Comments for iHumanism http://www.ihumanism.org An Internet Based Humanist Community Thu, 15 May 2008 00:20:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 Comment on Atheism a trap for Humanism? by Vir Narain http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/08/atheism-a-trap-for-humanism.html#comment-203 Vir Narain Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:53:05 +0000 http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/08/atheism-a-trap-for-humanism.html#comment-203 My article, as reproduced, left out a crucial quote from Sir Hermann Bondi; perhaps that led to its being so widely misinterpreted. The point one tried to make was that Humanists, qua Humanists, need not get involved in a debate on the existence or non-existence of God - except that it is necessary to reject the concept of a rewarding-and-punishing God (a RAP God) since it is incompatible with Humanist values. I describe myself as an atheist, but do not prescribe it for others. Nor do I find it necessary to condemn those who have other views. Considering the sharpening debate about atheism it seems necessary to remind ourselves as humanists (it is perhaps different for those who are committed to atheism as such) of the advice given by Sir Hermann Bondi in 2002. He said: "I think in this country we are too impressed by the concept of God. Many religions, like Buddhism and Confucianism, don't have a God at all. On the other hand, Communism in its heyday had a 'sacred text' which were the writings of Marx and Lenin, and you justified an argument by referring to these writings. So it seems to me that the important thing is not the concept of God - indeed we cannot quarrel with an undefined God, for how can we disagree with a concept that is undefined. No, what makes a religion is a "revelation". And it is the belief in a revealed truth that is the source of religious problems - that the Koran is the word of God, or the Holy Bible is the judge of everything. So in arguments with Christians, when you come to the word God you have already lost the battle. You must stress the revelation, that's where the real disagreement lies, because if you are driven to a position where you have to deny the existence of an undefined quantity you are in a logical absurdity." As Bondi said, in the fight against dogmatic religions the right target to attack is revelation. And the point about 'logical absurdity' cannot be brushed aside. Vir Narain My article, as reproduced, left out a crucial quote from Sir Hermann Bondi; perhaps that led to its being so widely misinterpreted. The point one tried to make was that Humanists, qua Humanists, need not get involved in a debate on the existence or non-existence of God - except that it is necessary to reject the concept of a rewarding-and-punishing God (a RAP God) since it is incompatible with Humanist values. I describe myself as an atheist, but do not prescribe it for others. Nor do I find it necessary to condemn those who have other views.

Considering the sharpening debate about atheism it seems necessary to
remind ourselves as humanists (it is perhaps different for those who
are committed to atheism as such) of the advice given by Sir Hermann
Bondi in 2002. He said: “I think in this country we are too impressed
by the concept of God. Many religions, like Buddhism and Confucianism,
don’t have a God at all. On the other hand, Communism in its heyday
had a ’sacred text’ which were the writings of Marx and Lenin, and you
justified an argument by referring to these writings. So it seems to
me that the important thing is not the concept of God - indeed we
cannot quarrel with an undefined God, for how can we disagree with a
concept that is undefined. No, what makes a religion is a
“revelation”. And it is the belief in a revealed truth that is the
source of religious problems - that the Koran is the word of God, or
the Holy Bible is the judge of everything. So in arguments with
Christians, when you come to the word God you have already lost the
battle. You must stress the revelation, that’s where the real
disagreement lies, because if you are driven to a position where you
have to deny the existence of an undefined quantity you are in a
logical absurdity.”

As Bondi said, in the fight against dogmatic religions the right
target to attack is revelation. And the point about ‘logical
absurdity’ cannot be brushed aside.

Vir Narain

]]> Comment on Humanism should not be “religious” by Karan http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/09/humanism-should-not-be-religious.html#comment-189 Karan Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:44:24 +0000 http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/09/humanism-should-not-be-religious.html#comment-189 Your site looks great! I found your blog via Google while searching for gay spirituality and your post regarding looks very interesting to me. I have seen many other so-called sites and they have been far from good quality.Your site has all the key ingredients to pulling in visitors. Your site looks great! I found your blog via Google while searching for gay spirituality and your post regarding looks very interesting to me. I have seen many other so-called sites and they have been far from good quality.Your site has all the key ingredients to pulling in visitors.

]]> Comment on On Dogma and dogmatism by Doug http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/10/on-dogma-and-dogmatism.html#comment-186 Doug Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:44:24 +0000 http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/10/on-dogma-and-dogmatism.html#comment-186 It seems my site theme wasn't active. Thanks for point it out and it should be fixed. It seems my site theme wasn’t active. Thanks for point it out and it should be fixed.

]]> Comment on On Dogma and dogmatism by joe in oklahoma http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/10/on-dogma-and-dogmatism.html#comment-185 joe in oklahoma Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:22:34 +0000 http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/10/on-dogma-and-dogmatism.html#comment-185 grey on black is hardly my idea of accessibility grey on black is hardly my idea of accessibility

]]> Comment on Humanism should not be “religious” by Doug http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/09/humanism-should-not-be-religious.html#comment-184 Doug Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:57:47 +0000 http://www.ihumanism.org/2007/09/humanism-should-not-be-religious.html#comment-184 I like the word "flavors" rather than "sectarian" when describing the various differences in Humanism. A flavor is a different taste of the same good thing. Calling such differences "sectarian" not only makes the point I was talking about in my essay but also is a touch derogatory. It is okay for their to be some differences in Humanism. Unless and until we all agree 100% on everything then the different "flavors" are okay as long as one doesn't try to stomp on the others. I like the word “flavors” rather than “sectarian” when describing the various differences in Humanism. A flavor is a different taste of the same good thing.

Calling such differences “sectarian” not only makes the point I was talking about in my essay but also is a touch derogatory.

It is okay for their to be some differences in Humanism. Unless and until we all agree 100% on everything then the different “flavors” are okay as long as one doesn’t try to stomp on the others.

]]>