Essay on humanism is the best religion

Since religion and theology often are sheltered against ordinary scientific and critical studies, and have become a field of knowledge for higly respected bishops, priests and gurus, most political scientists — as well as journalists and writers — will either stay away from this area or handle it with superficial awe. The editor of the Indian journal The Secularist, V. Sinha, wrote a year ago an important editorial on terrorism. He clearly puts the responsibility for the growing international terrorism on the religions — as he at the same time asks the Humanists: What can Humanism offer and what can Humanists do in this crisis for our civilisation?

Be it Islam or Hinduism, Christianity or Buddhism, terrorists receive sustenance, encouragement and promises from the fundamentalists spawnwed by these religions.

Terrorism, Religion and Humanism - Humanists International

The pious and the moderates may bemoan the perverse abuse of their religions, but the hard truth is that each of these major religions has given birth to groups which have little regard for for human life and dignity, little compunction in destroying innocents — all in the name of religion. The challenge to the world Humanist movement in this threatening situation, is just as important as clarifying the roots of the evil. What can we Humanists do?

I. Definition

We need to affirm the primacy of Reason as an instrument of evaluatiing all beliefs and practices. These recommendations from the editor of the Indian journals The Secularist, are exactly the programme of the International Humanist and Ethical Union.

Terrorism, Religion and Humanism

I cannot see another way out of the scaring realities that are facing us. There does not exist one single religion that is not burdened and endangered by its own violent and intolerant tradition, even if individual believers have an impressive will and ability to select the good parts of their doctrines and often stand for a lifestance of the the most honourable values. And I must admit that they often seem to be more serious and even firmer in their positions than their less fundamentalist brothers and sisters in the same church, temple or mosque.

What Was Humanism? AP Euro Bit by Bit #2

As humanists we hope the humane forces in the religions will win, but we doubt that it will happen soon enough to avoid new apocalyptic catastrophies. We cannot see any other way out of darkness than a global revival of the basic humanist ideas, as qouted from Mr. Sinha and laid down in the various humanist declarations — all draftet and redraftet in our own time for our own time. The last declaration of this kind was launched last summer in the Netherlands, called the Amsterdam declaration, not given to us engraved in stone — but written on paper only, hopefully to be rewritten in not too many years.

Humanism and the Renaissance Arts

Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere. Stand up for humanism and human rights as an official part of our global movement.

Be a part of the humanist movement — as an individual or an organization.

Advocating progressive values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers

The democratic, defining statement of world humanism, from Humanists International. Our answers to your frequently asked questions about the humanist worldview. Are you a humanist? And so on. I prefer to be honest about it tho ; —. Children are not products: the goal in raising them is not to have them pass quality assurance standards. Gays would be howling with rage and rightly so if we based arguments about their rights on whether letting them marry makes them more productive at work.

What is the evidence that there are no significant differences between male parents and female ones?

What is the evidence that there is no difference between the experience of a same-sex parent-child relationship and a relationship between an opposite-sex parent and child? Why do we need to promote this narrative about how parenting is a gender-neutral activity? The authors found the strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appeared to the same degree in families with two mothers and potentially in those with two fathers. The meta-analysis found no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fared worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples on a range of outcomes including:.

I was raised without a mother. I am fortunate in that I was allowed to grieve this loss openly, but I still felt pressured to minimize the actual consequences of this loss. To be without one of your parents is a loss. Further up you seem to say it makes no difference. One of them would be a female, and one would be a male. Adoption — being raised by non-biologically related people — is also a loss, and that too should not be deliberately inflicted. But if these situations do arise, the child should have the right to have those losses recognized.

He or she should have the right to grieve, and the parents should support that. By the way, do they have an explanation for why all the evidence that males and females parent differently and interact with their kids differently is not showing up in studies involving gay families? They do, actually.

The only exception was abusive and neglectful parenting. Basically, for long-term child development, all styles of parenting are equally good; as long as they are not abusive or neglectful. Subsequent research has generally supported Harris. There have been no studies that have really refuted her, although a few indicate she may have slightly overstated her case on one or two points. TL:DR, Parenting is overrated.

Gay rights is built on the idea that human experiences are valuable. We will use the kids themselves as evidence that they can survive being without a mom just fine.

The God Argument: the Case Against Religion and For Humanism by AC Grayling – review

So yeah that sounds incredibly dysfunctional to me. This is not something that anyone who forms opinions based on evidence and logic ought to be able to support: this is pure emotion and peer pressure logic here. That is not even in the ballpark of what Ghatanathoah is saying.


  • Humanism - Wikipedia.
  • essays football players?
  • at a glance essays 4th edition.

I do agree with you on a very general level that people should not choose to have children simply so they can check off a life milestone on their bucket list. But that applies to hetero and homosexual couples alike. If you take the view that children are products, not people with rights, then sure: you can raise them any way you like, as long as they meet all the quality assurance specs — good grades, employable as adults, etc. They are not like pets, where you own them and can do what you like with them as long as you show no harm. In other words, it is not at all clear why you think we should start from the assumption that the rights of gay adults should be prioritized over the rights of children.

You should know by now that data and evidence is what I care about. So how are those children being deprived of their rights? Is there any data on the socioeconomic status of gay parents? I assume that gay couples who chose to have children will tend to be better off economically. Indeed, I assume from anecdotal evidence that most gay marriages involve middle and upper class people. Since heterosexuality has primacy as the default sexuality it has to be the default, or else life would go extinct , homosexuality is therefore the odd one out, and cannot rationally be viewed as interchangeable with heterosexuality.

It is a deviation from the biological norm, by definition. The burden of proof is not on heterosexuality to justify itself.

In the article, the author makes the mistake of assuming that morality is inherently religious. That is false.