. To me, God is an emotional and spiritual being and since science can't disprove emotions you can't deny that my God doesn't exist.

we understand, I just don't think this merits a thread of its own.

If god were to exist then it would not be as any religion says it would be like.
I myself am trying to mimmick the powers of a god (seriously, it's a simple method but I don't think it'll work but if it doesn't it stands a good chance of doing loads of other stuff) anyway my theory on what the god would be like: Pure energy which can rearrange neutrons, protons and electrons to change elements into different elements and ultimately being able to do anything.
Also religion argument is basically: Religion is right because it just is.
Also this will be my last post in this thread because religous arguments just turn into a massive flame war.


EDIT: Also how the hell are any of those offensive?

A lot of people assume that one has to pray to Buddha to be a Buddhist, but it's simiply not true.

I've considered myself to be a very spiritual atheist for a while now--but I don't usually use that wording since it seems to confuse people.

Because you're assuming that all religions revolve around deities. Some religions revolve more around philosophy, and to some degree, mathematics. They may not be mainstream religions, which may be what you're really meaning--mainstream religions.

You must be really high strung if you think it's that offensive. Also this is my last post.


I have poor self control.

Sh*t, it doesn't offend me--I'm saying hypothetically--the reason why it may offend other people.

Ok, just wondering because there seem to be a lot of confused people. It may be obvious to you and me, but many don't seem to get it.

This is a good place to start: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations

a+

Strictly speaking, just-plain-Buddhism is a philosophy that needs no gods; of course, Buddhism-as-it-is-practiced can look a little different to those on the outside, but it's a fair bet that Siddhartha would have found the idea of being prayed to a bit silly.

Which of course it doesn't. It can lead to it, but it isn't as though moral relativism is the only non-religious school of thought.

In fact, personally, I reject moral relativism rather strongly.



As was already pointed out, strictly speaking, it only denies the unverifiable, fanciful "magic" tricks.



False. It is possible to be an intellectual and still harbor one or more unjustified beliefs, of which religion is only one kind.



False. In fact, I would go so far as to say that religion is at odds with morality. Religious "moderates" have to ignore large chunks of their religious texts in order to not engage in activities like killing "heretics" -- it is, or should be, telling that it's necessary to overlook large parts of many religions, when practicing them, in order to behave as a moral human being.



Strictly speaking, I don't see how rationalism could be considered compatible with religion. I suppose a given person could be a rationalist except with respect to his/her religion of choice, but other than that ...



Unless you're using some odd definition of "religious," I don't see how this could not be true ...

These look like opinions to me. I would say it all could be argued but it would mostly be an argument of semantics.

Or assertions, Flavian. Alex did a sterling job of picking them apart and trashing them one by one.