Response to a video.

First before I start I’d like to inform you that this is a response to Fakesagan’s video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcVev_RKW6E&watch_response  )to Paul’s ego video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H8c8R70UjI&feature=channel_page ) and he is basically supporting the idea that Secular Humanism is a cult who can turn to be dangerous( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism ). Also before I go on I’d like to say that I wouldn’t call myself a secular humanist. I would call me a free thinking human that comes to various conclusions through thinking process (just like everyone else around here), but I guess if you’d like to label me you would call me an atheist. As for my beliefs I would say that I do agree with most if not all of the things that Secular Humanism supports but i wouldn’t go as far as to include me in their group. I would like to apologise but I don’t do video’s although it was suggested to me by a couple of people because I do not like the video recording process etc and English isn’t my first language and although I do have fluency I wouldn’t go as far as having to pick between greek/english words to get across what I have to say.

Cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult)  typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. The word “cult”, which has at least eight meanings, has been a source of confusion.

Secular Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism ) is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason ethics and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism isa life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.

Secular Humanism is a philosophy it is not a cult. It does appear to be a cult  though when you see all the different groups and societies that have merged from it and as such I do get your reasoning on why it would appear to be a cult. But in the same way you wouldn’t go as far as to call Atheist’s a cult because they share the same philosophy that there is no god as the word suggests. In reality just like you explained it’s a philosophy just like Nitzche’s philosophy for life and just like any other philosophy. I would go as far as to extend it to the moral teaching of Jesus in that respect without all of the religious nonesense.

You say it’s dangerous because it’s utopian. The philosophy behind the idea of making the world a better place is always utopian and anything that promises just that should be avoided. I would like to say that I disagree with the whole idea of utopian principles. You brought up Marxism/Communism as an example of utopian system that came to be one of the most evil systems ever. I would like to point out that the system that was adopted in Russia was not the utopian system that Karl Marx suggested it was something entirely different. It was Bolshevik’s version of communism and it was edited to fit the situation and the gap that was left by lack of monarchy. Any system especially a political system must slowly be changed, at least in the consciousness of the people and this system hasn’t basically because the people were uneducated and the educated people were profiting by the monarchical system of the Tsar. Now Bolsheviks did just that and established a monarchy on communist principles. On the other hand I would like to point out that the current system of democracy that exists in the world is not a system where the views of the people is heard. In Ancient Greece all of the men (because women didn’t vote) had to vote on any issue and on any decision taken. Now people vote for other people that then take the decisions for them. Therefore the decisions taken are down to the voting of those people whose individual opinion might be lost through internal voting that occurs in the party as each party would support only one united view. Thus individuality is overall lost and the laws voted into place are in great deal against public opinion. It is however Utopian to think that for each decision public vote should be the one to decide because people don’t have the time nor care to do that. On the other hand it’s the right way to happen. Having this in mind I would like to explain why Secular Humanism is not a utopia. Because it tells you to look at the evidence and decide according to that. It doesn’t say anything else.

It is not wrong to hope for a better life and to seek for ways to improve the current living conditions and the world around you. It is not wrong to hope. Utopian systems fail only when they get abused and for that we have no-one else to blame but ourselves for allowing it to happen and for not being intelligent enough to stop it. And again Secular Humanism supports free thinking and free will which you support as well and so does Karl Marx but weirdly enough was not included in the interior policy of the Bolshevik party.

Secular humanism as you say promotes science and you say that in turn makes it hate all religious people. I do not understand the link between loving science and hating religious people. I do understand loving science and in turn thinking that religious belief are stupid – that I can see happening but the hate I don’t. It’s just like ideas, you wouldn’t kill someone for being stupid, you might explain to him/her why they are being stupid but you would never kill him for being stupid or acting stupid unless of course his stupidity is hurting you and by hurting I talk about physical damage and not sentimental/emotional damage. Because as we said Secular Humanism supports evidence  and nothing else and from what I understand your philosophy for life agrees with that.

I know it appears as though I am supporting Humanism and disqualifying your ideas but I am simply offering my point of view. I also agree that idea burying is one of the stupidest things ever, so is censorship. If something needs to be said it should be said. If we fear people are so easily malleable maybe we should improve the education system rather than avoid exposing the stupid and in turn go against the human rights and the democratic beliefs that we hold so dear.

I would like to continue with your examples of Authoritarian humanists as an example on how beliefs can turn to hate and maybe dangerous.  As I said managing to understand that using evidence to decide on things is not a hard concept to conceive and also the absence of god isn’t either. As you said ideas can be dangerous yes, and ideas can also be edited and changed to fit the beliefs that other people have. Yes it is easy to do that, but on the other hand it is up to us to spot the stupid. It is up to us to understand what’s going wrong in this world. It is up to us to disqualify the ridiculously stupid beliefs.

People are generally stupid and most of the stupid ideas will appeal to them. To give you an example, if you look at the people you hang out with you will see that their processing speed and ability to communicate are close to yours. So it’s easy to see that people with limited thinking ability will follow stupid ideas because they can conceive and understand them. It’s something that we have to live with. On the other hand though I wouldn’t consider Secular Humanism a dangerous cult like you do. I would much rather see it as an idea just like a boat of ideas that can never be seen to be right or wrong until it gets tried out and put to practise.

I hope I didn’t go too far off topic because this is something I do all the time.

Thanks  :)