Humanist Quiz

[Princeps Eugenius]

Whether or not God is perfect God has nothing to do with humanism.

But, again, what if he is actually a man? Think of god as a super human. Like some powerful leader or a president who has the highest knowledge. Would that make belief in god un-humanistic? (We were created in gods image after all.)

 

[Willamena]

But, again, what if he is actually a man?

Then he's not a god.

Humanism springs from individualism, an acknowledgement of man as an entity distinct from god, with unique qualities, properties, and behaviors.

Think of god as a super human. Like some powerful leader or a president who has the highest knowledge. Would that make belief in god un-humanistic?

Your not referring to this entity as "god" would be a start.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Then he's not a god.

Humanism springs from individualism, an acknowledgement of man as an entity distinct from god, with unique qualities, properties, and behaviors.


Your not referring to this entity as "god" would be a start.

Why? Just think of all the ancient gods and even the god of the bible. they were all depicted as humans. infact many people believed that we were created in their likeness as "humans" but more specifically as "lesser gods". the creators were still in charge because they had more knowledge and power but we were entrusted with the domination of this earth and universe.

 

[Willamena]

Pretty much the entirety of human history would seem to suggest that, outside of a narrow context, 'understanding and concern for others' is absolutely not an intrinsic part of human nature. Violence and the desire to bend others to our will, on the other hand, very much is.

Violence, like kindness, is a result of a concern for others based on an understanding of others. It's just (likely) that the first "others" are our kind, and the second ones aren't.

 

[Willamena]

Why? Just think of all the ancient gods and even the god of the bible. they were all depicted as humans. infact many people believed that we were created in their likeness as "humans" but more specifically as "lesser gods". the creators were still in charge because they had more knowledge and power but we were entrusted with the domination of this earth and universe.

They are the images of God and gods, not God and gods themselves. To some, to hold that the images are the God or gods themselves is idolatry.

It's the difference between belief in God and belief in a book.

To the point, though, even if they are seen as us, humanity is us, not them. Hence we call them gods.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

They are the images of God and gods, not God and gods themselves. To some, to hold that the images are the God or gods themselves is idolatry.

It's the difference between belief in God and belief in a book.

To the point, though, even if they are seen as us, humanity is us, not them. Hence we call them gods.

Gods is just another division. Like the division between man and woman. Or the division of black and white races. It doesnt mean that god is another species than men.

 

[Nietzsche]

But, again, what if he is actually a man? Think of god as a super human. Like some powerful leader or a president who has the highest knowledge. Would that make belief in god un-humanistic? (We were created in gods image after all.)

Uh-huh.

No.

If a divine figure was a super-powerful human, we'd know.

Because it would be here, lording over us. The notion that supreme power comes with supreme empathy is complete and utter bull****, and anyone who thinks it's true should look at what regular, un-powered people are like, and continue to do that until they aren't as painfully naive.

 

[Augustus]

Violence, like kindness, is a result of a concern for others based on an understanding of others. It's just (likely) that the first "others" are our kind, and the second ones aren't.

That was the narrow context I was referring to. We frequently show understanding and concern for 'our own', unfortunately to have those of 'our own' also requires there to be 'not of our own'.

Humanism thinks we can create one humanity where all are our own. This is pie in the sky idealism of the highest order.

It's one of the remnants of religious belief that has survived in secular humanism. Many enlightenment thinkers who helped shape modern humanism were religious or at least believers in Divine Providence. Trying to secularise such beliefs often makes them untenable though.

 

[Willamena]

Gods is just another division. Like the division between man and woman. Or the division of black and white races. It doesnt mean that god is another species than men.

So, LGBTG?

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Uh-huh.

No.

If a divine figure was a super-powerful human, we'd know.

Because it would be here, lording over us. The notion that supreme power comes with supreme empathy is complete and utter bull****, and anyone who thinks it's true should look at what regular, un-powered people are like, and continue to do that until they aren't as painfully naive.

Just think of all the good things that happend to you in live. Isnt that atleast some "empathy"? Also: I think you believe in spirits. So you can imagine that a god doesnt need an actual body to be human, because all humans have a soul and a god would be a spiritual entity.

So, LGBTG?

?

 

[Sand Dancer]

45%.

 

[Nietzsche]

Just think of all the good things that happend to you in live.

Alright.

And...?

Isnt that atleast some "empathy"? Also: I think you believe in spirits. So you can imagine that a god doesnt need an actual body to be human, because all humans have a soul and a god would be a spiritual entity.

That isn't empathy. That's measured kindness while playing a larger game. And making them some kind of "spirit entity" is worse. We stand a good chance of figuring out how to kill a physical being. A spirit entity? We'd be powerless.

I don't want my gods to be human. I want them to be human-like. Because I know what being human is, and if I were given the powers of a God, I know what would happen. I know how long it'd take for me to get bored of being altruistic. We're animals with pretensions of greatness, no more or less. Being human gives you a whole list of urges and needs, and eventually you collapse beneath them and indulge in whatever makes you happy.

How long do you think it would take for a God to get bored with being nice, if they started as a human-being?

 

[Wu Wei]

We calculate you are 77% humanist...not bad for a big ole grumpy bear who is into philosophical Taoism...or is it..... don't really know

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Alright.

And...?


That isn't empathy. That's measured kindness while playing a larger game. And making them some kind of "spirit entity" is worse. We stand a good chance of figuring out how to kill a physical being. A spirit entity? We'd be powerless.

I don't want my gods to be human. I want them to be human-like. Because I know what being human is, and if I were given the powers of a God, I know what would happen. I know how long it'd take for me to get bored of being altruistic. We're animals with pretensions of greatness, no more or less. Being human gives you a whole list of urges and needs, and eventually you collapse beneath them and indulge in whatever makes you happy.

How long do you think it would take for a God to get bored with being nice, if they started as a human-being?

Think of the Caesars. They were considered to be gods but still played their role to near perfection governing the empire.

 

[Laika]

I think you are making too much of humanism. Humanism looks at the behaviors of the person, the intelligence or being (or individual, or soul, or spirit, or man), and divines natural law from that, from the physical expression. Natural law has no requirement to be made to be expressed physically, because it derives from a physical expression; it has no need to be made to be universal, because it is what is expressed universally in people. If there are cultures that don't reflect that universality, it's because those cultures are "not humanity"--hence the slave trade was possible--and not because those cultures don't conform. (It's also what made the abolition of slavery possible: the lifting of humanity even higher, over and above the economic necessity of a culture.)

I had one of my mood swings this morning, so it came out a bit more extreme than it would have done. opps! it felt good to rant though.

The point I was trying to make is that humanism has its roots in Chirstianity and Liberalism and is peculiar to them rather than "universal". The distinction between Secular and Christian Humanism is therefore blurred because they both come from schools of Natural Law. it has only become "universal" through a historical process by which western values, and the western definition of humanity, has come to dominate other cultures through methods which are not consistent with the morality of "natural laws" as derived from "human nature". the distance between the "physical" actions that it took to make this "non-physical" definition of humanity "universal" in that sense make humanism hypocritical. However, to be clear, that is not the same as saying it is "bad", but is an unreliable guide to morality and because of these problems has not been consistently applied. I find hypocrisy to be something which de-values moral systems, regardless as to whether the contents of the morality itself are good or bad.

 

[Nietzsche]

Think of the Caesars. They were considered to be gods but still played their role to near perfection governing the empire.

And they could die. That's an important limiter on our desire to do what we want to do.

 

[YmirGF]

We calculate you are 100% humanist.

 

[Erebus]

67% Humanist. I did struggle with this one, since my own opinions generally weren't reflected in the choice of answers. This is often the case in quizzes that seem to assume you're either Christian or atheist though...

 

[Mister Emu]

18% humanist.

I was surprised the only options for ethical approach were divine fiat, altruistic utilitarianism, and egoism. That is very limiting, especially for humanists who presumably believe in universal natural rights.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Think of the Caesars. They were considered to be gods but still played their role to near perfection governing the empire.

*boggles*

'Near-perfection'? They are perfect case studies in hedonism (with occasional exceptions)