Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

4. Well it is if one uses the very narrow and biased definition of humanism that this

Reply to edhopper (Original post)

Mon Sep 2, 2013, 02:15 PM

Sep 2013

author does. Since there is not consensus of what the term even means, drawing a conclusion based on a single definition is a false premise.

He sounds like an evangelist to me.

There are people who are both religious and humanist. The author is not one of them.

There are as many kinds of humanists as there are religionists, but he bases his theory only on his kind.

One way! Sound familiar?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Religion is the Opposite of Humanism [View all] edhopper Sep 2013 OP

Its hard to see how religion deserves credit for anything but supplying the backdrop resistance... cleanhippie Sep 2013 #1

Ever hear of the Society of Friends? AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #2

Isn't that just a good example of what the edhopper Sep 2013 #3

No. I believe that it is the exact opposite of saying "Where far-seeing humanist ethics did arise, AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #5

I read this as him saying edhopper Sep 2013 #7

Humanism among people of faith predates the Protestant Reformation. PotatoChip Sep 2013 #10

Well it is if one uses the very narrow and biased definition of humanism that this cbayer Sep 2013 #4

And what he is saying that edhopper Sep 2013 #6

It's an opinion piece and he can only really speak for himself. cbayer Sep 2013 #8

Again you think edhopper Sep 2013 #9

Again, you keep telling me what I think and, again, your assumptions are incorrect. cbayer Sep 2013 #11

Okay edhopper Sep 2013 #12

Why can't you just accept that you came to one conclusion and other people cbayer Sep 2013 #13

No, I am pretty damn sure. edhopper Sep 2013 #14

If you are pretty damn sure, I'm not sure why you need to test your conclusions. cbayer Sep 2013 #15

Well it is edhopper Sep 2013 #16

You have a great point there! cbayer Sep 2013 #17

Thanks edhopper Sep 2013 #18

This is what the article is rsponding to which has the, er, opposite, conclusion. rug Sep 2013 #19

Hear, hear! Jim__ Sep 2013 #20