Is the republic the best form of government?

[lausten]

@thatoneguy

Humanism is universal? That would be news to most of the world. Humanism exists in a few Western countries at most.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

So most of the world is not progressive? 8% are Buddhist, which is not supernatural. There are Hindus, Jews, and others that are only culturally, not believers. That goes for Christians and Muslims too, but no need to debate that now. Not to mention a billion unaffiliated.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

Look at who is at CERN, people from all over the world who have embraced science. You can’t have buildings and cars without embracing these concepts.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change

Other than the word “evolution”, this has been embraced by humans since we started gathering in tribes. Humans started making little figurines 80K ago, but we were a species for 120K before that.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience

Even dictators have to acknowledge this. Religions simply co-opt, like claiming God gave us the commandments, instead of a man writing them. That is a mere 6K ago. Humanism is the basis of societies. The recent manifestos are an attempt to point out our commonality.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

If by “the West” you mean a western version of Eastern philosophy that we’ve co-opted. Sure.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

Science is demonstrating this and how it occured, but it’s been known forever.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

I think pretty much every dad everywhere tells their kid this.

[lausten]

@coffee

Not so much lobbied as usurped. By “preaching” from the pulpit and telling their flock who to vote for, millions of people believe Trump is sent by god. The religious right spent years putting their puppet politicians and judges into power. It’s as if at least half of our species is incapable of critical thinking. And if that remains the case, then democracy is eventually doomed.

Okay, finally had some time to peruse the Pew study. My big beef is that the “5% of people say God choose Trump” gets translated into the whole Republican party. A word like “millions” is a slippery term. You are technically correct here, but it could be heard very differently, translated into 10s of millions. The “3% of people say God choose Obama” gets pretty much ignored. It has something to do with how loud the Trumpers are, but, different discussion. To me, that sounds about right for how the country has been for a while, and we were keeping that population from destroying the world before.

The puppet thing, absolutely. I’ve posted about that before.

Now, half the species is incapable of critical thinking. Hmm. If I had been more serious about sociology, that would have been my life’s work. Read some Jonathan Haidt. He did a street survey with some questions that could have been answered nicely, or with some disgust. When the surveyor sprayed something that smelled like a fart into a nearby trash can, more people answered with disgust. Also, lookup “priming”. With a few words, placed strategically, you can change what people say they are thinking. So that’s one end of it, that we are all susceptible to being uncritical.

Figuring out who is unable to think straight, even under the best of circumstances, that’s a bigger challenge. But I don’t think we maintain democracy by finding those who can’t be critical and taking away their voice, or by trying to fix their brains. We maintain democracy by learning to listen in a way that finds the critical thinking that we don’t immediately see, and learning to speak in a way that doesn’t trigger the priming they have been given.

[citizenschallengev4]

@lausten

The Spanish were small groups of soldiers, operating in a harsh jungle environment, but they still won with superior fire power.

It was a bit more complicated than that:

What Were the Most Important Factors in Explaining the Spanish Victory Over the Aztecs & Incas? | Education - Seattle PI

Alliances and Experience

The invading Spanish forces also took advantage of internal divisions within the Aztec and Inca empires. As Cortés began his march into the interior of Mexico, he first battled many local Indians. However, these people would become his allies after learning of his plans to conquer the Aztecs who ruled them. Written accounts by Cortés and his men on how they achieved victory were then published in Europe. A dozen years later, these experiences provided both inspiration and instruction to Pizarro in his conquest of the Incas.

Deadly Disease

The invading forces’ biggest advantage came from something microscopic in size: European diseases they introduced to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. It is estimated that up to 90 percent of the native population died from smallpox, measles and similar illnesses within the first decades after contact. This dramatic decline in the native population played a large part in giving the Spanish invaders, who had developed immunity through generations of exposure, a complete victory.

Superior horses & weapons

The Spanish conquest of the Incas

[thatoneguy]

@lozenge

@thatoneguy

Humanism is universal? That would be news to most of the world. Humanism exists in a few Western countries at most.

It is universal because those values can be shared by any people accross the globe, irrespective of their ethnicity.

@lausten

So most of the world is not progressive? 8% are Buddhist, which is not supernatural. There are Hindus, Jews, and others that are only culturally, not believers. That goes for Christians and Muslims too, but no need to debate that now. Not to mention a billion unaffiliated.

Frankly, Secular Humanism is a watered-down version of liberal Christianity with god taken out. It’s a unique thing designed by and for White liberals.

What you both call Humanist values are just vague ideas, e.g. be nice to others, live life to the fullest, that religions have covered much better for thousands of years. Other people around the world don’t need Humanism because they have their own versions.

[thatoneguy]

@lausten

@thatoneguy

Yes, groups like Incas and Aztecs were more sophisticated than any indigenous groups here

Somehow I had a feeling you’d put that spin on it. First, The Incas were taken down in the 16th century and NA Indians were still signing treaties in the 19th. The Spanish were small groups of soldiers, operating in a harsh jungle environment, but they still won with superior fire power. The US was colonized and a standing army was established that kept building forts as it moved west. NA Indians very quickly adapted to fighting on horseback, making battles more difficult. In both cases, disease played a role, something that wasn’t understood when Europeans first got here.

The difference I pointed out was the cities that SA natives built. Nomadic life isn’t more or less sophisticated, it was just suitable to the wide-open plains and a climate that wasn’t near the equator. I wouldn’t call sacrificing children sophisticated either.

CitizensChallenge responded before me about Spanish tactics, so I’ll let that go. However, it has to be said that the Aztecs and Incas were definitely more sophisticated than tribes living in the US. They had a much higher level of cultural accomplishment.

[lausten]

@thatoneguy

Other people around the world don’t need Humanism because they have their own versions.

The manisfesto states that it is based on universal values. Christianity took those values and put their label on it. Humanism says that already existed, so the supernatural part is not needed. We are agreeing here. You are just wording it in a way to try to diminish it.

[citizenschallengev4]

@lausten

In both cases, disease played a role, something that wasn’t understood when Europeans first got here.

Oh but they learned in a hurry

1763–64: Britain wages biological warfare with smallpox

Investigating the Smallpox Blanket Controversy | ASM.org

[thatoneguy]

@lausten

@thatoneguy

Other people around the world don’t need Humanism because they have their own versions.

The manisfesto states that it is based on universal values. Christianity took those values and put their label on it. Humanism says that already existed, so the supernatural part is not needed. We are agreeing here. You are just wording it in a way to try to diminish it.

The supernatural part is needed by most humans. And the universal values are too vague to build on. Any way we look at it, Humanism is a replacement religion for ex-christians.

[lausten]

@thatoneguy

The supernatural part is needed by most humans.

A similar idea is expressed by Bart Campolo. Not need, but he says if we wiped all religions from human memory, the next day, new ones would be invented. Although I know there isn’t, I still feel the sense of something beyond all possible explanation. I call it curiosity, or wonder, or imagination. I don’t need to worship it or make up names for it.

[mriana]

@lausten

I call it curiosity, or wonder, or imagination. I don’t need to worship it or make up names for it.

I call it either a numinous feeling or, if nature triggered the feelings, then Mother Nature/Earth.

[lozenge]

@thatoneguy

Humanism is a replacement religion for ex-christians.

This would mean that humanism and Christianity are exactly the same, they have exactly the same components, and even values. But this is not the case.

So stating “Humanism is a replacement religion for ex-christians.” is just a covert way, an opportunistic argument, to advance religions.

[citizenschallengev4]

@lausten

@thatoneguy

The supernatural part is needed by most humans.

A similar idea is expressed by Bart Campolo. Not need, but he says if we wiped all religions from human memory, the next day, new ones would be invented. Although I know there isn’t, I still feel the sense of something beyond all possible explanation. I call it curiosity, or wonder, or imagination, (or mystery). I don’t need to worship it or make up names for it.

Agreed.
&
Agreed.

Although our ideas, always seem to demand names.
I find myself using “universe” occasionally, it feels comfortable.

I think more important than any name, is realizing that those “Gods” & thoughts & the names we give them, all come from within ourselves and don’t reflect Physical Reality’s opinion.

Heck, I still haven’t found an adoptable alternative for, “Good Lord Willing.” “Good Randomness Willing” just don’t cut it. I’ve just learned to say it silently.

@thatoneguy

Humanism is a replacement religion for ex-christians.

Christians believe in the virgin birth, heaven or hell after death, supporting a system for achieving an after life – AFTER LIFE, like after your magnificent wonder of a body/brain turn to dust. Believing a divine being is personally concerned with my/our welfare. Demand to pray and worship idols.

Humanism contains none of that.
Humanism is about accepting our biological nature, we are individual beings, a social species of animal creature, we have our mind to work with and that’s all.

[thatoneguy]

It doesn’t have to be exactly the same. It just has to be in the same cultural zone.

[thatoneguy]

@lozenge

@thatoneguy

Humanism is a replacement religion for ex-christians.

This would mean that humanism and Christianity are exactly the same, they have exactly the same components, and even values. But this is not the case.

So stating “Humanism is a replacement religion for ex-christians.” is just a covert way, an opportunistic argument, to advance religions.

It simply means that one thing to believe in is replaced by something else to believe in that is culturally similar.

[mriana]

@thatoneguy

Humanism is a replacement religion for ex-christians.

Humanism is not a religion.

@thatoneguy

It simply means that one thing to believe in is replaced by something else to believe in that is culturally similar.

I’m sorry, but does Xianity believe in science? I don’t think so. Humanism is a philosophy based on reason and compassion, as well as science, but it’s not a religion.

[zedenko77]

@coffee

A free-market economy must have regulations. It does not self regulate externalities.

That is absurd. Free market ceases to exit when the govt needs to regulate

[morgankane01]

It is a balance.

Pure free market is hell, but regulations must be limited to what is strictly necessary.

[lausten]

@zedenko77

That is absurd. Free market ceases to exist when the govt needs to regulate

Argumentum Absurdity establishes an extreme opposite that shows the absurdity. An ultimate free market is illegal drug dealing. They establish their own rules, set prices, have no inspection of their product.

The value of the argumentum is we can build up from the absurd to where the line should be for markets.

[coffee]

@zedenko77

That is absurd. Free market ceases to exit when the govt needs to regulate

It’s fine to disagree. I don’t know where you live or your experience. If the collapse of 2007-2008 doesn’t convince a person that financial regulations are necessary to counter the unchecked greed of banking systems then I sure can’t.

[zedenko77]

Free markets dont need this but capitalism does. Let the corrupt and rigged economic system die