I'm Not a Tolerant Person

[DNB]

I don't recall if it was this thread or not, but I recently posted the Affirmations of Humanism, one of which was, "We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others." This darkness that makes so many theists see the world so negatively is what the phrase "theologies of despair" refers to.

That's fine, I apologize then if my initial remark sounded condescending, i sincerely did not mean it so - it was meant as nothing more than a reminder, as opposed to a schooling. ...but, neither of us care either way, that's fine.

As a whole, IANS, most insightful people capricious, unjust, corrupt and misguided. Many of our noblest professions have become synonymous with deceit and corruption, religious groups have been defamed by the behaviours of their own 'adherents', wars and all forms of criminal activity have continued on a very large scale since the beginning of human history. These are incontrovertible facts.

No one is denying the incessant efforts of the well-meaning to make the world a better place, nor of all the good that they have achieved and that currently exists in the world. There are enough places and people in the world where one can enjoy love and peace - but, their presence and influences in the world have not overwhelmed the evil enough in order to classify the earth as a place of good people and safe environments. This is why we have police forces in every city town and village in the world, why almost every home and car and office has a security system installed, why it is not advised for woman to walk alone at night (or even men), why we have expressions like 'dog-eat-dog', 'sex sells', 'looking out for number one', etc...

The reason that we state that the world is over-all evil and unsafe, is because evil is indiscriminate, prevalent, occurs every single minute of the day all over the world, and finally, has not let up or decreased since the beginning of human history. Yes, there is a great deal of good in the world, but it has not earned the status of dominance or even increasing.

 

[Ashoka]

No we can't, there have bleeding hearts (not derogatory) like yourself all throughout history. but no change has come to pass.
Like I said, Ashoka, atrocities have been continuously committed since the history of man began, and has not relented up until this day. I don't believe that you are recognizing the pattern of what's really going on in the world, and the influences that are at hand causing humans to hate one another, and destroy all that is good in the world. Of course, despite those who are fighting for human rights, love and peace.

It's okay, I've been called worse (in my line of work, as a therapist, I’ve been called every name under the sun).

Actually, I'm kind of happy that you consider me a bleeding heart. Do you know why? Because that tells me, even though we disagree and even though you see evil in the world and even though you see it as hopeless, you still see me as someone who is kind and compassionate enough to do something to help. Yes, there is darkness in this world, but only light can drive it out. We each have light within ourselves that we can grow and use to lighten up other people's lives. You ever hear the saying, you can't change the world, but you can change another person’s world? That’s how I look at it. You are right, I'm not going to be able to change the entire world, but that doesn't mean I can't change the world of individuals. if enough of us practice this, the world definitely would be a better place

I don't remember the exact story or when it happened, but I remember reading about a school shooter who was brought down with kindness and compassion from a teacher. She spoke to him kindly and the school shooter ended up crying and putting his gun down. Now of course, this isn't going to happen in all cases, but the fact that it happened once is a big deal end change the life of that shooter, and who knows who he would go on to be? Maybe he might become an advocate for gun control. Even in your Bible, doesn't Saint Paul have his life changed on Damascus Road by Jesus? The killings of Christians, at that time, didn't stop, but it sure as heck did for him.

Never doubt that you can bring light into somebody's life and totally change it and turn it around, even upside down.

Have you ever heard of Rachel's Challenge? I would recommend reading an essay called “My Ethics, My Codes for Life.” It was by a 17 year old named Rachel Scott, who actually died in the Columbine High School shootings. It's all about compassion and honesty oh, and how we can start a chain reaction through our actions. The entire movement, Rachel's Challenge, is based off of that essay. She was a Christian, so we definitely don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but we do see eye-to-eye on is all compassion has the ability to change the world.

 

[DNB]

I wasn't discussing hope for the world. I was discussing the ability to be happy in a world with suffering.

The last time I was told that my worldview was from the people who object to a strictly empirical epistemology for deciding what is true about the world. They also tell people like me that we need to open our minds, shed what they call scientism or a materialistic metaphysics, and always in a voice that says or implies that something valuable is lost by not relaxing standards for belief, just as you are doing now. You imply that if I just broadened my horizons, I would see better (be less myopic), and that somehow, this would make life better.

But none of them ever come up with the goods. When I ask them what they have earned of value with this other way of knowing, they have nothing to offer.

I would ask you the same. Since my vision is myopic according to you, maybe you can share some of the vistas available to somebody like you who sees further. Tell me what I'm missing out on besides more pessimism and nihilism, and why you consider it of value? If you can't (and I doubt that you can't, since I don't value ideas that can't be used to make life better), what's the appeal of following in such footsteps? Why should a person who is presently happy make such a change?



Disagree, but I'm not really interested in going down that road unless you have and demonstrate a sincere interest in considering an alternate viewpoint, which is unlikely in the face of a faith-based belief, as when a Trump supporter asks, "What crimes?" You already know that you're up against a confirmation bias that filters out whatever doesn't support a faith-based belief. If he had asked about a specific investigation, you would discuss it with him, but if he can't see any criminality yet, it's because he doesn't want to.

Or if you saw The Life of Brian, "What have the Romans ever done for us" is a similar pessimistic confirmation bias being lampooned, the unrealistic part being that the one fitted with it is able to evaluate evidence after all and come to reasonable conclusions. The usual faith-based confirmation bias prevents that:

Seriously, though, if you want to hear that topic discussed, here is another video (18 minutes), this time from from Steven Pinker, on just what we are discussing here. It begins, "Many people face the news each morning with trepidation and dread. Every day, we read of shootings, inequality, pollution, dictatorship, war and the spread of nuclear weapons. These are some of the reasons that 2016 was called the “Worst Year Ever.” Until 2017 claimed that record — and left many people longing for earlier decades, when the world seemed safer, cleaner and more equal. But is this a sensible way to understand the human condition in the 21st century? As Franklin Pierce Adams pointed out, “Nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.” You can always fool yourself into seeing a decline if you compare bleeding headlines of the present with rose-tinted images of the past."

Then he goes on to explain just how much better life is now than ever before. If you care to listen to this and discuss it, I'd be glad to:

Steven Pinker: Is the world getting better or worse? A look at the numbers | TED Talk

I was not under the impression that we were discussing whether or not certain individuals can attain peace and contentment in this world? The answer is affirmative, that goes without saying.
The question is, is there both unacceptable and inexcusable wickedness in this world, and is it prevalent and definitive. The answer also is affirmative. An alien visiting the earth for the first time, and watching the news for an hour, or reading the newspaper, will equally affirm my sentiments.

I'm not saying give up, or conform to the evil, or not strive for peace and joy within your immediate environment. But, I am saying prepare yourself for what such a negative indictment of the world implies and necessitates.... the Creator is not pleased, therefore.....

 

[DNB]

It's okay, I've been called worse (in my line of work, as a therapist, I’ve been called every name under the sun).

Actually, I'm kind of happy that you consider me a bleeding heart. Do you know why? Because that tells me, even though we disagree and even though you see evil in the world and even though you see it as hopeless, you still see me as someone who is kind and compassionate enough to do something to help. Yes, there is darkness in this world, but only light can drive it out. We each have light within ourselves that we can grow and use to lighten up other people's lives. You ever hear the saying, you can't change the world, but you can change another person’s world? That’s how I look at it. You are right, I'm not going to be able to change the entire world, but that doesn't mean I can't change the world of individuals. if enough of us practice this, the world definitely would be a better place

I don't remember the exact story or when it happened, but I remember reading about a school shooter who was brought down with kindness and compassion from a teacher. She spoke to him kindly and the school shooter ended up crying and putting his gun down. Now of course, this isn't going to happen in all cases, but the fact that it happened once is a big deal end change the life of that shooter, and who knows who he would go on to be? Maybe he might become an advocate for gun control. Even in your Bible, doesn't Saint Paul have his life changed on Damascus Road by Jesus? The killings of Christians, at that time, didn't stop, but it sure as heck did for him.

Never doubt that you can bring light into somebody's life and totally change it and turn it around, even upside down.

Have you ever heard of Rachel's Challenge? I would recommend reading an essay called “My Ethics, My Codes for Life.” It was by a 17 year old named Rachel Scott, who actually died in the Columbine High School shootings. It's all about compassion and honesty oh, and how we can start a chain reaction through our actions. The entire movement, Rachel's Challenge, is based off of that essay. She was a Christian, so we definitely don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but we do see eye-to-eye on is all compassion has the ability to change the world.

Just for the record, I consider myself to be a bleeding-heart also, ...I just didn't think that others would agree, and I didn't have time to explain why I think that i am.
Well, Ashoka, I agree with every single thing that you said....
...BUT, my initial post on this thread was not that there is absolutely no good in the world. It's always been that there's not enough to define the world as a good and safe place to live, and that the Creator must be extremely displeased at what man has done with his stewardship, and relations. Therefore, unless things change, which history has not given an indication that it will, man will be faced with a very rude awakening one day.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I was not under the impression that we were discussing whether or not certain individuals can attain peace and contentment in this world? The answer is affirmative, that goes without saying.
The question is, is there both unacceptable and inexcusable wickedness in this world, and is it prevalent and definitive. The answer also is affirmative. An alien visiting the earth for the first time, and watching the news for an hour, or reading the newspaper, will equally affirm my sentiments.

I'm not saying give up, or conform to the evil, or not strive for peace and joy within your immediate environment. But, I am saying prepare yourself for what such a negative indictment of the world implies and necessitates.... the Creator is not pleased, therefore.....

I don't know what you are discussing. I do not know what your point is. Prepare myself for what?

And you also ignore my point that you are steeped in a theology of despair. It oozes from your posting. You continually come back to the worst aspects of life. There is no reason for you to do that except to spread a dreary worldview that seems to be all you see. I commented on other posters doing the same, and thought that the cluster of you all doing that might be meaningful evidence to you. But you ignored that as well.

As a whole, IANS, most insightful people capricious, unjust, corrupt and misguided. Many of our noblest professions have become synonymous with deceit and corruption, religious groups have been defamed by the behaviours of their own 'adherents', wars and all forms of criminal activity have continued on a very large scale since the beginning of human history. These are incontrovertible facts.

No one is denying the incessant efforts of the well-meaning to make the world a better place, nor of all the good that they have achieved and that currently exists in the world. There are enough places and people in the world where one can enjoy love and peace - but, their presence and influences in the world have not overwhelmed the evil enough in order to classify the earth as a place of good people and safe environments. This is why we have police forces in every city town and village in the world, why almost every home and car and office has a security system installed, why it is not advised for woman to walk alone at night (or even men), why we have expressions like 'dog-eat-dog', 'sex sells', 'looking out for number one', etc...

The reason that we state that the world is over-all evil and unsafe, is because evil is indiscriminate, prevalent, occurs every single minute of the day all over the world, and finally, has not let up or decreased since the beginning of human history. Yes, there is a great deal of good in the world, but it has not earned the status of dominance or even increasing.

I don't know what your point is. Yes, there is much suffering in the world, and we continue to address it where we can. Nevertheless, more people are leading better lives than ever before.

Not unsurprisingly, you ignored most of my post. Why do you keep doing that? You ignored my question to you about to whom why you thought I owed somebody an apology. You had told me how dreadful the world is again (I still don't know why). You commented that I will never my ideals, and I answered that I already have. Crickets. I asked you, "How would I or anybody else be better off thinking and feeling like you and the JWs?" and once again, I'm talking to myself. You posted something about getting joy out of people being held accountable in the afterlife, I responded with a list of people who seem to agree, and once again, nothing from you.

Sorry, but there's no discussion here - just you talking without listening. I've already pointed out to you that you have a duty to your collocutor that you seem uninterested in. The phrase I used was, "What's in it for the other guy?" when you post like that, but that was ignored as well.

But it hasn't been entirely in vain. At least one other poster reading the thread has found some value in the words you keep ignoring, hopefully a few more. That's who I post for - anybody that can read it, understand it, and consider the points made. If it weren't for people like that, what would be the point of this for people like me? I'm talking to myself here, and anybody else that reads posts with an effort to understand what another person has to say (consider critically). My meta-message to such people is to compare these two outlooks and methods and see what faith-based thought can do to a person's world and how he experiences it that reason and evidence based thought does not do.

Anyway, it's time to say enough. I've lost interest in trying to figure out what your point is - just exactly what you disagree with me about or why you keep coming back to drear every time I post about sunshine, and I've lost hope in getting you to respond to my comments about your posting (remember the ping-pong metaphor? One can't play the game with somebody who lets your every return go off the table ignored). You seem uninterested. And I have nothing more to say on the topics I've addressed and you've ignored, and I'm not interested in returning any more serves that go right past you without you even looking up.

So, I'll leave the despair to you (you also never commented on the Pinker rebuttal to the claims that the world is not getting better - why?). I'm going to go on enjoying life, since you have given no reason why I should join you in your dismal worldview, which is where it ended with the JW that wanted to tell me about how bad the world is and how selfish I am for being grateful to have had a good life. She also had no interest in discussing an alternate viewpoint - just repeating her drear over and over for no apparent purpose. I mentioned to you that I believe that some religions indoctrinate their adherents with this mindset to keep them loyal to the church as the only solution to the horror they have been taught to see. It might have been nice for you to acknowledge that comment as well, and explain why you think that's wrong if you do, but it was crickets time again.

As I said, I have nothing to add to all of that ignored content, and no desire to continue returning serves for you to ignore, so there is no point in me reading more from you or writing more to you.

You might consider these words, which are offered constructively. Do you do that? Do you look at words and try to discern what their writer was trying to tell you? I think the only thing I wrote that you did address was the accusation of condescension. I'm pretty sure you read that based on a response that addressed it. But unless you deliberately ignored the rest, I think you missed just about everything else. Is that something worth thinking about to you? If there is any truth here, would you want to see that, and if you could improve your RF game and at the same time give your collocutor the courtesy of considering his words, wouldn't you want to do that? It might reduce the evil in the world by just a little bit and replacing it with a bit of happiness.

 

[Ashoka]

Just for the record, I consider myself to be a bleeding-heart also, ...I just didn't think that others would agree, and I didn't have time to explain why I think that i am.
Well, Ashoka, I agree with every single thing that you said....
...BUT, my initial post on this thread was not that there is absolutely no good in the world. It's always been that there's not enough to define the world as a good and safe place to live, and that the Creator must be extremely displeased at what man has done with his stewardship, and relations. Therefore, unless things change, which history has not given an indication that it will, man will be faced with a very rude awakening one day.

In my view, that is where Karma comes in. Our rude awakening might come in this life, or in the next. If you kick a wasp's nest, you're going to get stung. That's Karma; action.

Those who do evil things are lower-evolved souls steeped in ignorance, and it could very well take many lifetimes for them to grow and evolve and learn their lesson. God, in my view, is merciful enough to not only show us the error of our ways through first hand experience, but to also give us a second chance to get it right. Sadly, (again, my view) we do live in the Kali Yuga, the last and darkest age where there is adharma (unrighteousness) spread everywhere. But like a circle, it comes to completion. This isn't where the story ends. Eventually, we will go back to God, and the cycle starts over again, in Satya Yuga, the golden age.

Deterioration of society is unfortunate, but it is necessary if we want to replace it with something good. When Kali Yuga ends, it will be like pulling out a dead tomato plant and planting a new one.

These are just my views, of course.

 

[DNB]

I don't know what you are discussing. I do not know what your point is. Prepare myself for what?

And you also ignore my point that you are steeped in a theology of despair. It oozes from your posting. You continually come back to the worst aspects of life. There is no reason for you to do that except to spread a dreary worldview that seems to be all you see. I commented on other posters doing the same, and thought that the cluster of you all doing that might be meaningful evidence to you. But you ignored that as well.



I don't know what your point is. Yes, there is much suffering in the world, and we continue to address it where we can. Nevertheless, more people are leading better lives than ever before.

Not unsurprisingly, you ignored most of my post. Why do you keep doing that? You ignored my question to you about to whom why you thought I owed somebody an apology. You had told me how dreadful the world is again (I still don't know why). You commented that I will never my ideals, and I answered that I already have. Crickets. I asked you, "How would I or anybody else be better off thinking and feeling like you and the JWs?" and once again, I'm talking to myself. You posted something about getting joy out of people being held accountable in the afterlife, I responded with a list of people who seem to agree, and once again, nothing from you.

Sorry, but there's no discussion here - just you talking without listening. I've already pointed out to you that you have a duty to your collocutor that you seem uninterested in. The phrase I used was, "What's in it for the other guy?" when you post like that, but that was ignored as well.

But it hasn't been entirely in vain. At least one other poster reading the thread has found some value in the words you keep ignoring, hopefully a few more. That's who I post for - anybody that can read it, understand it, and consider the points made. If it weren't for people like that, what would be the point of this for people like me? I'm talking to myself here, and anybody else that reads posts with an effort to understand what another person has to say (consider critically). My meta-message to such people is to compare these two outlooks and methods and see what faith-based thought can do to a person's world and how he experiences it that reason and evidence based thought does not do.

Anyway, it's time to say enough. I've lost interest in trying to figure out what your point is - just exactly what you disagree with me about or why you keep coming back to drear every time I post about sunshine, and I've lost hope in getting you to respond to my comments about your posting (remember the ping-pong metaphor? One can't play the game with somebody who lets your every return go off the table ignored). You seem uninterested. And I have nothing more to say on the topics I've addressed and you've ignored, and I'm not interested in returning any more serves that go right past you without you even looking up.

So, I'll leave the despair to you (you also never commented on the Pinker rebuttal to the claims that the world is not getting better - why?). I'm going to go on enjoying life, since you have given no reason why I should join you in your dismal worldview, which is where it ended with the JW that wanted to tell me about how bad the world is and how selfish I am for being grateful to have had a good life. She also had no interest in discussing an alternate viewpoint - just repeating her drear over and over for no apparent purpose. I mentioned to you that I believe that some religions indoctrinate their adherents with this mindset to keep them loyal to the church as the only solution to the horror they have been taught to see. It might have been nice for you to acknowledge that comment as well, and explain why you think that's wrong if you do, but it was crickets time again.

As I said, I have nothing to add to all of that ignored content, and no desire to continue returning serves for you to ignore, so there is no point in me reading more from you or writing more to you.

You might consider these words, which are offered constructively. Do you do that? Do you look at words and try to discern what their writer was trying to tell you? I think the only thing I wrote that you did address was the accusation of condescension. I'm pretty sure you read that based on a response that addressed it. But unless you deliberately ignored the rest, I think you missed just about everything else. Is that something worth thinking about to you? If there is any truth here, would you want to see that, and if you could improve your RF game and at the same time give your collocutor the courtesy of considering his words, wouldn't you want to do that? It might reduce the evil in the world by just a little bit and replacing it with a bit of happiness.

So, I get the impression that you're a humanist. Yes, of course you're going to see the world through rose coloured glasses, for that's the main fundament of your tenets. I believe that your initial predicate is incorrect - the prisons are not being depopulated.

..and besides, how many cups of coffee do you drink before you write a post? Why such verbosity, i need to make popcorn and sit in a recliner every time that I go to read one of your posts. You write well, but it's more of an essay than a succinct rebuttal.

 

[DNB]

In my view, that is where Karma comes in. Our rude awakening might come in this life, or in the next. If you kick a wasp's nest, you're going to get stung. That's Karma; action.

Those who do evil things are lower-evolved souls steeped in ignorance, and it could very well take many lifetimes for them to grow and evolve and learn their lesson. God, in my view, is merciful enough to not only show us the error of our ways through first hand experience, but to also give us a second chance to get it right. Sadly, (again, my view) we do live in the Kali Yuga, the last and darkest age where there is adharma (unrighteousness) spread everywhere. But like a circle, it comes to completion. This isn't where the story ends. Eventually, we will go back to God, and the cycle starts over again, in Satya Yuga, the golden age.

Deterioration of society is unfortunate, but it is necessary if we want to replace it with something good. When Kali Yuga ends, it will be like pulling out a dead tomato plant and planting a new one.

These are just my views, of course.

Ok, uh, obviously I don't subscribe to your worldview, mainly because if reincarnation was a veritable fact, again, where's the improvement?
I'm not sure about yourself, but, as for me, everyone that I have ever met, including myself, act like they were all born yesterday, if you know what I mean?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you're a humanist

Yes, a secular humanist.

of course you're going to see the world through rose coloured glasses, for that's the main fundament of your tenets

This is interesting. You think I see the world through rose-colored glasses, by which I presume you mean I don't see the world as darkly as I should, that whatever is making me happy is a misinterpretation of reality, and you think that's a tenet of humanism. That's not how I would frame the difference between us, nor humanism, but what if you are correct and I am only seeing roses because my glasses are tinted, not because there is actual beauty out there or any reason to be happy. If I could take off these humanist deployed rosy lenses, I'd see how ugly the world actually is, which would wipe that smile off of my face.

Humanism is the result of valuing reason applied to evidence as the only path to truth about the world (strict empiricism), and rejecting faith as a path to truth. The rest follows automatically. One inevitably winds up with a godless metaphysics, an empiricist epistemology, and rational ethics, or the application of reason to moral intuitions. My education revealed to me the ways and the power of critical thinking. My experience as a Christian taught me the potential cost of believing by faith. The rest was inevitable. One day, I looked at the Affirmations of Humanism and recognized my own values and beliefs. None of them were Don't Worry, Be Happy.

My happiness doesn't come from an ism. It's how I experience life. You seem to consider it a mistake to be happy, one caused by humanism's rosy glasses that skew one's perception of reality. I reject that. I would be ungrateful not to be happy with this life. It's exactly what I thought would make me happy - love, beauty, and leisure - and it has.

You already know that I see things the other way around. I see you as wearing the lenses fitted onto you by your religious beliefs, which are intended to keep you in the state you are in. It's why you need what only they can provide - an escape from this hellhole of a world characterized by suffering to a paradise characterized by happiness. That's not a nice thing to do to people, but religion isn't nice. Humanism is.

Now it's my turn to guess. You say that you're a Christian. The Christians that I have known that think like you do have all been Jehovah's Witnesses. That's my guess for you.

I believe that your initial predicate is incorrect - the prisons are not being depopulated.

I don't recall discussing that with you.

Why such verbosity, I need to make popcorn and sit in a recliner every time that I go to read one of your posts. You write well, but it's more of an essay than a succinct rebuttal.

I think in series of paragraphs. I will always develop my thoughts as thoroughly and clearly as I can. They're generally carefully considered, and as concise as I know how to make them without loss of message. Looking at this post, I'm wondering which sentences are not contributing to my central thesis and can be excised without loss of clarity. None that I see. A better writer might have said the same thing in fewer words, but if that can be done, I don't see it.

I think most others use too few words. As I've said to you, I still don't know what your point is - why you think I should have a different outlook, or whatever your purpose is - and you still haven't answered or addressed many points made to you. I would have rather seen all the words it took to explain those things, but it just never happened.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Human history has been going on for about 10,000 years+-. When, Ashoka, are we going to start seeing the world as you claim? When will politicians and lawyers, the noblest of professions, not be synonymous with extortion and corruption, ....or even lessened? When will the front page of every newspaper in the world stop having stories of crimes and atrocities senselessly committed by man, ....or even reduced? When will we stop hearing, on an every day basis, about gang-bangers, drug addictions, prostitution, theft and terrorism, ....or even diminished?
My view is neither negative or debilitating Ashoka, but yours is naive and baseless.

Humans history is at least 200,000 years old, and that's just homo sapiens.
And history shows things are getting better. Fewer people live in poverty. War is less frequent. People are living longer. Tons of people today have better access to food and water than what any king of past ages had.
As for the news, they have bills to pay. Peace sells, but who's buying so they went the way of sensationalism to pull in ratings. The reporting of crime has actually skyrocketed, but crime has been generally decreasing for decades.
Ashoka's views are based in reality and not naive. Your views seem unaware of what's referred to as the crime drop. It's when a country sees a reduction of crime by 50% or more since the 80s.
Crime drop - Wikipedia

 

[Ashoka]

Ok, uh, obviously I don't subscribe to your worldview, mainly because if reincarnation was a veritable fact, again, where's the improvement?

I knew you wouldn't, just wanted to share my view.

 

[DNB]

Yes, a secular humanist.



This is interesting. You think I see the world through rose-colored glasses, by which I presume you mean I don't see the world as darkly as I should, that whatever is making me happy is a misinterpretation of reality, and you think that's a tenet of humanism. That's not how I would frame the difference between us, nor humanism, but what if you are correct and I am only seeing roses because my glasses are tinted, not because there is actual beauty out there or any reason to be happy. If I could take off these humanist deployed rosy lenses, I'd see how ugly the world actually is, which would wipe that smile off of my face.

Humanism is the result of valuing reason applied to evidence as the only path to truth about the world (strict empiricism), and rejecting faith as a path to truth. The rest follows automatically. One inevitably winds up with a godless metaphysics, an empiricist epistemology, and rational ethics, or the application of reason to moral intuitions. My education revealed to me the ways and the power of critical thinking. My experience as a Christian taught me the potential cost of believing by faith. The rest was inevitable. One day, I looked at the Affirmations of Humanism and recognized my own values and beliefs. None of them were Don't Worry, Be Happy.

My happiness doesn't come from an ism. It's how I experience life. You seem to consider it a mistake to be happy, one caused by humanism's rosy glasses that skew one's perception of reality. I reject that. I would be ungrateful not to be happy with this life. It's exactly what I thought would make me happy - love, beauty, and leisure - and it has.

You already know that I see things the other way around. I see you as wearing the lenses fitted onto you by your religious beliefs, which are intended to keep you in the state you are in. It's why you need what only they can provide - an escape from this hellhole of a world characterized by suffering to a paradise characterized by happiness. That's not a nice thing to do to people, but religion isn't nice. Humanism is.

Now it's my turn to guess. You say that you're a Christian. The Christians that I have known that think like you do have all been Jehovah's Witnesses. That's my guess for you.



I don't recall discussing that with you.



I think in series of paragraphs. I will always develop my thoughts as thoroughly and clearly as I can. They're generally carefully considered, and as concise as I know how to make them without loss of message. Looking at this post, I'm wondering which sentences are not contributing to my central thesis and can be excised without loss of clarity. None that I see. A better writer might have said the same thing in fewer words, but if that can be done, I don't see it.

I think most others use too few words. As I've said to you, I still don't know what your point is - why you think I should have a different outlook, or whatever your purpose is - and you still haven't answered or addressed many points made to you. I would have rather seen all the words it took to explain those things, but it just never happened.

'Rose coloured glasses' was a wrong choice of words, it has a naive connotation. I meant to say that, as the word implies, you are purposed to see the the potential in man. My point is that your standards are not high enough - Christians try to attain to the holiness of God (Be holy, as I am holy). Thus, in comparison, we have a more realistic view of what level the bar is at. So our perceived negativity is not self-condemnation, but praise and gratitude towards God for His mercy and grace.

 

[DNB]

Humans history is at least 200,000 years old, and that's just homo sapiens.
And history shows things are getting better. Fewer people live in poverty. War is less frequent. People are living longer. Tons of people today have better access to food and water than what any king of past ages had.
As for the news, they have bills to pay. Peace sells, but who's buying so they went the way of sensationalism to pull in ratings. The reporting of crime has actually skyrocketed, but crime has been generally decreasing for decades.
Ashoka's views are based in reality and not naive. Your views seem unaware of what's referred to as the crime drop. It's when a country sees a reduction of crime by 50% or more since the 80s.
Crime drop - Wikipedia

Racism, war, murder, rape, theft, pornography, drug addictions, abuse, slander and extortion, , are all alive and kicking on planet earth., in every single city, town and village

 

[rational experiences]

The human life sacrificed past stories. Seen. Witnessed life dying just like today.

Humans drinking humans gluttony.

Elsewhere burning irradiation flooding kills off food. Humans starving.

Begging...crying

Each night I saw the visions. I didn't like going to sleep.

I will go on having fun says humans.

What about life sacrificed warnings and if you don't listen what happens by not heeding life should only be healthy?

Oh says the theist I believe in lifes sacrifice removal as my first science thesis was to time shift all bodies.

No matter what form or type of mass or biology it was.

Nonsense as it wasn't an equals equal answer.

Is his mentality consciously advised of all human history. As it communicates subliminally to our minds

Exact same human behaviours being witnessed today.

Natural first family memory. Once we lived spiritually healthily family by trade family mutual. We want it returned scientist.

Who says you all deserved destruction.
I will simply carry on ignoring you all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Racism, war, murder, rape, theft, pornography, drug addictions, abuse, slander and extortion, , are all alive and kicking on planet earth., in every single city, town and village

There's no war going on in this town. I've never actually even been in a town where there is a war going on. And that's the point. War used to be way more common than it is today.
Drug addiction is a health issue, not a moral issue.
Pornography doesn't harm people.
Lots of places don't see much murder either.
The entire nation of Japan only had 319 homicides in 2019.
Theft a well has been happening less.
The world's not perfect, but for vast chunks of the world the chances of being a victim of crime or violence has never been lower. Today we die of cancer and heart attacks instead of raids, wars, and violent people allowed to do violent things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you are purposed to see the the potential in man. My point is that your standards are not high enough - Christians try to attain to the holiness of God (Be holy, as I am holy)

You have let people tell you that a God exists, you've believed them on faith, and they tell you what it wants you to do. You think that because they attach the god concept to their words that it is somehow elevated above all other thought on the matter.

There is a better way to decide such matters. When I look at the ethics of Christianity and those of secular humanism, I see the latter as more evolved, more compassionate, more fair, and more reasonable. Christians still want to demonize and marginalize atheists and LGBTQ. They want to impose their religious beliefs on pregnant women. Many welcome Armageddon.

in comparison, we have a more realistic view of what level the bar is at.

Your realism depends on the existence of a God which is simply believed to exist. Your "realistic view" is grounded in a guess.

So our perceived negativity is not self-condemnation, but praise and gratitude towards God for His mercy and grace.

Perceived negativity? You expressed yourself quite clearly. You have a dark worldview that I have only seen from Jehovah's Witnesses in the past.

And it was never expressed as self-condemnation, but as condemnation of the world, which you describe in only negative terms, and condemnation of me for having a too-optimistic (not realistic like yours) outlook.

And I have seen nothing from you that resembles praise or gratitude of anything or for anything in your posting - only condemnation. You seem to be recommending your viewpoint as superior, but you are not happy, just hopeful that you have chosen the right path and that you will be rewarded for it. Would it still be superior if this god doesn't exist?

 

[DNB]

There's no war going on in this town. I've never actually even been in a town where there is a war going on. And that's the point. War used to be way more common than it is today.
Drug addiction is a health issue, not a moral issue.
Pornography doesn't harm people.
Lots of places don't see much murder either.
The entire nation of Japan only had 319 homicides in 2019.
Theft a well has been happening less.
The world's not perfect, but for vast chunks of the world the chances of being a victim of crime or violence has never been lower. Today we die of cancer and heart attacks instead of raids, wars, and violent people allowed to do violent things.

Pornography hurts everyone, the participants and the viewers.

 

[DNB]

You have let people tell you that a God exists, you've believed them on faith, and they tell you what it wants you to do. You think that because they attach the god concept to their words that it is somehow elevated above all other thought on the matter.

There is a better way to decide such matters. When I look at the ethics of Christianity and those of secular humanism, I see the latter as more evolved, more compassionate, more fair, and more reasonable. Christians still want to demonize and marginalize atheists and LGBTQ. They want to impose their religious beliefs on pregnant women. Many welcome Armageddon.



Your realism depends on the existence of a God which is simply believed to exist. Your "realistic view" is grounded in a guess.



Perceived negativity? You expressed yourself quite clearly. You have a dark worldview that I have only seen from Jehovah's Witnesses in the past.

And it was never expressed as self-condemnation, but as condemnation of the world, which you describe in only negative terms, and condemnation of me for having a too-optimistic (not realistic like yours) outlook.

And I have seen nothing from you that resembles praise or gratitude of anything or for anything in your posting - only condemnation. You seem to be recommending your viewpoint as superior, but you are not happy, just hopeful that you have chosen the right path and that you will be rewarded for it. Would it still be superior if this god doesn't exist?

Too hypothetical to ask the question '...if God does not exist...'. We are having this discussion and these contemplations for the exclusive reason that God exists.
But, either way, facts are facts, humans are horrible to each other, we're all hypocrites in that no one loves each other as they do themselves - we do not accept others to treat us, the way that we treat them. We're all selfish, entitled, bigoted, hedonistic, pugnacious, and perverted. Wars have been raging since time began, if it's not nation against nation, it's city against city, or family against family, or siblings against siblings, or spouses against spouses, .... Donald Trump got elected to be President of the USA, you tell me that people aren't messed up (those that voted him in, let alone him, himself).
No one needs a Bible to know that men are evil, the Bible just underscores this fact, and thus, instilling a faith in its veracity and inspiration.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pornography hurts everyone, the participants and the viewers.

It's not harmed me. Like those times I watched it with a few friends and giggled and laughed at how cheesy, corny, and lame it is.

 

[SomeRandom]

Pornography hurts everyone, the participants and the viewers.

Pornography is older than the written word.
Incidentally you can find it in what we now consider classical literature.
Yeah people studying classical literature are so harmed???