Philosopher and activist Paul Kurtz died today

[salvorhardin]

Humanists and atheists are mourning the death of humanist Dr. Paul Kurtz, former editor of the American Humanist Association’s Humanist magazine and founder of the Council for Secular Humanism, who died on Oct. 21, 2012 at the age of 86. His death means the loss of one of secular humanism’s most prominent advocates.

“Paul Kurtz worked tirelessly for decades to see secular humanism become accepted as an alternative philosophy to traditional religion,” said Roy Speckhardt, the executive director of the American Humanist Association. “The attention and guidance he gave to the humanist movement had an unmistakable global impact.”

Paul Kurtz served on the American Humanist Association Board of Directors from 1968-1981 and as editor of Humanist magazine from 1967-1978 before establishing the Council for Secular Humanism.

In 1973 he worked with Edwin H. Wilson and the American Humanist Association to create the draft of what would become the Humanist Manifesto II (an updated Humanist Manifesto III was adopted in 2003).

“Humanism has been shaped by many people since the beginning of the 20th century, and Paul Kurtz was one of the greatest contributors to the development of our nontheistic philosophy,” Speckhardt said.

Full press release: http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2011-11-humanists-mourn-death-of-paul-kurtz-humanist-philoso

[Angry Dragon]

1. Humanism needs to replace most religions

[Anthony McCarthy]

2. He was a force for narrow mindedness

He was a force for narrow mindedness and far from really progressive.

[2ndAmForComputers]

3. In what respect, Joe? I mean, Anthony?

[rexcat]

52. ...

or QforP?

[Anthony McCarthy]

9. edhopper

Yeah, I can see the kind of rationalism he promoted reflected in your response.

[Anthony McCarthy]

4. Actually, Mary McCarthy was my cousin

His materialism was outmoded and narrow minded and has been destructive of both pluralism and democracy.

You think I haven't heard that kind of snark ever before, don't you. It's typical of the fans of Paul Kurtz, who rely on that to shut off discussion.

You ever hear of sTARBABY?

http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html

[trotsky]

5. Hmm.

Looks like your behavior is typical of opponents of Kurtz and rational thought, who rely on personal insults and attacks to shut off discussion. Why, I bet you'll insult me now.

[2ndAmForComputers]

56. Actually no, he won't. At least, not in this thread. I evil-atheistically-kurtzianly OPPRESSED him!

MWA HA HA HAAAAA!

At Mon Oct 22, 2012, 08:15 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

As usual with atheist propaganda, it's not what it looks like
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=51865

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Anti-atheist bigot. Refer to MIRT.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Oct 22, 2012, 08:22 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I was convinced at "Atheist Propaganda."
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

[trotsky]

62. LOL

Fitting for someone spewing such hatred and bigotry.

[Heddi]

64. I was on that jury

I was happy to hide his bigoted thread And was more happy when other jurors agrees with me!

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Is being Mary McCarthy's cousin meant to be an excuse for your behaviour?

I can't see why else you mention it before launching into shitting over this thread. Though it seems unfair on her to associate her with you.

[2ndAmForComputers]

59. You would get a lot less of that snark if you behaved a bit less like Joe.

Oh, and thanks for the link. I like timecube-like deranged rants, they're great entertainment.

[cbayer]

60. Classy. You know he's no longer in the thread to respond.

[2ndAmForComputers]

61. Ahhh, now I know who alerted in that OTHER post of mine yesterday. (Left alone 2-4)

Please share the results for this one.

[cbayer]

63. I alerted nothing. I leave that to you.

[trotsky]

65. Do you feel he should have the right to continue his anti-atheist bigotry?

Your silence in response will be taken as a show of support for him.

[edhopper]

7. For those unfamiliar with him

http://centerforinquiry.net/paul_kurtz_obituary

A productive life, with great impact.

[Anthony McCarthy]

8. Paul Kurtz was a pseudo-skeptic

Paul Kurtz was a pseudo-skeptic who was absolutely certain of what everyone should think and it was exactly what he thought. He was a narrow-minded materialist who, when it came to a real test of scientific knowledge (the sTARBABY scandal) proved he didn't have the knowledge to address the issues. Pseudo-skepticism and its intolerance for the religious beliefs of the vast majority of the voting population has done a lot of damage to liberal-leftist politics since the mid-70s. The far more genuine skeptic, Jim Lippard , once told me that he was far more of a libertarian than a liberal. I've researched Kurtz quite a bit and would consider him more of a materialist huckster than anything.

[trotsky]

10. More personal insults and attacks.

You can't dispute the facts, so you attack the man.

Sad.

[Anthony McCarthy]

11. Facts? You haven't presented any.

What facts? That his fans adored him? Or that he proved himself to not have the statistical knowledge necessary for him to understand even the correct way to refute neo-astrological claims and then tried to cover up the botch he and two of his close associates made of the affair? As the uber-skeptic Dennis Rawlins fully documented, fully supported by, among others, Richard Kammann, both of them members of CSICOP.


http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html

Paul Kurtz didn't have the statistical knowledge to have an informed opinion on many of the things he attacked while claiming the mantle of scientific validity. He was a fraud as is pseudo-skepticism.

I've given links to two detailed accounts of that scandal, you've presented nothing.

[Anthony McCarthy]

12. And this sort of sums it up.

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." -- Richard Dawkins

So people have no reason to do anything but be as selfish as the most selfish Republicans. Good example of why materialism is destructive of liberalism. You've got to get away from materialism to believe in inherent rights, equality, free will, etc. Materialism supports selfishness.

[dmallind]

14. I'm sorry - can you fill in the syllogism?

I have no clue how "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." -- Richard Dawkins

Leads to "So people have no reason to do anything but be as selfish as the most selfish Republicans. Good example of why materialism is destructive of liberalism".

I see nothing in the first quote that denies or even addresses the benefits of group cohesion, universalized utilitarianism, social safety nets and the like, which are perfectly adequate to provide sufficient reason to avoid philosophical egoism.

[Anthony McCarthy]

19. Let me explain it, then.

If there is "no evil, no good" and "no purpose" then there is no reason to believe in an obligation to not use people, enslave them, let them die in utter poverty, kill them... If there is no purpose there is no reason for someone to not behave as a pathologically Randian self-centered jerk.

Materialism is corrosive of all of the essential bases of liberalism and democracy. Those absolutely rely on a belief in metaphysical concepts strong enough to change peoples' selfish inclinations. There is nothing in it that makes people act unselfishly against their inclinations. It's really not very complicated.

[trotsky]

20. So the answer is to establish arbitrary claims as a basis for treating others with respect?

For instance, because a god told us to?

Is that a superior morality?

[trotsky]

24. Not that I expect you to realize my name has nothing to do with Leon Trotsky...

but you're telling me that if we lie to people, that's a better basis for human rights than telling them the truth.

Okey dokey.

[Anthony McCarthy]

29. Gee, how could anyone possibly have made that error.

[trotsky]

35. You should have asked before making assumptions.

But you're on a roll with your tirade against evil stupid atheists, so carry on!

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Are you a Straussian, then?

Do you believe in a noble lie, to fool those less intelligent than yourself?

[Anthony McCarthy]

28. What are you talking about?

I don't believe in any kind of lie producing a beneficial result. And I don't believe in any kind of elite. There is nothing worse than people who are convinced they are smarter than anyone else, like the "skeptics" do. The "Best and the Brightest" brought us the Vietnam war and destroyed any chance for The Great Society to succeed. As THE REVEREND Martin Luther King jr. predicted. The Rev. King was the most successful leftist in recent American history.

[trotsky]

33. Good thing you're convinced you're smarter than all those stupid skeptics, huh?

You are funny. It's like you know you're being a parody of yourself. Stick around, you'll be good for lots of laughs!

(P.S. Christians brought us the Vietnam war, not evil materialistic atheists. Read some more about that Great Society guy to see his darker side.)

[Anthony McCarthy]

38. Phony phacts, the basis of your kind of atheism

There is no way you can justify the Vietnam war with the teachings of Jesus. There is no problem of squaring the Katyn massacre, the Cultural Revolution, ... really any mass murder with the quote from Dawkins that the universe has "no evil, no good" "no purpose". If there is no good or evil then the only barrier to doing anything is whatever you figure you can get away with. That's what atheist government has always devolved into,perhaps with the exception of Cuba.

[trotsky]

54. Ah yes of course.

No True Christian and all that.

Good luck with your fantasies. I do hope you can get over your hatred of others, though. It's not healthy.

[2ndAmForComputers]

55. "your kind of atheism" -- so there is a "good" kind of atheism? What does it look like?

[dmallind]

36. "I don't believe in any kind of lie producing a beneficial result" Really?

Do we have a real deontologist here at last?

Let's try a (paraphrased but entirely representative) example:

"I'm sorry Herr Oberst, these Jews are essential to my company's success": Oskar Schindler

Beneficial result or not?

[Anthony McCarthy]

40. Yeah, I've heard that one

It's as close as you can come to a beneficial lie but I'd argue it's nothing like the kind of lie you implied. It's an example of keeping people from being murdered. Or do you think that keeping people from being murdered is the same thing as lying to them to get people killed? In one case it is an imperative to prevent murder, in the other its an incitement to murder. The Nazis' intention is so malignant that it changes the nature of the deception.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. You said that ...

... to 'establish arbitrary claims as a basis for treating others with respect' "works better than materialsm to produce an effective belief in rights". This is typical of a follower of Leo Strauss, and his 'noble lie' theory.

[Anthony McCarthy]

45. Way, way off the mark

You couldn't be further from the truth. I'm a gay, socialist, leveler. The only valid government is that chosen by an accurately informed vote, anything else will, eventually, petrify and become a corrupt, brutal dictatorship. It's knowing the truth that will make you free, not the lies told by an elite.

You seem to assume I believe religion is "a lie". It's not that simple or simple-minded. Unlike materialism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. What is 'way off the mark' - what you said?

Because all I did was quote what you said, up the thread. Then I gave my opinion about Leo Strauss, which you haven't addressed, so I presume it's not what I said about Strauss that you think is off the mark.

Your political opinions about government seem irrelevant. This is about how we arrive at dignity, equality, human rights, etc. You said materialism prevents that (though you have spectacularly failed to provide any reasoning for this), while saying you'd prefer arbitrary claims about rights "because God told us" to materialism. If you think God exists, then you better provide the rest of us with some evidence, if you don't want your claims about rights to be arbitrary.

[Anthony McCarthy]

49. You are attributing an idea to me I absolutely rejected

You are attributing an idea that I rejected, from a philosopher I reject. You are doing something that atheists seem to have a habit of doing, putting words in your opponents mouths so you won't have to deal with what they are saying. That is a very Kurtzian tactic, though I've traced it back much farther to Joseph McCabe and expect I could trace it even farther back.

When there is "no evil, no good" there is no obligation to tell the truth, or so it seems.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Posts #20 and #22:

Trotsky asks you:

"So the answer is to establish arbitrary claims as a basis for treating others with respect?

For instance, because a god told us to?

Is that a superior morality?"

You say:

"That works better than materialsm to produce an effective belief in rights"

(and follow it up with with a snide personal remark, but your bad manners aren't the main topic of this conversation).

You may not have got that from Strauss, but it's what he and his followers believe. You didn't reject the idea; you embraced it. The assent came directly from you.

[dmallind]

32. Let me explain the reason you exclude then

Not everyone has the need for a universal purpose or the existence of some Platonic ideal forms in order to establish basic ethical obligations. Universalized utilitarianism fills that need admirably.

Why seek benefit? Because it is intrinsically more productive and more pleasant than harm.

Why universalize the benefit calculated? Because no individual can maximize benefit alone (who could have invented the internet, cured polio, written Beethoven's 9th and perfected strawberry shortcake on their own?) and because a society that functions on the basis of mutual support, basic human rights, freedom of thought and action, and non-pathologicall Randianism does an immeasurably superior job of providing maximized benefit.


These are far from metaphysical concepts, and require no "good", "evil" or supra-human purpose.

[trotsky]

34. MATERIALISTIC ATHEISTS ARE EEEEEEEVILLLLLLLLL!

Trust him, he knows!

[Anthony McCarthy]

41. Kurtzian ridicule

Kurtz depended on ridicule instead of reason, it's his and Martian Gardner's great contribution to modern culture. It's no wonder it's popular with the post-literate set.

[trotsky]

53. The best display of "Kurtzian ridicule" has been presented by yourself.

It's all you've managed on this entire thread, belittling, insulting, and attacking. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

[Anthony McCarthy]

48. Inherent rights, equality, free will

Inherent rights, equality, free will, the obligation to observe other peoples' rights, those are metaphysical concepts that require both good and evil. Democratic government depends on those, absolutely. Dictatorships don't. Dictatorships are entirely compatible with a universe in which there is "no evil, no good". Materialism can't produce inherent rights, equality, free will or a moral obligation to observe other peoples' rights, it is incompatible with democracy, it is entirely compatible with dictatorship. And history shows that materialists with political power will produce dictatorships. I used to pretend to not understand that out of some misguided notion of leftist solidarity with various atheist ideologies. Then I realized the people that got killed by atheists were as dead as those killed by the Nazis, the KKK, the Crusaders and the Apartheid regimes in South Africa and the United States. I'm not pretending I don't see those bodies anymore. Christians who murder are in violation of the teachings of Jesus, atheists who murder aren't violating any tenet of atheism or materialism.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

58. And you think religion creates "free will"?

Truly one of the most absurd things I've ever read on DU.

[Odin2005]

66. Appeal to consequences fallacy. Basic logic epic fail.

[trotsky]

17. I can see that you are unwilling to engage in discussion, but only want to personally attack.

Clearly materialism isn't responsible for your poor behavior, so what is?

[Anthony McCarthy]

21. Compare how Kurtz talked about his opponents

You can compare what Kurtz said and published against his opponents, including those who had died, to see that, if anything, I'm being politely respectful in comparison. Go look at the archive of "Skeptical Inquirer".

The sooner the left gets over the counter-productive ideology of materialism, the sooner we will have a chance of making positive change. Materialism, atheism, has been an absolute disaster wherever it has attained political power, they will never be accepted by the majority of voters in the United States.

[trotsky]

23. The social democratic states of Europe are materialist/atheist.

Are they absolute disasters? They have guaranteed healthcare and a quite high standard of living - far more time off that we Americans get.

I see that your rule about dialog is "But maw, he did it first!" which then you feel entitles you to rant and rave and fling all the poo you want.

[Anthony McCarthy]

30. And the social-democracies in Europe mostly have STATE CHURCHES

Sweden and Britain both have official state churches, most people in those places believe in religion. The atheism of those countries is a whopper of an exaggeration.

[trotsky]

31. OK, I see this is pointless.

You've got your mind made up, no need to confuse you with the facts about non-belief in Europe. Those crazy Swedes and their gulags, I tell ya, you got me on that one.

[dmallind]

37. It's a whopping amount greater than in the US, and the churches are massively less influential.

[Anthony McCarthy]

42. It's an atheist fairy tale

Most of the people in Sweden and Britain are religious, most of them Christian.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. No

"I believe there is a God": Sweden 23%, UK 38%
"I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force": Sweden 40%, UK 53%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#Eurobarometer_poll_2005

The significant religions in Europe believe in God (few Europeans are, for instance, Buddhists, who could say they don't believe in God, but follow a religion). Most people in Sweden and Britain lack the fundamental belief of European religions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Eurobarometer propaganda! Shun the statisticians!

Close your ears to the surveys by those boring bureaucrats, who were surely in the pay of Kurtz and his cult!

Are you a parody account that someone has started? You really are quite funny.

Here's a clue: all state churches get to have large 'membership' figures, because many people either assume that, since they haven't done anything formal to leave a church, they are still a 'member', or they have a vague desire for some institution that can perform formal ceremonies.

And, no, Wiccans, Pagans and other alternative religions aren't flourishing in the UK. I live here. You don't understand.

[Anthony McCarthy]

50. Opinion surveys are a dime a hundred

I live in the land of phony right-wing opinion surveys, opinion surveying is pseudo-scientific bull shit.

If someone belongs to a church that they have to pay taxes to support I assume it's for some other reason than that they don't believe in it. I trust that more than I would any opinion survey. Those membership statistics are more impressive than any survey.

Gee, I've known quite a number of Wiccans and Pagans from Europe, many from Britain. I suspect if I looked at Brit "skeptics" sources they might be as frantic about an epidemic of such stuff as the "Skeptical Inquirer" is always in a swivet about. I know of a number who left Christian denominations for the Old Religions. I approve because it annoys the pseudo-skeptics so much.

[salvorhardin]

13. Kurtz was a complicated individual

There's no doubt that CSICOP led by Kurtz made some major blunders. Jim Lippard is the go-to person for the history of the modern skeptic movement and you can find a lot of information at his site. Unlike your interlocutor though, who seems more interested in libeling Kurtz's ghost than rational discussion, Jim would be among the first to recognize Kurtz's many accomplishments and great value to the skeptical movement. I say that as someone who knows Jim. Beyond that though are Kurtz's wider contributions to humanism. And just as with skepticism, some are good some and some not so good. To which I say, "Meh." When has it ever been different? We can praise Kurtz for the good he did, even while weighing his missteps and foibles and in the balance.

[trotsky]

18. Precisely. n/t

[Iggo]

15. Yo, T-Mac. It's bad form to shit all over an RIP thread.

Real bad form.

[2ndAmForComputers]

57. The shitting is over. You're welcome. (Well, OK, don't thank me, thank the jurors.)

[Anthony McCarthy]

16. On Kurtz

Kurtz was a very, very, very minor figure in philosophy. Just read "Exuberance" if you want to see why. Dennis Rawlins got it right when he pointed out he was mostly concerned with PR, his grasp of science was mostly ideological and not scientific. He lacked the most basic statistical knowledge for it to be anything else. It's no surprise that some hack from the "American Humanist Association" would be full of praise for Kurtz who was part of the same inbred clique. They have had nothing except a negative effect on liberal politics and the Democratic Party, albeit a minor one. Materialism is destructive of liberalism, it can't support the most basic prerequisites for democracy to be valid instead of dismissed as delusional, when that suits the materialist. And it frequently does.

[mjrr_595]

67. rest in peace