Why Atheism and Secular Humanism are Failed Philosophies

[Mister Agenda]

I have the impression the OP is mixing up humanism with transhumanism, or maybe utilitarianism. Humanism is concerned with figuring out the right thing to do without appeal to supernatural authority. I'm not sure by what humanist reasoning you arrive at permanently divorcing yourself from reality as being the ethical thing to do if you have something to contribute to the real world.

On the other hand, it could be an interesting retirement plan, for when you have done enough in this world and deserve a very nice however-long-you-can-get in a pleasant version of the Matrix.

[Epimethean]

If we look at religion as any set of beliefs in a supernatural cause and effect based universe, I would say that humanity is showing some signs of growing out of it. It may not be a massive shift, but it is a palpable one. This group is evidence of it at a certain level. The stigma of nonbelief is not as gross, and even believers of the non-zealous factions are in part becoming open to having dialogues which question faith and seek to see the commonalities between the major religious sects in the world. The Unitarians are a bit of a halfway house in this way. I see groups like the Mormans and Scientologists to be signs of religious stupidity in a microcosm, and the fact that such groups serve to piss off the "truer" believers, ultimately revealing the idiocy of both religious sides.

I was discussing the Roman gods today in class, and the usual question came up: "How could they believe in these gods?" I asked the class whether there was one right religion. About half of them said, "No," and the discussion went from animism to modern day monotheism, as well as Hinduism. The point was made that faith is a term that is mutually incompatible with knowledge, and by the end of the class, many more students were admitting that, because they had faith in their religion, they could not say that they knew the religions of others were not true. I think that this kind of conversation is easier to have today than it would have been fifty years ago-certainly easier than 100 years ago, and I think it is a positive side to the media, the internet in particular, and our growing sense of the sum of man.

So, I do see us evolving in regard to religion. We started with everything as a source of divinity, moved to polytheistic anthropomorphic deities, mostly moved to monotheism from there, with atheism a slowly growing faction throughout. Will man ever outgrow supernatural gullibility or stupidity? Not likely, but I think we get further away from such over time.

[AthiestAtheist]

That's good news. I think that religion has actually gotten more backwards with time. It was alright when we were worshiping the sun and the trees because those things are real. The trees give us oxygen, and the sun is where all our fucking energy comes from, so it's the closest damn thing we have to an actual god, so we'd be better off worshiping that. Solar panels? No, that ehs 4 teh hippies! Tch, if you asked the average Christian, they probably wouldn't know the sun is heavier than the earth. "Huh? Of course the earth is heavier, the sun is just hot air!"

[Epimethean]

All led to some that were manlike led to one that was manlike is leading to ... none, I hope-or at least more of the people who no longer look for that sologod.

[The Grand Nudger]

The things themselves were real, but the commands and narratives built around them were most definitely not. Same goes for the bible when you think about it. It's real. You can hold it in your hand. Still, whats inside is garbage if you're looking for reality. Sun gods weren't better gods, just different gods. LOL, I like alot of them too. To me they're "better", but that's not exactly an objective assessment of their value. People were cutting out each others hearts and offering them to the sun after all.

[Epimethean]

I think they were better because they were aspectival rather than surreal.

[mayor of simpleton]

I have the impression the OP is mixing up humanism with transhumanism, or maybe utilitarianism.

How kind you are!

I greatly fear that he is mixing up much more than just a few "isms".

Meow!

GREG

[Doubting Thomas]

How is it waking up in the morning knowing your life serves no purpose? That you go around chasing your primitive desires, to have sex, to get stuff. What a boring, fake existence.

I love it when theists come here telling me that my life is meaningless and purposeless when my wife is getting close to having our second child any day now. Of course my wife and kids couldn't give my life meaning or purpose, because I'm an atheist.

I just wish that people of all religious walks would realize that we atheists are just like them. We want the same things out of life. We want to live a good life, we want our kids to grow up healthy & happy, and we want a good life for them. We want to be happy in our marriages and in our jobs. The only difference is that our lives don't revolve around trying to keep a magical, invisible being happy. Everything else is pretty much the same, though.

[Cleveland Skeptic]

I haven't read all the follow ups to this..but purpose is driven by life not life by purpose. To think that without some form of deity ia needed in order to belt out platitudes to and prostrate in front of is not only illogical but hideously lacking in a basic human ethic. Life is its own purpose.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Why Atheism and Secular Humanism are Failed Philosophies

Let me start out by saying I used to be an atheist and in a way sort of am.
Secular humanism (which now will be abbreviated as SH and is synonymous for atheism or agnosticism) is an absolute cancer, a poison to society. I could give you the arguments of communism, Hitler, etc, but I used to read these forums and realize these are old tired points, so here’s something fresh.

Your little theory has already failed. Atheism isn't a philosophy - it's a rejection of theistic claims - a denial of the supernatural and of god as being 'a thing.'
You certainly could give argueemtsn on communism (an economic system that has nothing to do with religion), Hitler (a Catholic), and other such things, but those arugements have long since failed to mean anything or gain traction here or anywhere because they are based on fiction and not fact.
Such that it is, avoiding those topics is an excellent idea.

SH does have a God. That God is I. The God of SH is me and all that matters (the alpha to the omega) is my personal happiness. This philosophy is deeply flawed. And the ultimate referendum is coming very shortly.

Atheists tend to be of the sort that don't get up every sunday (or saturday) of every week to get overdressed to apoligize for being human and submit ourselves into slavery and give 10% of our income to a group of people so they can tell us how to behave and who we can and cannot have sex with. Atheists do tend to be people who think rationally and approach the universe with questions rather than answers we made up and pretend to be the truth.
Yet, you say that we have the flawed ideaology? We dont' even have a common ideaology. Have you seen us argue with one antoher about politics? Our only commonality is our mutual rejection of your religious stupidity and fundementalism.

I am entirely convinced (as is Stephen Hawking and many others) that in the very near future – we’re talking a decade – humanity itself will start to unravel. In order to enhance our happiness and well being, we’re going to begin putting machines in our bodies. At first it will be a chip in our brain to augment our intelligence, then we’ll replace our organs, perhaps even lack a corporal form and so on and so forth until we can no longer be considered human. If this doesn’t happen, within the next 30 – 40 years we’ll have full immersion virtual reality, where we can live in fantasy lands of unending pleasure. We can be Jake Sully in Avatar, have sex that feels real, go to the moon, the stars – who would ever want to live in this pathetic world? Eventually we’ll be so dependent; we’ll forgo our bodies and place our brains in boxes so we can live in our virtual ‘reality’ unmolested. And why will all of you do this? Because again, happiness is what it’s all about – there ain’t nothing higher.

We've already started doing that - see pacemakers and artificial limbs for an easy way to see this. There are already cyborgs among us and they've been fairly common for over a decade now.
You are right for stating that humans and machines will, over time, be less and less distinguishable from one another - for better or worse. Human beings and our bodies are quite fragile and imperfect and frankly, we can do better.
By the tiem this happens, our intelligence and technological and physical ability will surpass anythign we could imagine today. You call this pathetic, but if you say that, I call that criticism lacking in imagination. Those "boxes" or computers of the future can be so powerful that even one is trillions of times as intelligent as every human that ever lived combined - not to mention what we'll be technically capable of outside of computer wizardry.

You can call me crazy, which I’m sure a lot of you will. But they said the same thing of Einstein, and Darwin, the examples go on.

There's a difference between their crazy and that of a religious zealot. One is crazy because their theories challenge accepted norms and they're place in history is there because they were proven correct and they're not even the zaniest of people who have positively affected our technological and scientific progress.

Your kind of crazy is the delusional kind. Don't compare yourself to the greatest minds of human history. You make yourself look like an idiot.

If you’ve read the literature and understand what our fate will be – chew on this: since my little scenario will mean the destruction of humanity (the ultimate evil) was the medieval Church right for hating science?

Your scenario is flawed and therefore your conclusion is irrelevant.

Why won’t I become a machine? Why won’t I let the Matrix come true? Because through my finding of religion (Judaism in case you’re wondering) I realized there’s something higher in this world than me.

I enjoy being human as much as the next one - but your disdain for Hawking's (and realy a fairly common) prediction of humanity's future is heavily flawed and based on terrible assumptions.
You go on apoligizing for being human. I'll make do with what I am and I'll continue to be proud of the kind of person I've become and all the flaws and imperfections that entails. Given the opportunity to merge with a machine and become a godlike intelligence and technological power, I think I would take it. After that, I can essentially go back and forth as often as I like.