What is it with Christian shallowness? An invitation to discuss

That its eventual effect is like a parasite that kills its host, without a new host available.

We all need more humanism. Especially humanists.

Hear, hear!

So? What does that prove?

Indicate to me, you aren’t paying much attention.

Wouldn’t that be sweet. On a business as usual planet - unfortunately, it ain’t been business as usual for a long time.
This is an excellent example of why I keep saying a realist understanding and appreciation for Earth’s evolution and the reality that it created us is so critical.
You don’t want to be informed, so you can continue believing humans have centuries on this planet, no matter what’s unfolding in real time.
Really sad.

Did you really say that? Do you even understand what" evolution" is about and what it means

No excuse for being chest thumping bullies that destroy their own homes along with everyone else’s.
There’s a balance, and obvious we blew it, adulation of Ego won, and the price is witnessing our global biosphere and climate transforming into something you can’t even imagine. But, it’s coming sure as a train down a track.

Some will survive, but when the water runs out, and crops get decimated, nature does what nature does no matter how hideous. Sure select locations, select groups will get through those first waves, pick up and deal with their brave new world. Same as we always have.
Oh but what idiots we were for being so blind and blowing it so bad.
Martin enjoy your cocoon while you can.

I written about that myself, I agree on that people need religion, when all else is gone it makes society possible.
But, still the important key is realizing that those
religions come from within us, and NOT from somewhere on high and out there.

After that our words devolved into incoherence, I lost track, so can’t respond.

What does that even mean? People need religion when all else is gone?

Are you saying that people need something (anything) to believe in or the race will go extinct? How about believing in clean air so that we can breathe and stay alive?

(a) ? itself. Religions are the longest, biggest artefacts. The longest, biggest living things on Earth. Noteworthy. Worthy of study scientifically, disinterestedly as memes.

(b) You’re therefore missing something.

(c) What can possibly limit the future of humanity to decades rather than centuries? Tens, hundreds of millennia. The lack of realism is entirely yours.

(d) as (b) As you are here. Why wouldn’t I want to say what is an historical fact?

(e) Your imagination is certainly more… fertile. We JUST this last 15 minutes took delivery of our Cocoon! How did you know?!

(f) The important thing for whom?

I don’t usually say this, because it’s not polite, and it’s hard to put in context. Yes, we need something, some “Leviathan”. Plato laid this out with his “three metals”, and then said, “now, never speak of it again”, because his system only worked with the myth, if only a few elite people knew it was constructed.

I agree, it would be great if the prevailing worldview was science-based, and everyone learned early in life that they’re part of a fragile ecosystem, but I think the last 3,000 years proves that is difficult. I’m writing a science fiction book, where we meet a planet of people who evolved from the same bacteria as us, but they never a religious order in charge of empires, where they valued education from early in their civilizations. As one friend said, “yeah, that’s definitely fiction”.

@citizenschallengev4 , as best as I can interpret, and MPC needs interpretation most times, he’s saying the roots of our humanism go back to our pre-sapien days, to our instincts to nurture our young and whatever it was that led us to be a social species.

Humanism has a long historical pedigree prior to Darwin.

Basically, humanism is the idea that all men share some common characteristics.

It funds the idea of equality with all consequences.

Christianism is an humanism, in the sense that it postulates that all humans are equal in front of god, but it does not necessary implies that they are equal in rights in the world of man.

Communism is also an humanism, Nazism and racism are not.

I was covering my butt, 'cause I started thinking of all the frills of society that have most people incapable of thinking beyond their personal consumer needs. I don’t see much real wonder at the world or the self going on, so religion is getting irrelevant.

All that comes to my mind is that scene in Spirited Away where the boys raid the banquet and turn into pigs, er donkey’s - a most profound scene. A trippy movie, er cartoon.

I’d have never thought of it that way, but perhaps you have a point.
I was thinking more from the bottom up again, as in organizing communities and civilizations.

How about Earth Centrism and appreciating the physical reality of this Earth and the Evolution that created us. :slight_smile:

(7.01) An Alternative Philosophical Perspective - “ Earth Centrism

(7.02) Appreciating the Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide

(7.03) Being an element in Earth’s Pageant of Evolution

(7.04) It’s not a “ Body-Mind problem ” it’s an “ Ego-God problem .”

I even went through them yesterday and did a fair amount of editing, so dare say its a lil bit more polished. :wink:

1 Like

I see MPC clarified with “prior to Darwinism”. That’s true.

I’m not sure how they labeled themselves, but “humanist” authors were Christians in the 13th century, like Erasmus. He claimed he was restoring the teachings of Christ, which had been corrupted by Roman emperors starting in the 4th century. There’s so much to that history, including how, if you wanted to get published, it helped to say you were Christian.

1 Like

A slight linguistic side trip.

–ism is a suffix added to the end of a word to indicate that the word represents a specific practice, system, or philosophy.

Darwinism isn’t a Humanist science. It is the science of biological Evolution via Natural Selection.

Correct x 2. And humanism isn’t a Darwinist philosophy.

Aannnddddd the point is . . .

Having the last word in an infinite Socratic dialogue.

But of course Anaximander combines the two implicitly in rationalism at the time of the neo-Babylonians, who, apparently, informed him from their yet more ancient roots.