Humanianity: The Religion for Humanity??

[siti]

I don't know how to interpret that misspelling, i.e., what the message, if any, is.

Oops - no no intentional message - its probably just an indication of absent-mindedness on my part. Or perhaps as I am still thinking of your project as more of a philosophical thing than a religion relating it more to humanism than Christianity - but probably that's just a Freudian slip. I certainly did not intend any negative implications.

I don't believe that I have ever indicated that I expect there to be a "moral consensus." I see us as hopefully coming to increasing agreement regarding our general ethical principles.

I'm sorry to press this - but it is rather fundamental to your presentation - how is "coming to increasing agreement regarding regarding our general ethical principles" different from what we already do in our national constitutions, international treaties, UN Charters etc? And if it is indeed more than that, how is it different from approaching a "moral consensus"? How is the "HUEP" really more than just another (rather detailed and wordy - by comparison) encapsulation of the Golden Rule or the Wiccan Rede?

Would you not think that the sea change you are hoping for in terms of global humanian behaviour really requires something more radical than an acknowledgement the age old religious/philosophical principles of reciprocity and human-centered consequentialist ethics?

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Well... You announce that Humanianity is "The Religion For Humanity".
But the fine print says, "Humanianity isn't an organized religion or even an organization".

Are you implying that there is a contradiction? Don't you agree that a religion is different from a religious organization?

You have selected so, so little from a complete description that is given there.

The whole paragraph says the following:

[Humanianity is not an organized religion or even an organization. There of course will probably develop Humanian organizations with functions including studying Humanian thought, advocating for Humanianity, and engaging in projects and activities consistent with the HUEP, but to be Humanian does not require joining any group.]

And does this paragraph that is there clarify any more?

[Humanianity is a movement within all Religion, and within the human species in general, away from authoritarian ethics toward rational ethics, and specifically toward rational ethics based upon the above HUEP. This movement is especially (but not only) an increasing effort to replace our natural tendency to engage in dominance-hierarchy-related (DHR) behaviors, some of which cause tremendous amounts of PSDED, with behaviors consistent with the social contract by everyone for the benefit of everyone. (Thus, Humanian ethics is based rationally upon the above HUEP, NOT upon obediently-maintained beliefs, e.g. theistic, about which there currently can be no wide-spread, increasing agreement, such agreement being increasingly desperately needed by our species with regard to ethics.)]

So, I think you need to do away with the false advertising and figure out if you are capable of being something more than a philosophical discussion group.

People all over the world come together in places and groups to study how to be good people. Those are called religious activities (that include listening to services and studying the literature of their specific religious traditions and other literature relevant to the topics at hand). You could also, if you wished, call them philosophical discussion groups, but people call them things like "services" and "Sunday School." And they are managed by organizations that are called religious organizations. And those organizations are usually identifying themselves as adherent primarily to a specific religious tradition, or "religion." These activities are generally available to everyone, and are much more widespread than the few groups around that call themselves philosophy discussion groups. And they are specifically focused on ethics, on how to be good people, whereas philosophy discussion groups have other kinds of topics also. And there has been and still is, in many societies, an expectation that people engage in religious study in order to be as good members of those societies as possible, whereas philosophy discussion groups would be viewed more as interesting groups to attend if one happened to be one of the few people who happen to have interest in such things.

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Have you actually studied in any detail what is there on the website, to see if it has value? Do you believe that the website has no value as it stands? Do you believe that I am purposely engaging in "false advertising," being consciously deceptive? Why would I do that?

I understand that there can be difference of opinion and controversy regarding an effort to assist in the effort of our species to improve itself especially in the area of Religion. But I certainly do not wish to deceive anyone, and I try to be as understandable as possible. To do so, since I believe the concepts are not the way most people usually think, I believe that to really contribute anything worthwhile is going to require a lot of writing. If it were simple, everyone would already understand, and there wouldn't be anything to write about. So that's why I'm asking you how much you have actually read.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I'm sorry to press this - but it is rather fundamental to your presentation - how is "coming to increasing agreement regarding regarding our general ethical principles" different from what we already do in our national constitutions, international treaties, UN Charters etc?

Those are governmental procedures, a result of ethical philosophies, of course, but more their practical application. And they are more negotiations to protect individuals and groups (such as nations). But there is almost no agreement with regard to lower-level ethical principles. You don't see that here in RF, do you? Do you see almost everyone agreeing to almost every ethical principle and rule of conduct?

The following might be a somewhat entertaining description of what Humanianity is about:
https://humanianity.com/humanianity/humaudvis.php?_menu=HRAP

And if it is indeed more than that, how is it different from approaching a "moral consensus"? How is the "HUEP" really more than just another (rather detailed and wordy - by comparison) encapsulation of the Golden Rule or the Wiccan Rede?

It may be, though it is hard for me to see that. Or more specifically, how has the Golden Rule helped us so far in our decision-making that leads to so much PSDED? For a summary of that unfortunate decision-making:

https://humanianity.com/humanianity/humhome.php?_menu=2#LIST1

We need much working together, sharing and comparing our ethical philosophies, in order to stop doing the horrible things that we do to ourselves and each other.

Would you not think that the sea change you are hoping for in terms of global humanian behaviour really requires something more radical than an acknowledgement the age old religious/philosophical principles of reciprocity and human-centered consequentialist ethics?

Yes, absolutely. That's what needs to be worked on. And the increasingly effective work of that sort is the movement that I am referring to as "Humanianity."

 

[stvdv]

"Humanianity: The Religion For Humanity," because "The Religion" makes it sound like it is competing

True, that is my feeling also. Although people are cool with Humanity as a concept. But "A" Religion. might solve this problem. More humble IMO.
[But as you describe later, it's not your intention that Humanianity is a religion, so better no call it that way IMO. Gives much confusion + fighting IMO.]

the concept implies that all the religions are improving in such a way that there will be increasing similarity among them as time goes on

Again this is touchy to say it this way, because it implies "The Religions are not good". Better to say "Humanianity helps person get better in his own religion".
[This way you don't touch the Religion, and all humans know they need to update their morals anyway; that is not a real shocker]

 

[siti]

Those are governmental procedures, a result of ethical philosophies, of course, but more their practical application. And they are more negotiations to protect individuals and groups (such as nations).

No Bill - governmental procedures are the process by which we (a) arrive at and (b) enforce (where necessary) the common ethical principles that we have collectively decided we agree to adopt. The Dalai Lama advocates secular ethics in his book Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World - here are a couple of quotes from the introduction:

"Today, however, any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics."

"I believe the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics that is beyond religion."​

Do you see almost everyone agreeing to almost every ethical principle and rule of conduct?

Is that the goal?

Or more specifically, how has the Golden Rule helped us so far in our decision-making that leads to so much PSDED?

Well that's my point. It hasn't and yet it has been formulated and reformulated in religions for millennia. I don't see how a more detailed rewording in a religious setting will help - and judging by what the Dalai Lama says in the book I just referred to, neither does he.

In his book he makes it clear that the effective universal implementation of ethical living based on what he calls "inner values" - compassion, empathy, kindness etc. - being the values we prefer others to display in their dealings with us (Golden Rule) - requires more than religious devotion but requires concrete action by leaders - political leaders - governments. Perhaps, I am suggesting, we need a politics of empathy and an economy of human happiness to replace the current politics of competition and economy of material wealth and resources. Such a system would have to be based, I think, on the principles of secular (compassionate) humanism and not on any religious edifice. Such a system is way more than religion - at any scale - can possibly achieve IMO.

And even if we did ever have such a system, perhaps religion would become irrelevant - or at best, an added optional bonus for the religiously inclined - but for the most part the religions as we know them (with one or two possible exceptions) would have to change beyond recognition in order not to fall foul of the necessarily inclusive and positively accepting (beyond mere tolerance) principles of mutual respect for fellow humans such a system would necessarily entail. There could, for example, be no privileged priestly class and certainly no divine revelation, chosen people, saved and unsaved, sheep and goats etc. etc. or any necessity for one human life to be sacrificed for the "sins" of others.

On reflection - it looks like a pipe dream - which is probably why it has escaped us so abjectly thus far. On reflection, I reckon we'll just have to be content with an impossible but crucial balancing act as we attempt to offset the individual survival imperative against the equally pressing but more ecological needs of the growing group of humans we count ourselves part of. On reflection, I don't think we are doing too badly - all things considered - and we are getting better - albeit ever so slowly.

 

[stvdv]

I'm sorry, but I obviously overlooked this and cannot remember it. Perhaps you could re-post it, and I will try to respond

Best example I read in Yoga Vasistha[Red seems arrogant, but Blue immediately following shows utmost humility = perfect IMHO]:
Vasistha * demands direct observation of the mind, its motion, its notions, its reasoning, the assumed cause and the projected result, and even the observed and the observation—and the realisation of their indivisible unity as the infinite consciousness.

That is the uniqueness of this scripture which hence declares itself to be supreme:
Except through this scripture, one cannot gain what is good, now or at any time. Therefore, for perfect realisation of the supreme truth, one should fervently investigate this scripture alone. (VI.2.103)

It is, however the teaching that is supreme, not a book or a sage. Hence, Vasistha* is bold enough to say:
If, however, one thinks it is not authoritative because it is of human origin, one can resort to the study of any other scripture dealing with self-knowledge and final liberation. (VI.2.175)

Whichever be the scripture taught by whomever and whichever be the path you choose, stop not till the psychological conditioning ceases entirely. Hence, Vasistha* exhorts the seeker:
One should study at least a small part of this scripture daily. The beauty in this scripture is that its student is not abandoned to his despair? if something is not clear in the first instance, a further study of the scripture makes it clear. (VI.2.175)

@Bill Van Fleet: This is the example and the most beautiful way to state "This religion is the best", while giving full respect to all other religions, that I have ever seen. So much humility and respect, I just love it.

The trick is that it is not put in the title. Were it in the title then people only see the red part. To put all in the "text body part" gives you the possibility to explain and elaborate on it. And lateron also easier to change and update. Changing titles might be more problematic later maybe. I am really curious what feeling you get reading this. My first feeling was "shocker", how could he say it this way (was my favorite book). But 1 line later a big sigh "Aha, that is why it is my favorite book".

This had nothing to do with "The Golden Rule"

 

[stvdv]

@Bill Van Fleet: I really like your Humanianity idea. My ideas are how I feel. Don't feel offended. Sometimes I write it not in optimal way, but I always mean well. I do hope that your idea works, because "The News" shows enough that humans need update on how to behave nicely.

I understand. It actually said, "The Most Important Religion," but what you say probably still would apply

My mistake ! This is my feeling on impact-effect on others when you try to promot an idea you are very enthusiastic about:
1: "Jesus is the only way" IMHO is the worst to say to someone else [Guru/Master/Teacher is even more personal for me than Religion]
2: "The Best Religion" IMHO is good for number 2 ["Best" this kind of rules out all others; feels like knock out the others]
3: "The Most Important Religion" IMHO qualifies for 3rd place ["Most Important" could mean "best positive effect in the world", but close to knock out others]
.....
9: "A Very Important Religion" IMHO is much softer and palatable [Totally cool when you put it this way; but I get it, we all like to sell "the best"]

[e.g.: My Master states "I am God", but within 5 seconds continues "You are also God; you don't realize it; that's your goal in life"
[If He would only say the first part, I would say "please cure me of diabetes and cancer, then I might believe"; which He did by the way]
[But adding the last part takes away all the arrogance of the first part. I think that is what it is all about in life. Humble and devoid of arrogance]
[I would never advice others to convert to my Guru. Firstly He says "Stick to your own religion, even if your guru is bad; nice challenge to show Him you are better]

But the subtitle was meant to convey something specific in addition to stirring up interest

Understood. It did stir up. Stir up best in "text part". When I joke I always tell "it's a joke". Too easily people smile but inside are much hurt.

whether the results were more positive or negative I do not know

This I understand. Of course it can be that I am too sensitive, but I did check with at least 25 people who all agree that "Jesus is the ONLY ..." is bad
EASY solution: Create a post + poll "I need help `The Most Important Religion". Good or Bad? Give some extra options; then you really know.

But certainly it could be a mistake, and even though the book is not published, it is usual that once a book is out there, it can't be changed

Exactly. Better check it here on RF, with 1000+ who are very happy to point out mistakes for the good cause = Humanianity

In my mind, I cannot yet convince myself that the trouble involved would be worth it or result in a better outcome

That is why the poll is a perfect solution. To get many to participate just tell them "I need desperately all of your help or so.. People love to help the needy.

I will continue to think about it

Before I always tried to solve these things with thinking about it. But once I started sharing and posting esp. with poll I started feeling better.

I can't imagine it having a destructive effect on the psychological state of mind of someone, however

With the poll they will tell you. Then you know, and slowly you also can imagine I imagine. [that is how it worked with me at least]

On the other hand, these days it increases slightly the risk to me, as you, I assume, know

If you mean that nowadays in the US they sue you when you innocently sell cool water as a 12 year old and stuff I fully agree. Better be careful !!!
[I am so happy I live in Holland and not in US, just for this reason. When I have to believe the news, they are so greedy to sue for nothing. Sick IMO]

 

[stvdv]

Again, I can't imagine that I am actually hurting someone, even if it is a mistake

Feelings and Religion and Heart are very delicate. Most, if not all people have been hurt so much, that easily they get triggered.
Just imagine that 1000 times a Christian tells you "Jesus is the only way; convert or go to hell". Some do. The "The Best Religion" will trigger this pain

And I cannot bring myself to imagine or understand how anyone could fail to assume that I was expressing my opinion.

Good point. Maybe you never have this feeling "I am better than them", but I saw people who think this way [maybe D.Trump or Kim]. Seems to me.
Again if you had parents like Kim, then easily you get triggered. Because your faith in humanity has stopped.

And I am still wondering what in the world is wrong with preaching?

This I can easily explain. Nothing wrong with preaching "I love Jesus, Bible, God". The problem starts with "Jesus is the best, throw Buddha out of the window, he is the anti-Christ". This was a "real example" done in the Baptist Church I visited for 4 years. Even went to 3 sermons on sundays. Loved the singing, and try to "not hear" them throw my dear friend Buddha out of the window. But after 4 years I felt "enough is enough". So the Christians can't say I did not give Jesus a fair change. I really did. These Christians made me move out of the Church. That is what wrong preaching does = proselytizing (this implies belittling the faith of the others)

Should the speaker here say, "Now all of this is just my opinion, so don't get offended, please"?

No, it is enough to just "do not offend". I did offend others in the past, but learning now. I try never to attack first.
But while defending their mean blows, I might hurt them in the process [called their self inflicted karma]

And is it at all possible that there could be something non-optimal somewhere in the RF rules?

Is possible, but I am very sensitive. And I really tried hard, but could not find 1 word that triggered me, if I recall correctly. Divine miracle OMHO
[I don't want to upset Atheist moderator; I just wanted to give them a compliment. If I say Divine it's a big compliment. Respecting atheism fully]

Could I recommend that this issue be given more thought, with possible modification? Or would I be in danger here for making such a suggestion?

I think you read RF rule 2 correctly. Do not suggest this publicly [I think I read this somewhere]

 

[stvdv]

@Bill Van Fleet: Thanks for the Great Video. Pamela Geller with great respect shows us the "Total Disrepect" some male Muslims in US have towards girls.

And I am still wondering what in the world is wrong with preaching? Should the speaker here say, "Now all of this is just my opinion, so don't get offended, please"?

Perfect video. That shows how dangerous Sharia Law in USA is. Finally in Holland people wake up
Thanks for sharing the video [First 2 min 15 sec very disrespectful male student]. Skip that part

No proselytizing as far as I see. No preaching. She just addresses injustice done to Muslim girls in USA. They should be protected by USA.

To say "Jesus is the ONLY way" = Not a Fact, but a believe, so IMHO = MUST [Implicitly belittles other' Religions]
To say "Not kill innocent girls" = Yes a Fact, not a believe, so IMHO = inappropriate even [Just enforce the Law]
2 totally different things

 

[Ponder This]

Are you implying that there is a contradiction? Don't you agree that a religion is different from a religious organization?

You have selected so, so little from a complete description that is given there.

I pulled out pieces to sum up what I could derive from generally browsing the website. So I could best sum up my overall impression. I don't see from browsing the website how humanianity is a religion.​

The whole paragraph says the following:

[Humanianity is not an organized religion or even an organization. There of course will probably develop Humanian organizations with functions including studying Humanian thought, advocating for Humanianity, and engaging in projects and activities consistent with the HUEP, but to be Humanian does not require joining any group.]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to realize from your inclusion of the entire paragraph.

And does this paragraph that is there clarify any more?

[Humanianity is a movement within all Religion, and within the human species in general, away from authoritarian ethics toward rational ethics, and specifically toward rational ethics based upon the above HUEP. This movement is especially (but not only) an increasing effort to replace our natural tendency to engage in dominance-hierarchy-related (DHR) behaviors, some of which cause tremendous amounts of PSDED, with behaviors consistent with the social contract by everyone for the benefit of everyone. (Thus, Humanian ethics is based rationally upon the above HUEP, NOT upon obediently-maintained beliefs, e.g. theistic, about which there currently can be no wide-spread, increasing agreement, such agreement being increasingly desperately needed by our species with regard to ethics.)]

​

Is it specifically a religious movement? Or is it a movement occurring independent of religion? You seem to say both. Is it a counter-movement towards religion? In what way is Humanianity properly characterized as a religion itself? All I can discern from this paragraph is that you get together and discuss rational ethics with some psychology on the side to change behaviors.

People all over the world come together in places and groups to study how to be good people. Those are called religious activities (that include listening to services and studying the literature of their specific religious traditions and other literature relevant to the topics at hand). You could also, if you wished, call them philosophical discussion groups, but people call them things like "services" and "Sunday School." And they are managed by organizations that are called religious organizations. And those organizations are usually identifying themselves as adherent primarily to a specific religious tradition, or "religion." These activities are generally available to everyone, and are much more widespread than the few groups around that call themselves philosophy discussion groups. And they are specifically focused on ethics, on how to be good people, whereas philosophy discussion groups have other kinds of topics also. And there has been and still is, in many societies, an expectation that people engage in religious study in order to be as good members of those societies as possible, whereas philosophy discussion groups would be viewed more as interesting groups to attend if one happened to be one of the few people who happen to have interest in such things.

Religions actually have religious practices - not simply discussions. A Bible study is not enough to constitute a religion: it's a study group. A service involves more than a sermon. Just picking out the parts of religions that are like study groups doesn't turn study groups into religions.

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Have you actually studied in any detail what is there on the website, to see if it has value? Do you believe that the website has no value as it stands? Do you believe that I am purposely engaging in "false advertising," being consciously deceptive? Why would I do that?

I'm not sure what your motivations are. I studied the website, browsing around, reading parts, and I summed up my overall impression. Perhaps the website has value as a place to study rational ethics? Maybe a place to point out flaws in existing religious beliefs? I don't see anything that makes Humanianity a religion. Am I wrong?

I understand that there can be difference of opinion and controversy regarding an effort to assist in the effort of our species to improve itself especially in the area of Religion. But I certainly do not wish to deceive anyone, and I try to be as understandable as possible. To do so, since I believe the concepts are not the way most people usually think, I believe that to really contribute anything worthwhile is going to require a lot of writing. If it were simple, everyone would already understand, and there wouldn't be anything to write about. So that's why I'm asking you how much you have actually read.

By all means, point me to something that indicates that Humanianity is a religion (and not merely a philosophical study group). You may consider me to be completely ignorant of what Humanianity is.

Humanianity is Religion in the descriptively accurate sense that it is:

• human activity the purpose of which is to help individuals formulate fundamental principles regarding the best way to live their lives, i.e., a basic ethical philosophy (set of beliefs about what the right things to do are, and why, or, stated in a different way, how to be a good person, and why).

I do not regard this as religion in a descriptively accurate sense. Humanianity appears to be, in a descriptively accurate sense, a basic ethical philosophy. What makes Humanianity anything more than a philosophical study group?

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I really don't know.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I want to thank you all for your comments. I want to reply to all of them, but there are two complications. First, there are so many posts to respond to now (they keep multiplying) that it will take a long time. Second, however, is that I now realize that I have introduced some ambiguity on the website, having temporarily lost some clarity in my own thinking that needs to be corrected. I don't know how long that will take, whether a day or a week, but I then want to come back and address everyone's concerns and questions.

But I can list some points that I believe are still a part of my thinking:

Humanianity is in the area of Religion.
Religion is important, being our working together on a basic ethical philosophy that guides our decision-making.
Religion for our species is still just a toddler, as is our species itself, given how our species may become in the future, if we are lucky and work at it.
It is important for Religion to continue to improve, and that improvement is from authoritarian-ethical religion (that comes to us naturally as hominids) to rational-ethical religion (that is possible only because we have developed rationality, i.e., the ability to use the rules of logic and the rules of evidence).
Authoritarian-ethical religion leads to much PSDED, due to its tribalistic nature and the impossibility of agreement regarding the authority.
Rational-ethical religion assumes that there is an arbitrary ultimate ethical principle, that is arbitrary because it is not legitimized by being shown to follow logically from a still higher ethical principle, but instead is just agreed upon because it is appealing.
Humanianity is not the only possible rational-ethical Religion, because there could be other ultimate ethical principles than the HUEP, but my guess is that the HUEP is what most people would want, given adequate thought.

The above was rapidly done, but I am pretty satisfied with it. I know that all of the above can be, and should be, questioned. But I want to work on the website more intensively and for a while will not be able to spend as much time here. I again thank you all for your feedback. It has been helpful in showing the need for improvements in the website. and in my thinking.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes. Many of us do not believe there is such an entity as indicated by "God," nor among those who believe there is, there is little agreement regarding its nature, and if considered to be a "sentient being," just what he/she/it wants. And so we are divided up into our many, many tribes, with reduced empathy for those not in our tribe, and with a fairly strong tendency to attack and even destroy some of those tribes. Something more is needed. That is what this website is about. I am Humanian, which means that I am committed to trying to live consistently with the HUEP, one part of which is advocating to others that they consider doing the same. But what that consists of involves continuing study and friendly debate, with an effort to be as rational as possible (consistent with the rules of logic and the rules of evidence). I don't know if that answers your question, but I thank you for offering it, and will try to clarify if I am not clear.

I find even in Jesus' day the ^ above ^ was true.
It could be said of Jesus that he was advocating to others that they consider doing the same as he was recommending (having self-sacrificing love for others as he has). He was committed to trying to live consistently with the Scriptures. That definitely would involve continually studying (diligent investigation) with an effort to be as rational as possible consistent with the rules of logic, and rules of evidence, as Jesus used logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures in explaining them for us.
The ancient Berean people mentioned in the 17th chapter of Acts examined or researched the Scriptures daily to see if what they were hearing or learning was in agreement with what the Scriptures really teach.
What could be better than having self-sacrificing love for others, or in other words, loving others ' more ' than self.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Or an evolving process of seeking moral common ground among an astonishing variety of personal moral consciences?

I find, unless it's damaged, we all come equipped with a conscience as a moral guide.
The trained conscience as a moral common ground... That is why most people think murder, stealing is wrong, etc.
The more a personal moral conscience is ignored the hardened it becomes.
It can become sooo hard that one's conscience can become calloused to the point of having No feeling.
Kind of like flesh that has been seared with a hot branding iron has No feeling.

 

[siti]

I find, unless it's damaged, we all come equipped with a conscience as a moral guide.
The trained conscience as a moral common ground... That is why most people think murder, stealing is wrong, etc.

Do you? Do you have children? Did you teach them it is wrong to steal - or did they just know it from birth? I reckon we learn morals - the basic principles of morality are not hardwired in our neurological set up before birth, the basic ones - like the idea of "owning" things and "staying alive" quickly translate into what might look like inbuilt moral precepts "thou shalt not murder", "thous shalt not steal"...only because they relate so inextricably to the survival instinct and the social imperatives we quickly have to start adapting to almost as soon as we pop out of the womb. If we all retained the morality of a two-year old throughout life, I doubt many of our siblings - let alone other competing humans - would survive and we would have no qualms about having eliminated them. We learn to live in societies with other humans and we have a neurobiological system that supports that and those two in combination is the basis for our moral reasoning.

 

[Bird123]

My belief is that this is the way for our species to go. It is already happening, I maintain, but needs to happen at a much greater rate, because we are in great (increasing) danger of a species-wide holocaust. Also, we have been having a terrible time ever since our beginning, doing things we don't have to do but do anyway. We have never had anything like an agreed-upon basic ethical philosophy for our species, and have become our most feared predator. So I hope this website will be a contribution to our species.

humanianity.com

But I wonder if the website could be improved in some ways, and would certainly like to know of anything that doesn't seem optimal about it.

Is Truth something Everyone agrees on? Who will question your ethics and who will decide they need changing? Are you just wanting to Control??

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than an one person could have. Won't controlling others view to a standard view eliminate possibilities that could improve us all?

I think you just worry too much. As intelligence increases worldwide, so increases our better choices. The adversity we live will teach us all and generations to come. Need proof?? In early mankind, it was survival of the fittest. Clearly, not just the fittest are surviving today. Who decided this? It wasn't your ethics committee. Still, those extra views supplied more possibilities to consider. The more we know: the faster we learn. Growth accelerates.

Patience. It's just going to get better especially if we Learn and Grow through the lessons adversity brings and refuse to ignore or sweep problems under the carpet.

 

[alisa01]

subscribed, this seems like a very interesting thread

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Okay, I am now back. I have made pretty significant changes in the General Intro page of the Home section. My basic idea is unchanged, but my presentation of it has been drastically improved, IMO. The website itself should provide the answers to any questions, but that remains to be seen.
humanianity.com

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Is Truth something Everyone agrees on?

Charles Sanders Peirce said something like, "Truth is that opinion toward which all opinion would tend if it tended indefinitely toward fixity." Thus, one could never say that one was 100% certain that what one believed was true was actually true. There is logical truth, which is a property of a proposition within a logical system of rules, and there is empirical truth, which is just a goal to keep aiming for, always with the recognition that the belief about the truthfulness of the proposition in question may change.

Who will question your ethics and who will decide they need changing?

Anyone can question my ethics, and anyone can believe that they need changing. And I would be interested in their reason why, recognizing that I could be wrong.

Are you just wanting to Control??

I want to control non-optimal tendencies in myself, and I want to do that which will make the world a better place (for myself and others). I don't understand why you are asking this.

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than an one person could have.

How do you know this (or why do you believe this)?

Won't controlling others view to a standard view eliminate possibilities that could improve us all?

I find that I don't know what you are referring to by "controlling others view to a standard view." Are you indicating that you believe that that is what I am trying to do? What is "controlling others' view to a standard view"? If you believe that I am attempting to do that, can you give me an example? I do believe we benefit from having accurate beliefs, and that we benefit from friendly debate when there is divergence of opinion. What does "control" refer to?

I think you just worry too much. As intelligence increases worldwide, so increases our better choices. The adversity we live will teach us all and generations to come. Need proof?? In early mankind, it was survival of the fittest. Clearly, not just the fittest are surviving today. Who decided this? It wasn't your ethics committee. Still, those extra views supplied more possibilities to consider. The more we know: the faster we learn. Growth accelerates.

What I am worried about is that we have become so capable of both good and bad. It is the bad that I am worried about. Aren't you?

Patience. It's just going to get better especially if we Learn and Grow through the lessons adversity brings and refuse to ignore or sweep problems under the carpet.

That is my hope. I am not sure why you are advocating for patience, though. I think we have a lot of work to do, because we not only are causing ourselves much pain, suffering, disability, and early death already, but are in great danger of doing far worse.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I pulled out pieces to sum up what I could derive from generally browsing the website. So I could best sum up my overall impression. I don't see from browsing the website how humanianity is a religion.​

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to realize from your inclusion of the entire paragraph.

​

Is it specifically a religious movement? Or is it a movement occurring independent of religion? You seem to say both. Is it a counter-movement towards religion? In what way is Humanianity properly characterized as a religion itself? All I can discern from this paragraph is that you get together and discuss rational ethics with some psychology on the side to change behaviors.



Religions actually have religious practices - not simply discussions. A Bible study is not enough to constitute a religion: it's a study group. A service involves more than a sermon. Just picking out the parts of religions that are like study groups doesn't turn study groups into religions.



I'm not sure what your motivations are. I studied the website, browsing around, reading parts, and I summed up my overall impression. Perhaps the website has value as a place to study rational ethics? Maybe a place to point out flaws in existing religious beliefs? I don't see anything that makes Humanianity a religion. Am I wrong?



By all means, point me to something that indicates that Humanianity is a religion (and not merely a philosophical study group). You may consider me to be completely ignorant of what Humanianity is.

Humanianity is Religion in the descriptively accurate sense that it is:

• human activity the purpose of which is to help individuals formulate fundamental principles regarding the best way to live their lives, i.e., a basic ethical philosophy (set of beliefs about what the right things to do are, and why, or, stated in a different way, how to be a good person, and why).

I do not regard this as religion in a descriptively accurate sense. Humanianity appears to be, in a descriptively accurate sense, a basic ethical philosophy. What makes Humanianity anything more than a philosophical study group?

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I really don't know.

I thank you so much for your critique and questions. You are correct that the website was ambiguous about the issues you have raised. I went to work on that problem and have made significant improvements in clarification of those issues. The answers to most of your questions should now be present in what you read on the website. I continue to look for improvements and therefore especially appreciate such feedback.

If you are willing, it would be great if you went back to the HOME section, GENERAL INTRO page, and read, in the order written, primarily just through the "WHAT HUMANIANITY IS AND IS NOT" block, and then let me know what questions remain. Then I will try to answer those questions specifically (and possibly make added improvements in response to any remaining ambiguity).

One question that you asked, however, having to do with terminology, was "What makes Humanianity anything more than a philosophical study group?" In order to answer that, I need to have an idea as to how you are using words. What will help me is if you can tell me whether Bible study (people getting together to work on becoming ethically better people by studying such literature) is anything more than a philosophical study group. (I think it is different, but I can see how a person might not.)

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

@Bill Van Fleet: Thanks for the Great Video. Pamela Geller with great respect shows us the "Total Disrepect" some male Muslims in US have towards girls.


Perfect video. That shows how dangerous Sharia Law in USA is.

Yes, I agree. And therefore the religion Islam?

No proselytizing as far as I see. No preaching. She just addresses injustice done to Muslim girls in USA. They should be protected by USA.

How is proselytizing/preaching different from advocating or advocating strongly, namely, the expression and recommendation of one's own ethical beliefs? What is wrong with that?

To say "Jesus is the ONLY way" = Not a Fact, but a believe, so IMHO = MUST [Implicitly belittles other' Religions]

Why "belittles"? Why is it not just an expression of disagreement with other Religions? What is wrong with expressing disagreement with another religion. Is it okay to say that one disagrees with Islam and its Sharia Law?

What is a "fact"? Does it not refer to a belief that one has that is being offered to others as something that one believes has so much evidence to support it, available to most people, that there is no reason to doubt it? Isn't that what is meant by, "And that's a fact!" And could not that belief occasionally be incorrect anyway?

To say "Not kill innocent girls" = Yes a Fact, not a believe, so IMHO = inappropriate even [Just enforce the Law]
2 totally different things

You mean, I assume, "You should not kill innocent girls." Now that is an ethical belief, right, about what should and should not be done? And how could you call that a "fact"? Most people would agree with you, but not all, apparently.

My conclusion from what I have heard most of my life is that "fact" usually refers to existential beliefs (about what exists and how it works), as opposed to ethical beliefs (about what should and should not be done), that are often referred to as "values" as opposed to "facts."