Humanism

At first glance, one might think, “I’m a human, Humanism must be about me”. Sorry, no. To be sure, humans are the subjects of Humanism; and “subject” is the correct term.

Positivist Humanism
The first self-described humanist was Auguste Comte. Comte developed a philosophy the evolved into a “secular religion” called Positivism or Positivist Humanism. From 1851 through 1854 Comte wrote “religion of Humanity, called “Systeme De Politique Positive”. Under Comte’s philosophy, science and “rational” thought would dominate the superstitions and bring proper progress to the world. He developed his religion of Positivist Humanism into a replacement for the Catholic Church, creating a priesthood of brilliant metascientists and replacements for religious rituals.

Under Positivist Humanism, the welfare of all humans is the supreme objective. This objective would be defined by the priesthood of metascientists who would comprehend not only science, but all the affairs of mankind. The priesthood would be a carefully developed class of near superhuman intellects, a priesthood of intellectual elites.

Once the elite priesthood had codified the needed behaviors of the rest of humanity, every human would be expected to fully subordinate his own wishes in order to fulfill the welfare of humanity in general. Failure to cooperate would not be tolerated; re-education and coercion would be applied where necessary.

Perhaps this sounds familiar to you. Humanism is found at the core of the “secular experiments” that drove the 20th century to become the bloodiest century ever. But Humanism was not intimidated.

The Manifestos
In 1933 the first Humanist Manifesto was created. Written and signed by education philosopher, John Dewey, and a group of Unitarian ministers, the manifesto defined Humanism as a religion, and gave 15 points of belief. Among these were the position that God and religion and dualism were outdated and needed to be realigned to the scientific method. The thirteenth point is instructive:

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

Can there be any doubt about the intent of Humanists to wrest control of all institutions which disagreed with them? If that is not convincing, here is the fourteenth point:

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

This is clearly defining Humanism as a totalitarian state, seizing an inadequate society and socializing it and cooperatizing it. And if people are smart, they will voluntarily cooperate, not for their own good, but for the common good. The Humanist demand is last: shared life in a shared world.

Humanist Manifesto II
In 1973 a second manifesto was created in order to distance the Humanists from both the original declaration that Humanism was a religion, albeit secular, and also from the humanism that was specifically Nazi. Unspoken was the removal of the seizure statements in the original Manifesto, and the term socialization was no where to be found. Most of the second manifesto was positionless rhetoric, except for the declarations against deity and religion in general. The idea that morality is non-absolute, and situational did place this Manifesto into direct opposition to all of Western government and cultural establishment. This Manifesto was not clear, and required a new writing.

Humanist Manifesto III
In 2003, the next Manifesto was released. The most glaring feature is the idea that nature is “self-existing”, this apparently meaning that the Big Bang created itself. Whatever the science behind it, the statement is clearly supporting the replacement of deity with nature.

The socialism concept is embedded in moral statements:

“We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”

The seizure and control of social, economic and political institutions is not addressed, either to affirm it or to deny it. Apparently the meaning of Humanism has gone under the surface.

Humanist Frederick Edwards, in his description of Humanism offers this typically veiled proposition:

"Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives."

In light of previous Humanist declarations, one must imagine just what “new alternatives” might be thought acceptable to a group of elite, whose situational ethic allows them to change their “manifestos” to suit their whims. The global consciousness of Christian aid across the world apparently is not the type of global consciousness that the Humanists are “committed to”.

But these veiled and contradictory generalities can mutate at any moment, and undoubtedly will, probably by 2033, for the next obscure rendition of the Humanist Manifesto.

Humanism is Benign… Right?

Well, read what the manifestos actually say:

Humanist Manifesto I, 1933:

Statements of socialism and totalitarian control of society:

(…)

”ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

(…)

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

Humanist Manifesto II: The socialism of Manifesto I is now concealed in more dense hyperbole for the following reasons:

Preface
”It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.”

Well, the ideas of "siezing control of all institutions" and "social and mental hygiene" didn’t work out so well when the real world actually did it in the 1930's and 40's, so the Manifesto needed a little cosmetic work; hence Manifesto II.

Read the Manifestos if you haven’t already, all three of them. Read between the lines in the latter ones, for the abstruse and veiled references which were blatant in Manifesto I. For example, in Manifesto II:

”TENTH: Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

Yes, economic well-being for all individuals and groups; the common good: democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

The absurdness of a democratized economy should be apparent: the voting majority decides on what products everyone gets? In a free economy every real demand gets serviced. Which is better? More to the point, what does this TENTH article actually mean? One suspects that the democracy part actually refers to socialization and government ownership: the Peoples Economy. The references to seizure made clear in Manifesto I are now stealth references.

Then there is this in the ELEVENTH:

”We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts - the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts - for all who are neglected or ignored by society.”

As if no one else cares about these people and only the elites care. Here’s the truth, at least in my community. The elites don’t care one whit about those categories of people. It is the religious community that runs programs and cares for them, performing outside the extremely limited governmental programs. These are ministries taken on by individuals who care, and they are not Atheo-Humanists. In fact, try to find an Atheo-Humanist organization actually on the ground at any disaster. [note 1]

And this one, the TWELFTH;

”TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity.”

This is one of the reasons for the next Manifesto, number III. Cultural pluralism is a fused disaster awaiting a spark. Witness the Islamic movement hoping to take over Europe and Britain merely by population size. Pluralism and diversity are not on the Islamic agenda.

FIFTEENTH:

(…)

It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide - through an international authority that safeguards human rights - massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

SEVENTEENTH:

(…)

The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

The Humanist Manifesto III is a wimpy shadow of the former Humanist positions, having replaced the dictates with “beliefs” and statements of morals according to Humanists. Here is the key phrasing:

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Yes, working not for oneself, for one’s own welfare, for one’s own family, but working for society. In return one gets his inequities reduced and a lot of stuff redistributed in his direction, unless he has too much stuff, then it is adios stuff. If this is not communism, then what is it?

Now let’s back up to this:

” Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.”

Life’s fulfillment is for YOU GUYS to do all this stuff, while we reduce your inequities and redistribute your stuff. Read this paragraph again, and then kindly explain to me how this teleological revelation was received by the elites who are letting us in on their wisdom. We should service the humane ideals of “inequitiy reduction” and stuff “redistribution”, and then we will be fulfilled?

There is no categorical distance between the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III. The only difference is that the original sharpness of focus has fogged somewhat, by excess verbiage in Manifesto II, and by over-simplicity and the use of joyous terms of liberationism objectives in Manifesto III.

The “Notable Signers” of Manifesto III include one (1) actual producer, a pharacologist; the remainder are academics, activists, writers, entertainers, and Unitarians. Except for that one (1) producer, not one produces a single product for satisfying the issue of ”whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life.”

Humanism is the self-righteous elitist religion, to be applied to the common man: the herd. It originally even called itself the Humanist religion, and it has been declared a religion in the U.S. Federal Courts. It is the religion of self-righteous, arrogant, self-serving prototyrants.

[note 1]: One Atheist organization has recently tried to deliver stuff to disaster victims expressly because of this criticism - not because they actually care.

Humanism: Origins

The following is the original 1933 Manifesto in its entirety as presented on the humanist website, as of 2006. My comments follow.

Humanist Manifesto I
The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals whose signatures appear would, had they been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world.
— Raymond B. Bragg (1933)


The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: There were 34 signers of this document, including Anton J. Carlson, John Dewey, John H. Dietrich, R. Lester Mondale, Charles Francis Potter, Curtis W. Reese, and Edwin H. Wilson.]
Copyright © 1973 by the American Humanist Association


Permission to reproduce this material in toto in electronic or printout form is hereby granted free of charge by the copyright holder. Free permission to reprint the essay is granted to nonprofit Humanist and Freethought publications. All others must secure advance permission of the author through the American Humanist Association, which can be contacted at the address at the end of this file.

The first ten items and particularly the first six out of the list of fifteen describe Atheism. Humanism called itself "religious humanism" and its intent according to the manifesto was to replace all religion with Atheism.

The eleventh item contains the buzz words for eugenics, "the path of social and mental hygiene".

Moreover, humanism intended to take over religious institutions in order to "reconstitute" them (item 13); it intended to take over the economic institutions and redistribute "means of life" [wealth] while implementing "A socialized and cooperative economic order" [socialism and communism].

In 1973 the manifesto admittedly was rewritten in light of the massively onerous humanist experiments that the world had suffered through in the first half of the 20th century. The offending elements in the first manifesto were submerged in a more vague text in the second. This was repeated in 2003 for the third manifesto, more vague yet.

One commenter noted that the 1973 Humanist Manifesto doesn't use the word "atheism", and is therefore not atheistic. I would point to this statement in that manifesto:

"As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival."

Humanism is also Materialistic: theism is unproved requiring material proof of a non-material deity; and "heaven hereafter" is denied, presumably due to lack of material proof in the here and now. So it is a denial of any reality beyond what they can see, feel, weigh and measure. In fact, it includes monism, the unproved concept that the mind is firmly attached to the brain, and is not a separate entity that uses the brains neurons as scaffolding.

Primacy of Self (Secularism)

[Author's note: this was first published as part of an ebook which is available in full at atheism-analyzed.net]

Secularism and Illusion of Tolerance
For decades after the 1960’s, Americans have been taught that tolerance is more important than absolutism. In fact, absolutism is anti-tolerant and therefore cannot be tolerated. In her book, “Total Truth”, Nancy Pearcy traces the roots of dualism, the trend of placing transcendent truths in a separate space, isolated from materialism. She describes a two story house, where the secular space is on the ground floor with access to the outside world, and the transcendent, religious space is consigned to the upstairs, accessible only to the occupants of the house. The trend is traceable from Plato on, but only becomes a significant socio-political issue in the past century or so. It has become “intolerant” to express one’s religious views outside the door, in view of the secular world.

Americans are understandably proud of the religious tolerance that the US Constitution guarantees. So they were off guard when the meaning of tolerance changed imperceptibly, and then continued to change. Tolerance has expanded its meaning under the Atheist attack of “reform” groups such as the American Civil Liberty Union, and the Americans for Separation of Church and State, not to mention the various abortion sale groups, and now embryonic stem cell profiteers. Tolerance now means that it is a “hate” crime to question the validity of many Atheist activities. And yet tolerance of the original values establishing tolerance in the first place has disappeared from the nation’s lexicon, especially that of the media.

Secularism is equated with tolerance, and seems right and sensible to the casual thinker. Most Atheists probably have unexamined belief systems; after all, one needs only deny God, and thus declare for Atheism. So “unexamined” is the key word, except for the most virulent, radical Atheist attackers of the social system.

The first part of this work [prior chapters of the ebook] shows the folly of declaring that Atheism is rational. But it turns out that “rationality” is only a knee-jerk defense for many Atheists. They declare themselves “rational”, and depend on the word itself to provide safety from having to think it through. In the last part of this work we shall see that the opposite is true: Atheism is the pursuit of the irrational. And only the bravest of the Atheists will admit to their bottom line belief, a necessary belief as will be shown, that unexamined rationalism is just a cover for irrational belief systems.

Secularism, and thus untrammeled tolerance, then is the camouflage position for the true Atheist. Atheists will retreat to this position when they are challenged on either the Rational Position, or the Irrational Position.

So if rational thought is not the real reason for being a true Atheist, what are the reasons? In his book “Faith of the Fatherless”, Paul C. Vitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at NYU and Senior Scholar at The institute for the Psychological Sciences in Washington D.C., looks for common features in the lives of the great Atheists of the 19th and 20th centuries. His overwhelming conclusion is that defective fathers in the lives of young men lead to traumas that cause rebellions against father figures that culminate in the rejection of the ultimate father figure, God. These young men received no positive masculine input in their formative years, and were raised by women, leading them to search for their own masculine identity blindly and without guidance. Blind rebellion and search for their own strength can lead to rejection of all authority, including that of God.

This feature of Atheist philosophers is nearly 100% correlatable, as Vitz shows. He contrasts the fatherly and masculine inputs to major theists of the same period as a control group, showing that positive masculine input during a boy’s formative years produces a positive result.

Is the defective father the only reason to become an Atheist? Not in the least. Vitz outlines other reasons, many of which I can personally attest to.

Normal rebellion in teenagers, especially males, is due to the overwhelming conflict between the need to obey certain parental and social rules, and the need to assert one’s own emerging intellect and personal power. If one submits totally to outside rules, how is personal cowardice to be ignored? If one rebels, is it not a sign of courage, bravery and becoming? And if the rebelling mind goes off to college, what awaits it there?

Intellectualism
Part of the intrinsic psychological attraction of Atheism is the promise of becoming one of the “elite”. The intellectuals, as they think of themselves, reside in positions of prominence and power, primarily in the isolation of the university setting. It is there that young people first encounter the glory of intellectualism, and the primacy of the self. While the actual number of Atheists is very small, their influence is far beyond.

The 2001 ARIS Poll of the general population shows Atheists at 0.4%, Agnostics at 0.3%, Secularists at 0.02%, and Humanists at 0.02%. It also showed “No religion” at 13.2%. A Harris Interactive Poll in 2003 showed 9% Atheist, and 12% Agnostic. And a 2005 Gallup / Baylor Poll reported in USA Today showed 8.2% Atheist / Agnostics. So depending on how the question is presented, there might be just 0.7%, or there might be 21%, Atheist / Agnostics in the USA.

Whichever is the case, Atheism is a small percentage of the American population as a whole. However, polls taken of university professors show a different story. Fully 31% of professors claim to be Atheist / Agnostic, and another 33% have doubts about the existence of God. (64%). The percentage of biology and psychology professors who are Atheist is even higher at 61%. (www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/gross/religions.pdf)

And the ratio of “secularists” in the media is also well above the nation as a whole.

Because of this imbalance, the systems of education and information dissemination are controlled by secularism.

The “Self” in the Media: “I’m Worth It”.
The culture today is dominated by video and televised visual effects. The advertising world has acclimated to these technologies, and has used them to create an atmosphere of “want”. Unnecessary products must produce a want that will result in sales. The culture of Want is personified by the slogan, “I’m worth it”. New wants must be generated when the old wants start to flag. Dissatisfaction with the previous acquisition must be created. Advertising is not just all pervasive, it is an all out war to create Want. The war glorifies the “self” in every way. Clothing ads promise coolness and sex. As do car ads, shampoo ads, etc. Drug ads promise cures and happiness for yourself, notwithstanding your doctor’s input. The “self” is pumped and prodded in every conceivable way.

The “Self” in the Profession: Elitism.
Aside from the excessive acquisition of modern individuals, the value of the individual is determined by values that revolve around personal excellence. An individual is supposedly paid for “performance”. A person higher in the political structure has more value than those on the low rungs. Personal value is generated by striving. And striving for the pinnacle of intellectualism generates the most personal value of all. So it is understandable that those individuals who have wrung the most from the institutions of education demand the most respect. Such individuals might be prone to aloofness and condescension when confronted with lesser individuals. Nonetheless, they are the icons of the elite self in our culture.

The “Self” in Secular Culture: Narcissism.
Personal value is also found in appearances. Both men and women flock to cosmetic surgeons. Fad diet books flood bookstores. The image of youth and prosperity still drive the economy, as cars and houses become more statements of personal value than transportation and abodes. The drive for thinness has spawned eating disorder epidemics. The “Me generation” has reproduced itself.

Secular Paganism.
Worship might be defined as “commitment to pursuit of that which gives meaning to life”. Or, “Extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem.” What might these objects of esteem be? Current cultural pressures present many objects for us to “esteem”. And they are rapidly replaced with more, newer objects.

But there are other things that give meaning to the secularist, including personal rights such as the right to do anything whatsoever without judgment or repercussions of any type. These new “rights” are considered inviolable and part of a “living Constitution” which is to be interpreted by the Secular Pagans themselves. And it is therefore very clear to the Secular Pagan that any attempt to curtail or even speak against such “rights” constitutes a “hate crime”, which deserves more punishment than an ordinary crime.

Secular Pagans are as devoted to their religion as any other religious people, perhaps more. The Secular Pagans are investing vast sums to try to produce a Pagan Nation, devoid of any absolute values, and restrictive laws.

The Secular Pagans are Atheists by default only. Their pursuits and beliefs are outside the world of religion. They are the true narcissists, pursuing what pleases themselves.

Secularism as a Movement

Definitions of Secularism:
1. Without religion; without spirituality
2. Freedom of / from religion
3. Believe only based on evidence, not “superstitions”

The vogue definition for “secular” is that which is separate from religion. However, Secularism as a movement is not quite so bland. The term “Secularism” was first used by George Jacob Holyoake, in England around 1846. He first described it as an “opinion”, then as an action:

"Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible — which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service" (Principles of Secularism, 17).

"Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:
1. The improvement of this life by material means.
2. That science is the available Providence of man.
3. That it is good to do good. "Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good" (English Secularism, 35).

Such a code of duty was, to say the least, imprecise, providing no evidence for accepting these as essential principles, and no evidence for determining that which might be thought to be “good”. Such loopholes notwithstanding, the Secularist movement has continued, and expanded into the realm of “humanism” (next chapter). The essential principles are founded on “considerations purely human”, and elevate the human to a level beyond theology (being inadequate). The Primacy of Self is clearly established.

In 1858, Charles Bradlaugh succeeded Holyoake as president of the National Secular Society in England. Bradlaugh was a voice against the Roman Catholic Church calling it a danger to “freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of action”. As with Voltaire, the egregious abuses in the ecclesiastical system were easy targets. However, Voltaire remained a theist; the secularists were self-supremacists.

Secular Humanism.
Humanist manifesto #1.
Declared officially as a religion, the original manifesto designated the capacity for human reasonability to be the guide for ethics, and rejected absolutist religious tenets. Thus the self is declared supreme as a religious tenet.

Secular Humanists in history: Hitler; Stalin; Mao; Pol Pot; Sadam Hussein. The grief produced by these tyrants - Hitler and Stalin - caused a rethinking of the manifesto, resulting in the Humanist Manifesto #2.

Humanist Manifesto #2.The second manifesto eliminated the reference to being a religion. It also removed the statist, fascist statements that had permeated the first Manifesto, and replaced them with more obscure statements. This was an admitted response to the disastrous humanist experiments of Russia and Germany in the first half of the 20th century. This was a transparent attempt at obscurantism.

Humanist Manifesto #3.
This statement of the Humanist position is even more general and obscure than the second Manifesto. However, the general underlying principles are not obviated by the lack of precision in stating them.

A Humanist Manifesto for the Honest Intellect

Whereas the previous three Humanist Manifestos became increasingly obscure and obtuse, with obeisance to the times in which they were written;

Whereas the previous three Humanist Manifestos became increasingly less intellectually honest in presenting a necessary and moral program for the Benefit For All Mankind;

Whereas the previous three Humanist Manifestos became increasingly less pointed and direct in dealing with the place of the individual human within the Whole Of Mankind;

A Fourth Humanist Manifesto Composed For the Benefit Of All Mankind is herewith presented, in order to clarify previous obscurities:

1. There is no God, nor deity of any description.

2. The physical universe is the totality of existence.

3. The physical universe is hung on a scaffold of space and time, and every instant of time finds a new universe with every particle and every field having changed from the previous instant; therefore there is no absolute constant in the universe, specifically no absolute Truth [1].

Man is a derivative of the physical universe. It follows that man’s faculties are also physical derivatives. Clarity of thought requires rejecting the ephemeral mental constructs such as self, consciousness, conscience, personal agency, all of which are illusions or delusions.

4. Conscience, especially, is a fleeting mental process of “seeming”, the same type of false construct as self, intentionality, etc; Seeming is not the same as being, it is a construct which exists only for the current instant and it is an illusion, not a physical reality. Therefore the derivative of conscience – morality – is also an illusion, not a physical reality.

There are, then, no morals other than those described herein, which are derived from rational objectives for the Benefit of Mankind, those being derived by the higher intellects of humanity: we Humanists. The Benefit of All Mankind is too important to leave to lesser intellects which are hampered by conscience and moral constructs that describe and prescribe only personal behaviors and personal responsibilities, while ignoring prescriptions for Mankind As A Whole.

5. Any rationalized morality must be first associated with objectives for All Mankind; only then can the moral paradigm be retrofit with actions necessary to accomplish the objectives. Any and all actions that produce positive progress toward objectives for All Mankind are tautologically moral; there are no other morals. It is thus immoral to ignore any action that could produce positive progress toward objectives for All Mankind.

6. Humans are derived from an ancestor lower than the chimpanzee; Most mental functioning of humans remains hunter-gatherer in nature. Few humans have the intellectual capability to realize the truth of Humanism. For this reason, Humanists are bound by the duty to manage the affairs of humanity as a whole, for the benefit of Mankind As A Whole.

7. It follows that every human must focus only on humanity as a whole. No human should focus on self, because self is not only an illusion, self-focus is a deviant behavior that neglects Mankind As A Whole, and is therefore amoral, if not immoral. Therefore all human institutions that focus on self, conscience, etc. must be abandoned or ceded to Humanist control, and then replaced with institutions that focus on Humanity As A Whole, starting with focusing on certain special demographic segments, including Humanists and their supporters (typically legal groupings of designated victims), which must be given higher priority than the whole.

8. The above objectives, being favorable to Mankind As A Whole, must be accomplished by the pragmatics of using any techniques which are functionally successful; not using any technique that might produce success is not moral.

9. The implementation of these techniques will produce a New Man, one that is focused no longer on selfish wants, one that is focused only on All Of Mankind, at the personal cost of self-sacrifice, even to the point of starvation and death, as this is the highest calling possible for individual human units. The New Man will evolve from the best of the best of humans: the Humanists. The New Man will very likely evolve away from the remaining mass of humans, and replace humans as the superior species on the planet. Humans should be prepared for this eventuality and gradually habituated to their new subordinate role. The resulting population of humans will likely need adjusting for balance and size, including the control of subpopulations, according to the needs of Mankind as a Whole.

10. We Atheist Humanists agree that it is our responsibility as public intellectuals and morally enlightened, elite, intelligentsia to oversee the accomplishment of these objectives for the Benefit Of All Mankind. We shall work diligently to collapse the current institutions using whatever techniques are available, including working from within to weaken the ability of the institutions to perform their stated functions, and in the ensuing cultural and economic chaos of institutional collapse we shall prevail with the creation of proper institutions for the control of all social and economic factors for the direct BENEFIT OF ALL MANKIND.

[1] For perfect clarity, this particular statement is, in fact, absolutely True, however.

Atheist Authors Lex Bayer and John Figdor Struggle With Logic

While this started as a review of an article at Salon, it has turned into a partial review of a partial bit of a book, and a bio. The book excerpt was at Salon, and the personal sketch was at MyTown, links below. The book is called, "Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart".
It is yet another attempt to repackage Atheism as a moral pursuit, but without principles. So they attempt to come up with some principles, and the initiation of that attempt is described below.

The new atheist commandments: Science, philosophy and principles to replace religion

The authors of this new book, titled,"Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century" (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, $32, 188 pages)" are challenging the Ten Commandments, claiming that their new commandments are better than God's. This is a bold statement, arrogant enough to consider what revelations in logic analysis these two authors might have for us.

"We begin by suggesting a framework of secular belief. It begins with the simple question, How can I justify any of my beliefs?

When thinking about why we believe in anything, we quickly realize that every belief is based on other preexisting beliefs. Consider, for example, the belief that brushing our teeth keeps them healthy. Why do we believe this? Because brushing helps removes plaque buildup that causes teeth to decay.

But why do we believe plaque causes decay? Because our dentists, teachers, and parents told us so. Why do we trust what our dentist says? Because other dentists and articles and books we’ve read confirmed it. Why do we believe those accounts? Because they presented many more pieces of information confirming the link between plaque, bacterial growth, and tooth decay. And why do we believe those pieces of information?

There seems to be no end."

At this point the authors reach the infinite regress issue. They have already demonstrated that their logic is outside of Aristotelian logic because no valid and true deductive argument is based on "preexisting beliefs". In order for a deductive argument to be valid, it must have a certain form; in order to be true it must be supported only by true premises, grounded in self-evident first principles. But on they go:

"...the process of justifying beliefs based on other beliefs never ends—unless at some point we manage to arrive at a belief that doesn’t rely on justification from any prior belief. That would be a foundational source of belief.

But this creates a paradox of its own: we can only justify a belief by basing it ultimately on source beliefs, and source beliefs by definition have no justifying beliefs. So the only way to justify a particular belief is to start with an unjustifiable belief.

It’s like getting down to the last turtle to find it resting on … nothing at all.

How maddening! Instead of clarifying how we can decide what to believe, we’ve instead proven that the only way to justify beliefs is to acknowledge that certain principles must be accepted without justification."

Logic for them apparently is too much to handle - no wonder it's maddening; failing to recognize actual universal axioms, they presume that justification extends beyond accessibility, or at least is not accessible to them. No, self-evident truth is not a paradox, and they have not "proven" that; it's merely a lack of education and comprehension on their part: either they do not recognize self-evidence, or they have not heard of the First Principles of Thought given to the world by Aristotle, taught in every Logic 101 class, and presented in every logic text. Let's go through their whole conundrum and try to analyze their logic by comparing it with Aristotelian, disciplined deductive process.

"One approach to this challenge is to treat the problem the same way mathematicians approach proofs: they determine a core set of assumptions and then prove theorems based on those assumptions. Instead of presuming source beliefs are beliefs based on faith, let’s instead regard them as the starting assumptions for a logical proof. We can put forth a set of core assumptions and then develop a broader system of belief based on those assumptions. If the resulting system fails to create a cohesive and comprehensive system of belief, then we can start over. The initial assumptions can then be reformulated until a set is found that does lead to a consistent, meaningful “theorem of life.”"

And so they go completely awry and off the rails into the abyss, merely because they have not studied actual logic and have taken upon themselves to develop their own system. Aristotle and 25 centuries of logic students must be spinning in their graves.

What they propose here is to create arguments on varying sets of subjective starting principles, rather than principles which are self-evidently correct axioms of existence and truth, i.e., the First Principles. If the argument's conclusion turns out wrong with this particular set of starting premises, then try another set of subjective starting principles, different from previous sets of principles. Repeat, until your selection of "basic principles" finally gets the answer you like. If you like the answer, then you like the premises you have selected to support your answer.

The process of selecting premises to support a conclusion is a logic failure called "rationalizing". It is entirely different from discerning the principles of geometry by starting with a rectangle of known characteristics, then cutting it diagonally corner to corner and thus by previously knowing the area of the rectangle, dividing by two, the equation for the triangle is developed because the equation for the rectangle is known. In geometry the answer can be known true even visually, before the equation is developed (Area of a triangle=1/2(LxW)).

But this is not the case for disciplined deduction. Deduction of the Aristotelian genre (still taught in Logic 101 classes today) requires that there be known, completely true, First Principle grounded premises in order for an argument to be declared true - and further, the argument must be of correct form in order to be valid; and the problem of incorrect form comes up for these two, below.

Next they put into play "logic principles" the first of which is not actually a principle of logic, starting with Ockham's Razor:

"Two other ideas may be useful in selecting a set of starting assumptions. The first is to favor simplicity. This is called Ockham’s razor, after the fourteenth-century philosopher and theologian William of Ockham."

Einstein blew this away as a necessary part of logic when he demolished Bohr's simplistic model with his proof of Brownian motion; Einstein observed that a thing "should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". Ockham's Razor failed, demonstrably and scientifically, and it is not an immutable principle of logic; it is merely a suggestion.

However, the authors strike paydirt with their version of Reduction Ad Absurdum, which they should have applied to the First Principles before making arguments with random sets of premises.

"A second tool for choosing basic source beliefs is to think about what it would mean to deny a particular source belief. In other words, if a particular belief were not true, would the resulting worldview make sense?"

But they charge ahead toward the cliff of Materialism.

"We propose that to develop a coherent framework of factual belief, we need to accept three core assumptions:

1. An external reality exists.
2. Our senses perceive this external reality.
3. Language and thought are tools for describing and understanding what our senses perceive.

Here they go clear over the cliff: There is an obvious set of external reality which our senses do not perceive and that includes much of quantum mechanical functioning which is a verified science, as well as the nature of consciousness and agency which we detect only via their consequences and not their causes. This failure is explained in their next list:

"The First Three Non-commandments...

"To rephrase the three core assumptions in light of the concepts we have just discussed, our starting assumptions are:

1. An external reality exists, and “truth” signifies an accurate description of that reality.
2. Our five senses are our only means for perceiving this reality.
3. Language and thought offer ways to analyze, communicate about, and contemplate the nature of the reality.

These core assumptions can be summed up as (1) a belief in existence, (2) an ability to perceive that existence, and (3) instruments for using those perceptions."

In "rephrasing" and especially then in their summary, the authors are changing meanings slightly. Initially they implied an external, physical reality; now they have changed over to an implication of "all existence", and further the implication that all existence can be perceived, physically. They have illegitimately smuggled in the necessity of Philosophical Materialism, merely by wording prestidigitation.

By eliminating any possibility of knowing anything about non-physical reality via logical deduction, they have artificially restricted all reality and knowledge to material "things" which physically exist, and can be perceived by our senses. This is a dishonest restriction, both because it is hidden in implication, and because it summarily dismisses other options without even recognizing their possibility of existing.

But they take upon themselves to declare Three Commandments, based on faux "bedrock beliefs", i.e. faux first principles:

"Because these three assumptions are the bedrock beliefs of all subsequent beliefs we will propose, they will serve as the first three non-commandments:

"I. The world is real, and our desire to understand the world is the basis for belief.
II. We can perceive the world only through our human senses.
III. We use rational thought and language as tools for understanding the world."

So what they have done is to declare slippery principles which they declare to be non-commandments, that are actually rationalized conclusions which they are using to justify whatever set of first principles they need in order to produce those conclusions. This is circular and blatantly so: the conclusions are used to justify the premises, and the premises are selected to justify the conclusions. And it is also the logic failure of Affirming the Consequent. Further, as we have shown above, their logic chain is not based on actual First Principles, rather it is designed to smuggle in an ideology, that of Philosophical Materialism. Nonetheless, for them it is necessary in order to justify their march toward justifying Atheism. Certainly that is the point of the book. Bayer and Figdor are logic chopping, seeking only to justify their foregone conclusion, not seeking to allow Aristotelian, grounded, deductive logic to dictate a rational conclusion to which they must be bound. And again that is the definition of rationalization, a logic fallacy.

The idea that this represents "science and philosophy" as replacement principles for religion is absurd, maximally, due to its completely false use of "logic" to rationalize their desired outcome. There is no "science" involved and if logic is a subset of their "philosophy", then their philosophy is logically absurd.

Let's do an actual Reductio Ad Absurdum (which they have not done); but first reality under their theory:

1. If material existence is all that exists, then thoughts, memories and consciousness must be material "things".
But:
2. When dead brains are removed and analyzed, there are no lumps of dead qualia, thoughts, dead memories, dead consciousness or dead intellect that are found; this leaves qualia, thoughts, memories, consciousness and intellect outside of physical existence, and under Philosophical Materialism, then, they don't exist. That's why Atheist philosophers concentrate on proving that they all are delusions.

3. When death occurs, life stops but there is no change in mass or energy in the system at that moment. Yet the system changes over from an open system to a closed system, and from negative entropy to positive entropy. Such systemic reversal at death requires a radical systemic change which is not physically detectable as changes in mass/energy. Possibly the losses are just brain states, but the brain is massively parallel and not clocked, so there are no discernable brain states. Under Materialism this is inexplicable.

Now if we take the contrary, i.e., allowing for the possibility of non-physical existence:

1. If more exists than just physical existence, then qualia thoughts, memories and consciousness might be non-physical. Thus they would not be found as physical lumps in a dead brain.

2. When dead brains are removed and analyzed, the absence of lumps of thoughts, memories, consciousness and intellect lumps is not contradictory.

3. When death occurs and life stops, the systemic changes which are not physically detectable as changes in mass/energy are not inconsistent with life being a non-physical attribute. Relying on non-existant brain states or other fabricated explanatory stories is not necessary.

It is the contrary to the authors' proposition which is reasonable, and the authors' Materialist proposition itself which is faulty. Materialism fails the Reductio logic test.

Presupposing the answer by smuggling the answer into the premises, is anti-rational. It is indicative of ideology-driven false "logic" procedures.

Presumably these two authors will continue with the rest of their hypotheses in Salon at some later date. Hopefully I will see that and will snag it as it floats by so it can be analyzed also.

... ...

But now I see that there is more on these two:

"Atheism's friendlier, humanist face"

"Bayer and Figdor want to emphasize atheism's "humanist" values. A humanist, they say, is someone who believes in the goodness of human beings and seeks rational ways to solve human problems.

Their book is set up as a series of steps that lead readers through the basics of using inductive reasoning and classic philosophical approaches. Bayer and Figdor also offer up their own version of the 10 commandments, which they call their "non-commandments." Their non-commandments, which include the belief that people can use rational thought as a tool for understanding the world, led both to conclude there is no life after death. "Some people might say 'I don't know' is a more appropriate answer, since I've never experienced death," Figdor says. "I've never encountered a mind without a brain. So if the brain dies, it's reasonable to assume the mind that lives in that brain dies with it."

They also reject the idea of an "objective morality" or an absolute moral truth. They argue instead for a "subjective morality," which guides people to understand their own thought processes so they can choose how to act in any given situation.

For those who fear this approach gives rise to a dangerous moral relativism, Bayer and Figdor say humans operate out of "enlightened self-interest," which teaches them they are more likely to be happy and get what they want if they cooperate. Humans also are biologically hard-wired to be empathetic and be interested in the happiness of others.

"I take pride in conducting my life in a moral manner and in my ability to derive happiness from the happiness of others," Bayer says. "I feel good when my friends think of me as a person of high morals and integrity."

The reason that Atheists use inductive reasoning is so that they can do the types of false arguments which are shown above. Creating a universal category of all-X to put observations into requires finding only items which are already in that category, such as Xn, Xn+1, etc. If it is a universal category, then no instance of a non-X can be found. But if a logic chopper encounters an unwanted and inconvenient Y which refutes the all-X proposition, then its existence is denied as a delusion, or the Y is claimed to actually be an X and we will know that some day. Thus finding objects which fit into Category X becomes a triviality, a banal pursuit devoid of meaning, because the process makes ALL objects fit into category X, with no proof that such is actually the case. I.e., X is universally the case with nothing existing which is not an Xn - because we have defined all objects that way for the convenience of the desired conclusion: intellectual fraud.

And again, that's why Atheists use induction and eschew deduction.

It is interesting to note the two non-coherent positions: "conducting my life in a moral manner" and "...argue instead for a 'subjective morality'..." Obviously if a person defines his own morality, then he will consider himself moral; the sliding scale of "...choos(ing) how to act in any given situation" makes one perfectly moral in "any given situation" - how could he go wrong? Resulting in a tautological position of perpetual "morality" regardless of what he does makes morality a completely useless word, in fact a mockery of something that conceptually means something else entirely. It is, in fact, the opposite of a moral system; it is a justification for whatever behavior one chooses to be called what it is not: moral.

I am moral because I decide what is moral.
I decide what is moral, therefore I am moral.

He cannot be immoral or amoral under his own system, so his claim to be moral cannot be falsified - under his own system. It is tautological, having defined himself as moral, regardless of his behaviors. But if judged by a different, absolute moral system, rather than his own sloppy self-referential definitional system, he would be beholden to something other than himself and his own variable moral principles. And that would not sit well with him because it would place constraints on him from which he is otherwise free. The whole point is this: No Constraints. It's how Atheists roll.

As for friendly humanism, re-read the three Humanist Manifestos, starting with the First Manifesto and comparing the latter manifestos with the first. Humanism was, and is, totalitarian, because humanists are the moral authorities who desire to place their moral principles (non-principles? hardly) on the rest of society, and all its institutions. Dawkins is a humanist; PZ is a humanist; Silverman is a humanist. Look carefully at every Atheist who wants to eradicate all religion and all absolutes and to Atheize government, schools, and all of society, and you will find a humanist behind the hate. And analyze for yourself whether humans, especially Atheists, are hardwired to be empathetic. Try to find the empathy which the American Atheists, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation, or the New Atheists, and especially the Humanist/Free Thinkers display, say during their "Reason Rallies" or conferences where women are afraid to attend.

The claims of these two authors are glaringly, painfully absurd.

Note: Excerpted from “Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart” by Lex Bayer and John Figdor. Copyright © Rowman & Littlefield.

ADDENDUM:
Found at reddit, a Q&A with Bayer and Figdor who both respond to this question:

When and how did you both become atheists?

Lex_Bayer [responds]
Hi. I started questioning my religion and God in high school. I went to a Jewish Day School in South Africa. In the book I relate the moment when I realized that I should start thinking more for myself. It was after performing the Jewish ritual of Kapparot. In college I took the time and energy to think about these things more deeply and from that point forward was comfortable letting people know that I am an atheist.

John_Figdor [responds]
I became an atheist, somewhat ironically, during confirmation class as I was becoming a member of the UCC church where I grew up. Reading the Bible cover to cover, and discussing it with other broadly secularly-minded Christians helped me understand that I didn’t get my beliefs and values from a 2,000 year old book.

It is very common for adolescents to reject everything which represents authority, especially authority to limit their behaviors. A very high percentage of Atheists from Bertrand Russell to Dawkins, etc. gained "freedom" in their pubescent periods, well before the maturation of their frontal cortex which does not occur in some until the age of 28. So that, plus their logic attempts to justify that, explains their rejection. And that is far more explanatory than their faulty logic.

Humanism: Everything For Everybody

Roy Speckhardt promotes his humanism at HuffPo:

”While religious movements generally depend on convincing their adherents that they are part of a divinely chosen in-group and all others are not, humanism is founded on the consensus that we are all human and that the notion of an out-group in and of itself is an obstacle to our advancement. Though religious people may strive to better the lives of all, their efforts are often limited by the existence of an unavoidable hurdle: all who don't follow their faith are part of the out-group. So no matter how much one faith may wish lower the wall that separates them from another, there will always be a tripping stone between them -- it is exactly this block that a humanistic approach helps us step over.

Overcoming barriers put in place by religion, ideology, geography, and the like, is frequently attainable. In fact, it is the sort of feat often repeated in history. In hunter-gatherer times, humans extended the circle of empathy to their family unit alone. Over generations, this circle has grown, from family, to tribe, to nation-state, and even further. The events in Norway are a reminder of the desperate need for humanity to continue evolving our ability to empathize until we view our world as inhabited by one people.”

Which Manifesto will this coming Humanist conference choose? Maybe a new one, one that will explain how human nature will magically be morphed into a compliant, altruistic one which voluntarily gives up considering its own needs and issues first? Because if they have a plan for that, I certainly am interested in hearing it.

The most recent manifestos, however, merely bleat on about how it would be so nice if folks would just co-operate and be more, you know, empathetic. If folks would just behave differently from how they have always behaved and start to behave how they have never behaved, wouldn’t the world be… humanist? As my friend says, if frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butts.

Humanism is based on the idea of the perfectibility of humans, where perfect is defined by, who else, the humanists. The understory is that humans can be without sin, and if all humans would just do that, then the earth would be inhabited by a race of gods. The humanists are the prophets and priests, of course. The belief in the perfectibility of humans is without any evidence to support it, and with thousands of years and billions of humans which disprove it; it is a belief held blindly, a fatuous religion with magical miracles and the longing for deity status.

The more well defined Humanisms do not eliminate “in groups” contrary to Speckhardt’s claim. Under Comte, humanism was to be run by brilliant scientist-philosophers as the combination priesthood and governing body over the masses. Under Nietzsche, the “herd” was to be formed into a single class under the ruling of those with the “will to power”. Under the “New Man” humanisms, from Lenin to Che, well, we know what happened there. The First “Humanist Manifesto” is explicit: institutions will be seized and morally reformed for equalization; the later manifestos become foggy quickly on the details, the plan. Humanism is attractive only to those who are history impaired.

To those who complain that “this new humanism is different from those others”, one need only to ask, “how are you going to cause this miraculous change in human nature to occur universally? What is your plan? Will it include Hell’s Angels and Chinese communists and Muslims (both Sunni and Shiite will become transformed into altruism for not only each other but for the Jews)? What about skinheads and politicians? Why do I doubt your ability to recruit Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists and Hindus? Why should I feel empathy for pedophiles? Your plan please!”

Perhaps the humanists will claim that we humans will evolve. To that we’ll ask, since when has evolution been declared directional, teleological, marching toward perfection with your preferred outcome in its sights? Why would humans as a group select to submerge their own needs in favor of others – biologically? What actual evidence (not Just So evo-devo stories like the fantasies in Speckhardt's statement above) can you present in your favor? It would truly take a miracle to get humans to randomly evolve away from their own self-interest. Or would this evolution be forced?

At best humanism is magical wishful thinking. At its worst, and we have seen it at its worst, it is deadly. Either humanists have entranced themselves with visions of their own perceived goodness, or they have not and are cynically involved for the inevitable takeover from within. Either way humanism is neither beneficial nor even benign. It is a social malignancy waiting to metastasize.

Mehta and Humanism

Over at Mehta's "Friendly Atheist" site, he has posted a reader's image without critique. I reproduce the image here:

This is a cartoon in the form of a chart. Let's take the items one at a time, Christian side first.

First, Christianity is based on the admonition to "question everything". There are a great many churches who invite non-believers to bring their concerns to the fore and discuss them. While there is some point where Atheism as a belief diverges from Christianity as a belief, there is plenty of dogma on the Atheist side to which a Christian would have to assent in order to convert from Christianity to Atheism.

For example, Philosophical Materialism and its offshoot, determinism, are requirements, and anyone presupposing dualism is rejected as an incompetent Atheist. Also: the immaculate conception of the universe, of the laws of physics, of mind, of consciousness, and of life on earth as well as the denial of agency and free will, are all necessary dogmas under Atheism.

Second, Christianity is divisive both when it is abused by Christians, and when Atheists become incensed at having moral consequences injected into their way. But under biblical Christianity, their is no abuse, except for the placement of moral consequences onto a libertinist populace. What Atheists see as abuse actually is the limitations of human actions, which they want none of. And rejection of limitations of human actions is precisely what produced the Atheist atrocities visited on very large portions of humanity by Atheist governments.

Third, Atheists are ignorant of the science which they promote as their own. There are no Atheist scientific "Facts", as touted in the chart; there are merely scientific contingent factoids, most of which are failing to produce any real knowledge at the moment due to being incomplete or flat out wrong. Atheists who make the claim in the chart are illiterate in both current science and extablished logic. Not to mention the philosophy of science.

Also, Atheists (who hate literalism) always take every sentence of the Bible literally. While there are a few Christians who do this, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for the theist to argue theism without fear of refutation.

Fourth, as discussed above, questioning and doubt are NOT disallowed by Christianity. To make this claim, the Atheists has to be either ignorant about that which he makes claims, or he is dishonest in making them.

Now let's discuss the Humanist side of the chart:

First, "socialized ethics" is not a morality, and not all humanists adhere to it. (First Humanist Manifesto). The idea of basing ethics in a social environment is merely situational ethics. And situational ethics is not ethical at all, and definitely not a set of moral principles. The idea that humanists subscribe to a set of common morals is false.

Second, humanists use a purely materialist belief in "reality", which they do not question, nor attempt to prove in any fashion. Nor do they question their Atheism, or their lack of real morals, or their personal elitism, or their concept of utopia made in their image, or anything of their own creation. In fact, the only questioning they do is of cartoon religion. They do not address actual theist claims, ever, because they cannot. Nor do they ever prove their own beliefs, because they cannot.

Third, the reason that Atheists and humanists are distrusted is NOT for using reason; they are distrusted because their morality is unknown and unknowable, being either situational, Leftist totalitarian, or personally congruent elitism (or all three or none). So this pitch is an attempt to claim victimhood from the high ground, which humanists do not actually occupy.

Just because humanists like to "think up" some morals that they want everyone to accept and adhere to, does not make the humanist a reasoning creature, much less rational. If anything, the New Man humanist is a wannabe dictator, who very likely wears a Che tee-shirt and demands economic equality for himself, to be taken out of the possessions of others and redistributed to him.

Humanism is a pretend space where intellectual miscreants gather to propose their victimhood to each other, and to fantasize their elitist, messiahist takeover of society while marching arm in arm toward their personal control of the global utopia in their religion-hate-fevered minds.

By publishing such falseness, Mehta demonstrates once again that he is not actually "friendly", but publishes false accusations and hate propaganda frequently.

Going Galt?

I am not a huge fan of Ayn Rand, and I find it impossible to read much fiction, especially huge mounds of it. So I find it very useful for the philosophy contained in Rand's novels to be summarized. There is now considerable talk about "going Galt", due to the disenfranchisement and economic punishment of the productive half of the nation. What this means is summarized on The Hill in a blog posting by U.S. Representative John Campbell, taken from the Washington Independent:

"Creative people (the “Atlases” of the title) are hounded and punished for their labor by an oppressive, socialistic state. In response, they retreat from society to a hidden enclave where they watch civilization’s slow collapse".

A reader of the blog, Jim Woods, clarified it further:

"Regarding the references to Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, Galt’s strike was not political but moral. Consider his oath, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” The productive joined Galt’s strike after they understood and rejected the morality of altruism; in striking, the producer denied that other men held a claim upon their life based upon the needs of others.

"Our past election continued the rhetorical Orgy of Sacrifice, which characterized the Bush Administration. Fundamentally, that election was a choice between a candidate that said that individuals should be immediately forced to sacrifice to others (Obama), and another that said that such force should only be used after individuals failed to volunteer themselves for sacrifice (McCain). As elections have consequences, it should be no surprise that our new President and Congress have accelerated the rate of compelled sacrifice as chosen by the electorate.

"During the election, then-Senator Obama made the moral choice clear when he ridiculed the virtue of selfishness, the title of Ayn Rand’s text on ethics. Now, individuals are choosing to act morally, to act in their own rational self-interest, and rejecting the moral code that claims that they should be sacrificed to the needs of others."

Obama and the Left have fully demonstrated their faux "morality" time and again. The most extreme statement possible came yesterday when Obama decried "ideology" and sanctified "science", ordered the NIH to draw up a "new ethic", making clear that his own ideology is relativist scientific socialism (same as Lenin's Scientific Socialism in the 1910's and 1920's; same as the National Socialists in Germany during the 1930', 1940's). The idea of outcome levelling, the denial of human value, and personal self-sacrifice to the needs of the majority are straight out of Comte's humanism, Nietzsche's Will to Power, and the First Humanist Manifesto.

The totalitarian results have already been recorded for the massive first round, with some 250,000,000 people murdered in its pursuit. The Obama round is up next, and if de Tocqueville is right, the complete subjection of mind and body will be accomplished with much less blood, possibly without so much as a squeal. The death of the mind and spirit will be just as complete. The death of morality has already been accomplished with the installation of Relativism in the government school systems.

To go Galt is hardly possible, one might suspect, if there is no enclave to accommodate an escape. Maybe the "Atlases" will just shut down in-place, as are many small businesses right now. The collapse under non-producers, well, chaos might well be expected, as the new Obama tent cities rise up when their expectations are not met, and money is no longer worth anything.

Or maybe the productives will rise up and throw the ideological Scientific Socialists out of power. I'll vote for that. This could happen if Obama's single issue race-voters stay home at the midterm election. It could happen.

Atheist Fundamentalism?

An Atheist Asserts “Religious Privilege” as a counter-attack. James Croft, a leader in training at the Ethical Society of St. Louis, writes about it at Chris Stedman's site, and we'll look at his claims.

It is not enough to merely be non-religious any more. You must declare your opposition to and offense taken by religious existence itself, not to mention your Victimization by religion. Religious existence is characterized by religious privilege, “privilege” being the new microagression which is visible only to those with highly specialized sensory apparati, those new privilege detector organs recently acquired by evolution in the Messiah Class.

Here Croft gives the defining situation:

“’I don’t believe in God,’ he said looking up from the menu. Was he challenging me because he knows I’m a Christian minister, I wondered?… Was he intentionally being aggressive?”

“Consider how intolerant this reaction is; how immediate, how judgmental. The mere words “I don’t believe in God” are a potential aggression. This is a reaction of someone with religious privilege, unused to having her assumptions about the world challenged. If your response to hearing someone say “I don’t believe in God” is to consider it an attack on your own beliefs, the problem is with you—not with any “fundamentalist atheism.” Imagine if I took every expression that someone is a Christian as a potential affront to me. How ridiculous would that seem? Yet atheists put up with this reaction all the time.”

It’s hard not to laugh in the face of this Atheist (and his apologist). The blurting of Atheism out of the blue, for no contextual reason borne of conversation, obviously was meant for other than information transfer. But what was it meant to accomplish? Any rational person would wonder. But not this Atheist, of course. For him, the incongruity of this out of place declaration bears no examination; in fact, the examination which it does produce in the Christian is decried as irrational. Only in the inverted logic of Atheism could this possibly be the case.

And contrary to what he claims, Atheists do indeed take any profession of faith as a personal attack on themselves; it produces the "gastric distress" claims used in court by the American Atheists. Faith belongs in the basement. Massive Atheist organizations exist specifically to drive religion out of their sight. They are cultural bullies.

The nouveau classist-chic privilege "microaggression" charge is similar to the charge that

“you’re too stupid to know how stupid you are, but I’m smart and I will tell you how stupid you are; believe me, you are stupid”.

In the case of the three-class Messiahs, microaggression is visible only to themselves, as is your perpetual guilt:

“you’re too biased by privilege and stupid to know how biased by privilege and stupid you are, but I am smart and unbiased by privilege, so I will tell you how biased by privilege and stupid you are”

– hence, microaggression, invisible except to Messiahs and their pet Victims.

However, the main thrust of the article is that Atheists cannot be fundamentalists because they have no principles at all, no fundamentals and no principles about which to be fundamental.

That is false, but just to this extent. Atheists are pretty much in agreement that religion of all types is wrong, evil, and that Atheists are put upon by the existence of religion. There undoubtedly are some who do not care about religion one way or another, but those people are not out making claims about how abused they are by religion all over the web. Everyone who goes onto the web as an Atheist is highly likely to adhere to the above fundamentals (and more, but that’s for a different time).

Free Thinking means thinking anarchically without constraints by religion. If hatred of religion did not exist, there would be no reason to claim Free Thinking. The same applies to the religion of Humanism, which started from the premise of religious hatred, and elitist desire to eradicate all religion by taking over all institutions (as always, read the Humanist Manifesto I).

But back to Croft and his claims regarding the persecution of Atheists:

That the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” is frequently a fig leaf for distaste of atheism in general is clear in the way the term is used by enormously powerful religious individuals to push their own agendas. The Archbishop of Wales, for instance, once decried “atheistic fundamentalism” for, among other things, wanting public hospitals to not assume all of their clients are Christian, and wanting public schools to respect the religious diversity of their students. To the archbishop, the desire of atheists to be equal is “atheist fundamentalism.”

This is false, at its core. What Atheists want is not “diversity respect” in any sense: they do not respect diversity. What they demand is pure Atheism in schools and hospitals, not tolerance of diversity.

This nefarious use of the term reveals the charge of “atheist fundamentalism” for what it sometimes is: A weapon to marginalize critique of religion and the religious, and to maintain a status quo in which religious viewpoints, practices, and communities are privileged over nonreligious ones.

And of course it is not “critique of religion” which is the issue. It is the Atheist raw attacks on religion by attempting to drive religion underground as they Athei-ize all of culture, education and government. Croft is deliberately misrepresenting Atheist actions as benign critiques, abstract discussions regarding religions and the religious: Atheist actions are anything but benign; their attacks are anything but mere "critiques", as Croft's use of the weaponized "privilege" demonstrates.

Croft is certainly correct in his claim that there are no binding moral principles to Atheism, if that is indeed his claim. That includes lying in defense of a false picture of Atheism, concealing that which Atheism becomes as it metastasizes into Leftist, totalitarian, elitist three-class Messiahism, and its attack on western civil culture in general.

It is this which one sees when one sees an Atheist, and for good reason. They are both Messiahs and Victims, and religion is the Oppressor Class.

Croft tries to calm the dialog with the following:

“I understand the desire of some religious people to hit back against what seems to them—and what sometimes really is—unreasonable and unfair criticism of their faith tradition. I understand too the desire of many atheists to improve the quality of discourse within our own community, so that we become more thoughtful, precise, and kind in our critiques of religion. But the term “atheist fundamentalism” is always inaccurate and often harmful. We should find clearer terms.”

Well, to be more specific, accurate and descriptive, I suggest the term “Atheist fundamentalism” be replaced with “Atheist Three-Class Messiahism”. That should clear up their position.

A Humanist Ruminates

This letter from a humanist contained this plaint:

"Imagine, if you can, a few hundred atheists getting together to build a town where no religions will be permitted. This is an extremely unlikely scenario. It would be much too sterile and insipid for us. Atheists are generally Humanists who are very interested in getting to know humans (hence the term Humanist), and understanding people, their religions and their culture.

Atheists tend to be totally non-self-aware. The history of Atheist governments is there for anyone to read (I know, history has been sanitized in the schools; that's no excuse). Humanism was actually a driver for the Atheist movements of the early 20th Century, which, for you who might not have gotten ancient history in school, was the beginning of the Atheist-Communist terrors which plunged Russia and China into blood. The Mao/Stalinists didn't find much in Atheism to guide them, but in the First Humanist Manifesto there was plenty.

The humanist moves on:

I find it curious that Delic and Alnuweiri are so passionate about allowing people to wear religious clothing, when they wear neither a hijab, a turban nor any religious items themselves. I wonder too, how they would feel if they visited a government office and were served by someone wearing a T-shirt with the Atheist Bus campaign message: “There’s probably no God — now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Would they feel uncomfortable?

Again, Atheists who declare themselves moral by their own authority and under their own theory of morality actually think that others should see them to be as moral as they themselves (which is the apogee of moral perfection, tautologically). The absurdity of that completely swishes past over their heads with no cognition whatsoever. At least with a hijab, a turban (which is probably not even a religious symbol), etc, one knows the worldview of the person they are in contact with. That is impossible with Atheists, who have only a rejectionist Void, or worse: an elitist humanist messiah complex as a worldview, with a relativist morality which suits the occasion as the Atheist sees fit.

However, I do think it would be a good idea for them to wear identifying T-shirts.

Atheist Morality on Display...

...for all the world to see. Putin has turned away from his superficially civil behaviors (except for Russian election political brutality), behaviors with which he fooled those gullibles in the west who ridiculed Mitt Romney for his prescient claims of Russian dangers two years ago. Putin has turned back toward the Will To Power which Nietzsche illuminated as the one consistent emergent characteristic of Atheism. It is now known that the Ukranian "rebels" are actually Russian military functionaries who are working to destabilize and reconquer the Ukraine for Russian re-acquisition.

The Atheist claim that they should be trusted is laid to rest as we observe what Atheists do when they acquire power. If you haven't been paying attention, what Atheists do is to apply tactics toward consequences, and any tactic which moves them toward a desirable goal is to be used. And it is to be used without qualm or reference to odious moral principles. This is called Consequentialism, and it is the default ethical principle of behavior for Atheists. Alinsky wrote Rules For Radicals as a call to Consequentialism. Without naming it, the Atheist conquistadors of the 20th century bloodbaths used it without compunction. Its essence is the pursuit of strategic objectives with no moral compunction regarding tactics.

The Left, everywhere in the world, is Consequentialist. And so is Islam. But for Islam, Consequential is instilled as a part of the Prophet's instruction: the global caliphate is to be installed, and the deaths of any who resist are guaranteed and necessary - especially Jews. This allows for all brutalization that happens in the pursuit of the objective. It is an institutionalized barbarianism. And that makes it the Hegelian antithesis of western civilization; it is the civilization of the west which is the thesis. But there is no synthesis for either Putin or for Islam; both cultures might pretend to accept a synthesis, but only until they have refreshed, rearmed and then see an opportunity.

Obama is that opportunity. The world is currently without the braking force of thesis normally provided by western civilization, because the third type of Consequentialist after communism and Islam is the western Leftist. Obama, the apogee western Leftist for the next 2 1/2 years, is content to focus on applying Cloward-Piven to the United States in his attempt to subvert all U.S. systems and bring on destruction of U.S. institutions for the takeover promised in the First Humanist Manifesto (the declaration of the New Man, installed by the elimination of all support for the Original Man).

And that is why impeaching Obama will not change anything. The next four or five or more successors would also have to be impeached, because they, also, are traitorous Consequentialists.

There is a long, hard haul ahead. It's called Hope and Change, as Obama is applying it.

Still More Atheist Commandments

Atheists keep coming up with alternatives to the Ten Commandments. None of them stick as actual Atheist moral principles, and this set shows why.

"Ten people collectively won the Rethink Prize, which was granted for their efforts in re-imagining the traditional Ten Commandments; they will share a collective $10,000 prize.

Below, see their new set of commandments:

1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9. There is no one right way to live.
10.Leave the world a better place than you found it.

These were chosen among 2,800 total submissions. What do you think of them? You can read the original Ten Commandments here."

Bayer and Figdor organized this contest around their book, “Atheist Mind, Human Heart,” which itself contained such things which we discussed elsewhere, some time back. So let's see how the contest winners' commandments hold up to logical scrutiny.

"1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence."

Atheists reject all but material evidence; so there is no evidence possible which will change their minds, because their minds are set on a logical fallacy: Category Error.

"2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true."

This places truth squarely into the probabilistic zone, where Atheists can use Baye's Theorem to manipulate "truth" according to their biases. They know that there is no truth except that which they make up. So they make "making it up" into a commandment. The non-specificity of this statement allows anything to be calculated as "probably" true, and certain Atheists do this all the time.

"3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world."

This is not a commandment at all, unless it commands Atheists to be Scientistic Materialists (and that is not clear from the assertion being made). Atheists are Scientistic by ideology, and their Scientism is stuck in Newtonian space. The idea of reality being nothing but probability fields all the way down is not useful to them in their Materialism, especially the part about the necessity of external conscious intervention to collapse the equation and produce anything resembling the special case of Newton's physics. Besides, this is not a commandment at all.

"4. Every person has the right to control over their body."

Also not a commandment, this is a phony "right", which will be interpreted to include only those who are "allowed" to be persons. It is an Atheist pass-time to create new definitions of personhood, depending upon the situation. This does not apply, of course, to anyone declared not-a-person by Atheists.

"5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life."

Another non-commandment; it is an assertion with no definition of "good". Good is what every Atheist defines it to be, for his own purpose, at the moment called "now". This could apply to Lenin or Mao or Pol Pot, or Castro quite well.

"6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them."

A weak attempt at a commandment, which fails to instruct as to what sort of consequences are Good and which are Bad, or even consequences for whom. That's because there is no Good/Bad judgment possible under the Atheist Void of moral emptiness. As Nietzsche demonstrated, there can be no good or evil under Atheism. So this "commandment" is without meaning, except possibly as a "don't get caught by the law" caveat.

"8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations."

And how should we consider them? As impediments to happiness requiring abortion? As Oppressors of our Victimhood Classes to be suppressed and removed? This bogus "commandment" also is without meaning, and is manipulable in every conceivable dimension.

"9. There is no one right way to live."

Now we are getting somewhere, even though this is not a commandment. This one is an assertion that ANYTHING GOES.

"10.Leave the world a better place than you found it."

Would the world be a better place without certain categories of people in it? Is that what we have here? Being non-specific as to what a "better place" would entail, leaves this commandment just as open to subjective interpretation as is possible. For the totalitarian AtheoLeft, a better world would be one where they, the elites, dominate and control the lives of the perpetual Victimhood herd, which is constantly being equalized and admonished to tolerate the dictates of the elites.
(As always, see the Humanist Manifesto I).

Let's summarize. Only a few of the "commandments" are actually commandments at all; the rest are assertions of one type or another. Those which actually are commandments are so non-specific as to cover any interpretation which might be put on them, thus allowing any type of behavior whatsoever.

Commandment number 9, (not actually a commandment) says it all: ANYTHING GOES in Atheist-land.

However, since Atheist thinking and behavior is not subject to logical scrutiny, at least not by Atheists, they are still without any restrictions and for them, ANYTHING GOES is the winning Atheist principle of moral conduct..