[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games No, but your assertion 'the term does not fit well with atheists' is senseless, because the term 'humanist' and 'atheist' are often treated as interchangeable. Don't make functionless statements if you don't want people to criticize you for them. I have never heard anyone on this forum insist words have an absolute or invariant meaning or sought to prove how, you are just determined to misunderstand their arguments that way. That's your vice, not theirs.

As I stated, its MY assertion. Your just commenting now on my view as incorrect.

And as for absolute meaning search for definitions threads by Zhavric, famous for accepting only one meaning behind a word, often in a use to trap theists.

Manifesto. Yes, I have read it. Have you read II and III, or the Secular Humanist Declaration?

The latest one, would that be 3? And what does reinstating the new and old ones accomplish. I don't agree with their ideal of the complete secularization of society.

I almost think it should be illegal for people to criticize views that are more sensible (aka, more consistent with the collective knowledge of the speices) than theirs. Almost. However, I am not going to argue aesthetics with you. Moreover, it is down to you to prove how modifying human biology to make us healthier, happier, and more intelligent is evil -- humanists have already provided their demonstrations for why it is not a bad thing, and in fact a good thing. And I expect substantial proofs that relate to tangible things, not mutterings that relate to nothing appreciable outside your mind. You know, as if were were having a real argument, one where a practical conclusion could be reached.

Substantial proofs eh? Back to the old evidence test. Let me guess we have to find evidence for God otherwise we have have no say.

Hows this: I and many others don't agree with modifying human DNA for the purpose of just ill gain. Just wait for that to be a readily available technology. No more maternity, just pick the options you want in a baby and have it grown in a tube. And before long if you don't like the result you'll be able to just toss it out.

Amazing how lack of evidence translates into absolute truths in your mind. Is there any consideration of the moral implications of modifying human DNA just for better children or does the humanist view simply claim that morals are only relative to upbringing. If we were all raise as logical little atheists then we would have no qualms.

Because attempting to eliminate religion worked so well in building a better society in the Soviet Union.

The particular group of humanists who filed for tax exemption had a church-style hierarchy and were affiliated with less obviously religious-in-style humanist organizations -- all groups are treated as religious on basis of this connection, even as under the public law they are not considered religions. There are many varieties of humanism, just are there are many varieties of religion, with diverse customs, but they tend to stick closer together than even different denominations of Christianity.

So why did they fill for tax exemption? So basically they are the religious followers of secular thinking. Thanks for helping to show how non theist is a belief system.