Now, lets move on.
Thom Quinn
Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> At 11:31 PM 3/31/98 -0600, Thom Quinn <swo@execpc.com> wrote:
> >I have met many Secular Humanists and not one of them was using it as a
> >euphemism! That proves it, I'm right, you're wrong! Actually, that would
> >be a silly way to go about it.
>
> My point was I never claimed to be speaking about secular humanism,
> but about secular humanists I met. Since I qualified my statements, only
> a sloppy reading would mischaraterize my assertion.
>
> >I was just pointing out that your comment
> >was not a fair way to characterize humanism.
>
> To reiterate:
>
> "I've also noticed that many people who call themselves "secular
> humanist" are really just using the term as a euphemism for
> "atheist.""
>
> I was observing how people I've met who call themselves secular humanists
> use the term. I qualified my statement in such a way that only someone
> with an axe to grind would have mistaken it. I took no stand on humanISM
> or secular humanISM. I was discussing secular humanISTS.
>
> >You should try some
> >scientific method which does not allow one to use such "personal" off
> >the cuff observations as evidence to support claims. Have you ever heard
> >of the science method?
>
> Problem is: I did not and do not claim my "off the cuff observations" are
> somehow the height of data collection. In fact, I made no claims that I
> could not support. Nor did I maintain that my experience is somehow
> priviliged or universalizeable.
>
> >Of course you have. Just as I can read. I was not
> >jumping on your back, why did you feel it necessary to stomp on mine?
>
> Because you misread me.
>
> >You just were making it sound like Secular Humanism was philosophically
> >a "weak straw man" which is identical to atheism.
>
> I made and make no claim about secular humanism as a philosophy. I
> was making claims about secular humanists -- not ideas but people. I've
> met a few and when we got to discussing our beliefs, it seemed to me
> that most had atheism as their only binding belief -- the thing they had in
> common, that they all could agree on. Some did share other things, such
> as a basically JudeoChristian ethical system.
>
> I'm not claiming that secular humanism implies this, though if secular
> humanism owes anything to humanism as it has come down through
> the centuries, then one might expect it to be JudeoChristian ethically
> and Leftist politically. This is because few movements have outright
> rejected JudeoChristian ethics -- even Marxists are animated by them
> -- and humanism is generally has always been more toward the Left
> end of the political spectrum.
>
> For the record, these are just my observations. I've not done nor do
> I claim to have done extensive research or randomly surveyed
> secular humanists. The thing to do here, if anyone cares, would be
> to do a survey of alleged secular humanists and examine the
> major and influential works of secular humanism.
>
> >This would not be a be
> >a far criticism. It is like then people characterize transhumanism as
> >science fiction that is confused about reality.
>
> Again, my claim was about secular humanISTS NOT secular humanISM.
> I think I have a little understanding of transhumanISM, but it would not be
> wrong to examine and post observations about transhumanISTS, as long
> as others and me did not confuse the two. Do you see the difference?
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel Ust