Thruve
Sheppard for the Die Hard
K and Humanisn will take it to the very next level.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Religion for Everyone
- Thread starter Bill Van Fleet
- Start date
K and Humanisn will take it to the very next level.
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Yes, Metis, but is that what our friend, Bill, here is doing ? Have you identified anything in his approach that is different from humanism ??
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I can't say with any certainty as I only just now scanned his posts. Seems like humanism, but I don't know if it's secular or not.
When I hear of propaganda I associate it more with brain washing. [ negative propaganda ]
For example: People were told to believe December 25th was Jesus' birthdate and even in the face of fact to the otherwise some will still insist on that 25th date as the birthdate.
Many, even when exposed as a lie, still insist on keeping that Christmas mirage alive.
Whereas searching or researching the Scriptures as the people of Acts 17 v 11 did, is more education [ biblical information ] to make up one's own mind as to agree or disagree.
In other words, God is Not forcing anyone to follow Jesus.
Adam was Not forced to eat from God's forbidden tree, but suffered the consequences.
Yes, of course, there are people who live moral lives and that is because, unless damaged, humans come equipped with a built-in conscience which can serve as a moral guide.
Romans 2 vs 14,15 For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused.
Why is it moral to serve God as outlined in Scripture is because God's moral standards lead us to everlasting life. Even everlasting life right here on Earth starting with the soon coming ' time of separation' [ Matthew 25 vs 31,32 ] when the humble ' sheep'-like people will be the first or foundation of Jesus' 1000-year governmental rule over earth. Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill. - Please notice the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' for mankind on earth mentioned at Revelation 22 v 2.
mystic64
nolonger active
Rational-Ethical Ultimate Ethical Principle(REUEP) defined here as:WE SHOULD DO THAT WHICH WILL PROMOTE NOT ONLY THE SURVIVAL OF OUR SPECIES, BUT ALSO AS MUCH JOY, CONTENTMENT, AND APPRECIATION (JCA) AS POSSIBLE AND AS LITTLE PAIN, SUFFERING, DISABILITY, AND EARLY DEATH (PSDED) AS POSSIBLE, FOR EVERYONE, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.
Hi Bill. What you are attempting to do is not possible. This is because in order for it to work everybody would have to go through "psychoanalysis". Which as you know takes years. From there some folks would then have to go through behavioral modification, or be medicated, or both. As you know from your education and experience that what you are up against is the personality programming that is located in the subconscious mind and the ability of that part of one's mind to hide and defend its treasured fears. The fears that it claims are necessary to be present or one will die. And as you know some of these fears are valid and some are not, but the subconsconious considers all of its treasured fears valid be they vaiid or not. Pure psychoanalysis believes that if a person talks long enough that they will eventually solve their own psychological problems. So what you are presenting is to establish a large scale group psychoanalysis environment dedicated to solving humanity's ability to work together as a whole, which of course would have to be under the guidance of a trained professional and free (or it be mandated by government that we pay for it). And the first thing that you would have to solve is the individual before you can solve the group.
"Why can't we all get along?" Because we all first would have to go through psychoanalysis which would then give us an understanding of our deep fears and how they affect our personality programming which then in turn effects how we interact socially with others as a problem solving group. Bill, what you are presenting is interesting, but it will not work. Because if nothing else there are not anywhere nere enough trained professionals to guide groups. And unless it is mandated by law most folks just will not come. So at best your movement will be a fringe movement even if it is a noisy movement.
I don't think there is a religion for everyone. Essentially, there is the relationship with God and then other people. Religion can be a framework for people to empower each other. It seems to me that religion is like many branches of a tree or river that God uses to embrace people, even atheism and any group experience works for that. They experience God through their relationships with one another. Religion turns people off as well through their history of corruption. It's all about relationships. Everyone thinks their truth is absolute - but it's all relative. Forget religion if you want - or be a part of it - and just care for each other. Community is where it's at in my opinion, even this one on the internet.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
Whoops! My apology! Somehow I have not been receiving (or somehow have overlooked) these responses. I was not intending to leave. Then again, I have had much to deal with and have been very busy, so responding well would have been difficult.
Where we left off had most to do with whether "Humanianity" is just "humanism." If you look at the definition of "Humanianity" and then look at the multiple definitions of "humanism," you will see no identity. Some of the definitions of "humanism" would indeed indicate that humanism is very Humanian. But some of the definitions would seem more restrictive than that of Humanianity.
The definition of "Humanianity" is that it is "that movement within Religion (the religions and other activities not called "religion" but also being our adult efforts to figure out how to best live our lives, i.e., being our efforts to construct and live by a basic ethical philosophy) toward commitment to the Rational-Ethical Ultimate Ethical Principle (REUEP) as opposed to the naturally-occurring Authoritarian-Ethical Ultimate Ethical Principle (AEUEP)," or, more simply, "the commitment to the REUEP."
No definition of "humanism" is the same as this.
To get to a far better way of life than what we have had so far (the third exponential change for our species), we have to become much clearer about what is needed, and we have to work together to accomplish it.
If you think about the powerfully motivated small religious groups that inflict so much damage on us all over this planet, what makes them so effective? Is it not that they have a strong feeling of group membership and commitment to their set of ethical beliefs, maintained because they know the other members of the group agree?
So what about the rest of the world that is much more open to discussion of differences in belief and wishes to stop all this human-induced pain, suffering, disability, and early death? Where is our group? We need to feel a sense of belonging to such a group.
Humanianity is a way of having that sense of belonging while not competing with other groups. You can be Humanian and be a member of any group, but if you are Humanian, you will probably try to bring about improvement within your group, in the direction of Humanianity.
The first thing you need to do, if you are at all Humanian, is study. And the Home page at Humanianity.com is the best place to begin.
To actually participate, there are two things you can do. You can (1) contribute to the Belief Manual, and you can (2) join and work with, or bring into existence and work with, a Humanian organization. (Such organizations are for the purpose of studying, practicing, and advocating.) If you do the second, then your participation in the development of the Belief Manual also becomes your participation in the development of your Humanian organization's Belief Manual. And as more and more participate, everyone in the world (with Internet access) can see the progress that is occurring, resulting in more and more optimism and effort.
So do you want to just hunker down in your own group and participate in fighting with other groups, or do you want to work toward our species coming together to live far better than ever before? Those of us that want to make life really better on this planet will need to work together to bring it about.
And the primary defeating phenomenon is our pervasive pessimism/cynicism, that says we can never do it because we have never done it, that is, we can never become far, far better than we ever have been because we are not already far, far better. If it is all hopeless, than why bother trying? If we are successful, we will be successful because of people who said that as long as there is a chance of accomplishing it, they wanted to be one of the people who will have made it happen if it happens. I am one of those.
Where we left off had most to do with whether "Humanianity" is just "humanism." If you look at the definition of "Humanianity" and then look at the multiple definitions of "humanism," you will see no identity. Some of the definitions of "humanism" would indeed indicate that humanism is very Humanian. But some of the definitions would seem more restrictive than that of Humanianity.
The definition of "Humanianity" is that it is "that movement within Religion (the religions and other activities not called "religion" but also being our adult efforts to figure out how to best live our lives, i.e., being our efforts to construct and live by a basic ethical philosophy) toward commitment to the Rational-Ethical Ultimate Ethical Principle (REUEP) as opposed to the naturally-occurring Authoritarian-Ethical Ultimate Ethical Principle (AEUEP)," or, more simply, "the commitment to the REUEP."
No definition of "humanism" is the same as this.
To get to a far better way of life than what we have had so far (the third exponential change for our species), we have to become much clearer about what is needed, and we have to work together to accomplish it.
If you think about the powerfully motivated small religious groups that inflict so much damage on us all over this planet, what makes them so effective? Is it not that they have a strong feeling of group membership and commitment to their set of ethical beliefs, maintained because they know the other members of the group agree?
So what about the rest of the world that is much more open to discussion of differences in belief and wishes to stop all this human-induced pain, suffering, disability, and early death? Where is our group? We need to feel a sense of belonging to such a group.
Humanianity is a way of having that sense of belonging while not competing with other groups. You can be Humanian and be a member of any group, but if you are Humanian, you will probably try to bring about improvement within your group, in the direction of Humanianity.
The first thing you need to do, if you are at all Humanian, is study. And the Home page at Humanianity.com is the best place to begin.
To actually participate, there are two things you can do. You can (1) contribute to the Belief Manual, and you can (2) join and work with, or bring into existence and work with, a Humanian organization. (Such organizations are for the purpose of studying, practicing, and advocating.) If you do the second, then your participation in the development of the Belief Manual also becomes your participation in the development of your Humanian organization's Belief Manual. And as more and more participate, everyone in the world (with Internet access) can see the progress that is occurring, resulting in more and more optimism and effort.
So do you want to just hunker down in your own group and participate in fighting with other groups, or do you want to work toward our species coming together to live far better than ever before? Those of us that want to make life really better on this planet will need to work together to bring it about.
And the primary defeating phenomenon is our pervasive pessimism/cynicism, that says we can never do it because we have never done it, that is, we can never become far, far better than we ever have been because we are not already far, far better. If it is all hopeless, than why bother trying? If we are successful, we will be successful because of people who said that as long as there is a chance of accomplishing it, they wanted to be one of the people who will have made it happen if it happens. I am one of those.
mystic64
nolonger active
Yours is a good question Bill. It is because they have been brainwashed, in some sense of the word brainwashed, and are under the control of someone else. If you separate them from their controller and the controller's minions, then the whole movement falls apart. Which is why a deep cover plant very seldom works unless a controller is in constant touch with the deep cover plant individual or individuals. Bill, you with your education and experience should already know this because you are a mind doctor. And you are blaming religion when this problem is also in politics and other organized non religion movements as well. Walt Disney is a classic example of it and they have to do with advertising and selling products and nothing to do with religion and politics.
gnostic
The Lost One
Science isn't about replacing God.
Science is about understanding the world - in whatever fields or branches - objectively and through empirical evidences, and not through ignorant superstitions, faulty preconceptions, confirmation bias or circular reasoning.
And I am not even talking about the blatant ignorance and superstitions in the creation of Genesis 1 to 11. Read god's ridiculous answers to Job (Job 38 to 40).
Here, I will give you a couple of examples from Job 38:
Job 38:7 said:
Job 38:8 said:
Job 38:22 said:
Do stars "sing", really?
And there are "doors" to seas?
And "storehouses" for snow and hails....seriously?
And there are "doors" to seas?
And "storehouses" for snow and hails....seriously?
In ancient times, primitive Jewish and Christian believers used to believe these LITERALLY, and some may still believe in these superstitious nonsenses, today...and I wouldn't be at all surprise. It is no better than believing in the "Flat Earth".
They are utter nonsense, if read literally.
God gave no descriptions in these 3 chapters (of Job) that I would call "scientific", or even consider to be "wisdom".
gnostic
The Lost One
I am wondering in what in the seven-flaming-bl@@dy-hell is a "secular religion"?
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
I'm afraid you missed my whole point. I am not "blaming religion" for anything. I am pointing out a fact about our species. I am talking about how motivated people can be if they see themselves as a part of a group that believes strongly in certain ethical values ("what we should do"), and how most of us who would really like to make this world a better place, one in which there is far, far less human-induced pain, suffering, disability, and early death, don't have a way of feeling that we are a group of people that understand each other and agree with one another. And I was talking about the Belief Manual of Humanianity as one way to accomplish that.
I am also saying that we don't have to limit ourselves to "Ain't it awful?!" We can actually start doing something that in the future will be extremely beneficial.
mystic64
nolonger active
QUOTE="Bill Van Fleet, post: 4078010, member: 13937"] I'm afraid you missed my whole point. I am not "blaming religion" for anything. I am pointing out a fact about our species. I am talking about how motivated people can be if they see themselves as a part of a group that believes strongly in certain ethical values ("what we should do"), and how most of us who would really like to make this world a better place, one in which there is far, far less human-induced pain, suffering, disability, and early death, don't have a way of feeling that we are a group of people that understand each other and agree with one another. And I was talking about the Belief Manual of Humanianity as one way to accomplish that.
I am also saying that we don't have to limit ourselves to "Ain't it awful?!" We can actually start doing something that in the future will be extremely beneficial. /QUOTE
That was very well said! And your above post has clearly declared the motivation behind what you are attempting. My expertice is mind mechanics and spin doctoring and the psyco-social dynamics of human behavior through understanding the individual mind. So Bill (and you can call me John if you wish
), I do understand what you are saying and I admire your goal. So, the question becomes, "How can you empower the individual in a way that results in a positive group effort?" From there the question then becomes, "How can you empower "humanity" in a way that results in a positive group effort?" And this is with the understanding that if you started to become successful at that, or some thought that you might become successful at that, that you would be actively hunted by those that would rather that you did not do it. eek ! "They know not what they do."
So Bill, I guess if you do not mind those challenges, then what you are attempting to do I find interesting and I guess my first question is, "How are you going to prevent your movement from becoming a bunch of "intellectual eggheads" sitting around patting each other on the back and everything remains an intellectuctual mind game with no action?" " And Russia's Valdimir Lenin had good intentions, but his actions created today's Russia. So how do you prevent that from happening should your movement develope action?" Bill, I like what you are attempting, but what you are attempting is going against a significant part of the world establishment, its present power structure, and its control over the minds and lives of those that are under its influence. "The incredible we do instantly, the impossible takes a little bit longer ."
I am also saying that we don't have to limit ourselves to "Ain't it awful?!" We can actually start doing something that in the future will be extremely beneficial. /QUOTE
That was very well said! And your above post has clearly declared the motivation behind what you are attempting. My expertice is mind mechanics and spin doctoring and the psyco-social dynamics of human behavior through understanding the individual mind. So Bill (and you can call me John if you wish
), I do understand what you are saying and I admire your goal. So, the question becomes, "How can you empower the individual in a way that results in a positive group effort?" From there the question then becomes, "How can you empower "humanity" in a way that results in a positive group effort?" And this is with the understanding that if you started to become successful at that, or some thought that you might become successful at that, that you would be actively hunted by those that would rather that you did not do it. eek ! "They know not what they do."So Bill, I guess if you do not mind those challenges, then what you are attempting to do I find interesting and I guess my first question is, "How are you going to prevent your movement from becoming a bunch of "intellectual eggheads" sitting around patting each other on the back and everything remains an intellectuctual mind game with no action?" " And Russia's Valdimir Lenin had good intentions, but his actions created today's Russia. So how do you prevent that from happening should your movement develope action?" Bill, I like what you are attempting, but what you are attempting is going against a significant part of the world establishment, its present power structure, and its control over the minds and lives of those that are under its influence. "The incredible we do instantly, the impossible takes a little bit longer
."
Last edited:
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
QUOTE="Bill Van Fleet, post: 4078010, member: 13937"] I'm afraid you missed my whole point. I am not "blaming religion" for anything. I am pointing out a fact about our species. I am talking about how motivated people can be if they see themselves as a part of a group that believes strongly in certain ethical values ("what we should do"), and how most of us who would really like to make this world a better place, one in which there is far, far less human-induced pain, suffering, disability, and early death, don't have a way of feeling that we are a group of people that understand each other and agree with one another. And I was talking about the Belief Manual of Humanianity as one way to accomplish that.
I am also saying that we don't have to limit ourselves to "Ain't it awful?!" We can actually start doing something that in the future will be extremely beneficial. /QUOTE
That was very well said! And your above post has clearly declared the motivation behind what you are attempting. My expertice is mind mechanics and spin doctoring and the psyco-social dynamics of human behavior through understanding the individual mind. So Bill (and you can call me John if you wish
So Bill, I guess if you do not mind those challenges, then what you are attempting to do I find interesting and I guess my first question is, "How are you going to prevent your movement from becoming a bunch of "intellectual eggheads" sitting around patting each other on the back and everything remains an intellectuctual mind game with no action?" " And Russia's Valdimir Lenin had good intentions, but his actions created today's Russia. So how do you prevent that from happening should your movement develope action?" Bill, I like what you are attempting, but what you are attempting is going against a significant part of the world establishment, its present power structure, and its control over the minds and lives of those that are under its influence. "The incredible we do instantly, the impossible takes a little bit longer
John, thank you for your comments.
First, I would like to suggest that it is not optimal to refer to Humanianity as Bill's movement. It is not my movement, but a movement, a process, a phenomenon that is occurring all around us in various ways, and all I am doing is calling attention to it, trying to put it into words and describe it, and advocating for speeding it up, as well as offering one way for us to do that (having put in around a thousand hours working on the Belief Manual part of the website, where everyone can indeed participate in the ongoing creation of an up-to-date Bible-like document). So I am trying to make a contribution by doing these things, none of which is starting a movement, just a set of efforts to promote it.
Regarding being hunted, I have semi-jokingly commented to others that indeed if I am assassinated, that will really help this awareness and activity to take off, but it will have to be more widely recognized before assassination would be that helpful. I doubt that that is what will happen.
But what you mention about it appealing primarily to "intellectual eggheads" is perhaps true, at least appealing to a limited number of us. Yes, movements like "democracy" first are ideas in the minds of people who tend to think about things from a more abstract viewpoint, trying to understand things more deeply in order to influence things in a positive direction. And those ideas that appeal to such people then trickle down through their advocacy to others. So advocacy, I believe, is an important part of the set of activities that will help us move forward in this third exponential change. And that is what I am doing. And that, may I suggest, is what you can do also. But first comes study. It all has to make sense to you, before it makes sense for you to advocate. So I am pleased that you are asking me questions. If anything seems not to make sense, then please let me know. If it really doesn't, then I can forget about the whole thing, and you will have saved me from being assassinated.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
What anyone can do to help future generations:
Study the Humanianity.com home page.
Click on and look at the Belief Manual there. (It is a central place for our species to continuously work on a basic ethical philosophy for our species.)
Register with the Belief Manual so you can participate.
Contribute suggested beliefs to the Belief Manual and develop your own Belief Manual (by clicking on "Agree" for any beliefs there that you agree with).
Join a Humanian organization that is registered in the Belief Manual, or if none is available locally, start one (Meetup.com is probably easiest) and register it within the Belief Manual.
Register your membership in that Humanian organization within the Belief Manual, so that your personal Belief Manual contributes to your organization's Belief Manual.
Meet with others in your Humanian organization to study this whole process and work together on a basic ethical philosophy and related issues connected to the emergence of Humanianity.
Advocate within your religious group (or any group that you are a member of that has purposes and functions similar to those of groups defined as "religious") that everyone become familiar with Humanianity, fostering discussion and debate about the construction of a basic ethical philosophy for our species.
Study the Humanianity.com home page.
Click on and look at the Belief Manual there. (It is a central place for our species to continuously work on a basic ethical philosophy for our species.)
Register with the Belief Manual so you can participate.
Contribute suggested beliefs to the Belief Manual and develop your own Belief Manual (by clicking on "Agree" for any beliefs there that you agree with).
Join a Humanian organization that is registered in the Belief Manual, or if none is available locally, start one (Meetup.com is probably easiest) and register it within the Belief Manual.
Register your membership in that Humanian organization within the Belief Manual, so that your personal Belief Manual contributes to your organization's Belief Manual.
Meet with others in your Humanian organization to study this whole process and work together on a basic ethical philosophy and related issues connected to the emergence of Humanianity.
Advocate within your religious group (or any group that you are a member of that has purposes and functions similar to those of groups defined as "religious") that everyone become familiar with Humanianity, fostering discussion and debate about the construction of a basic ethical philosophy for our species.
I agree with this, but came to rather different conclusions. You can compare my religion to yours.
A Rational Reactionary Religion | ReligiousForums.com
Your religion is self contradictory in its support for humanity. This contradicts evolution which teaches that we are in genetic competition. So I support that part of humanity that I think is good for my genes, which turns out to be a very small fraction. And simply on an emotional level, I hate humanity. So my emotions are consistent with science and my religion.
Humanism is basically like a cultural cancer that embraces all of humanity in order to seduce it to its ways. It then denatures those cultures it infects, much like cancer does. Like a disease, Humanism spreads rapidly but ultimately destroys the host with its evil liberal values.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
One's religion is ultimately arbitrary, so I cannot demonstrate that your religion is better than Humanianity by some logical process. However, I prefer Humanianity and advocate for it.
But there are a couple of statements that are hard to understand:
I do not see what in Humanianity contradicts something else in Humanianity. And I don't know what you mean by saying that evolution "teaches" something. Evolution is just a description of how species evolve, of how this phenomenon is consistent with the rules according to which things in this universe take place. Religion is our effort to optimize our behavior, to make it consistent with an ultimate ethical principle. There are things that take place in this universe that we try to prevent, like Ebola. I see nothing wrong with trying to prevent Ebola. Just because things naturally occur in a certain way doesn't mean to me that we should not try to change those things.
I understand that you hate humanity. But I think that is because you are looking only at the awful things we do, without looking at the wonderful things we do. I want us to continue to do the wonderful things and increasingly stop doing the awful things. Humanianity, as interpreted by me, seems to be consistent with that wish.
I never claimed that mine is better, only that yours contains a logical contradiction. If you don't mind logical contradictions, then that's fine.
So how do you pick the ultimate ethical principle? Do you take a fundamentalist approach and simply take one as axiomatic? This is what Humanism actually does, making humanism a fundamentalist religion. But evolution actually describes the purpose of living organisms, that our phenotype exists to serve our genotype and that is all. From this one can logically derive a moral system, and in fact what one arrives at is essentially what is found in the Old Testament. So my point is that the Old Testament is logically compatible with science, while Humanism, Liberalism, etc are not.
Throughout history, the majority of humanity has been horrible. There have been a few exceptional cultures that did wonderful things. All of these cultures were based on sound religions that promoted sound morals. This includes Athens based on values found in Homer, the Abbasid Caliphate based on Mu'tazila Islam, and the Enlightenment based on Calvinism. These sound religions were about as far from the evils of modern culture (Humanism, Liberalism, etc.) as one can get.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
You still have not shown the contradiction you say exists within Humanianity. Can you present the two statements that are contradictory to each other?
Yes, I just accept the REUEP because I like it. Any ultimate ethical principle is arbitrary, i.e., cannot be legitimated by an even higher level ultimate ethical principle. You might be interested in this chapter:
FOR EVERYONE: Rational-Ethical Living | Ethics
Okay, I withdraw the complaint about contradiction since your REUEP is axiomatic. But skimming your site, I see little concrete content to comment on. Where are your 10 commandments? And where is the connection to science?
I will give a concrete example. Feminism causes genetic decay which causes suffering. This is concrete and based on science that I explain on my website. So based on REUEP, you should oppose feminism. This is one concrete example. Do you have concrete examples like this?