A Creed For The Secular Community

Here is a sign you can buy and put up in your front yard. There are many of them in Berkeley, CA, and they are available on the net. The sign says:

In this house, we believe: Black lives matter, Women’s Rights are human rights, no human is illegal, science is real, Love is Love and kindness is everything.

The link discusses where the broader notion for such a set of statements came from. They have nothing to do with a god but, the link says, there is an under tow of religion.

That, he says, is the statement of what a utopia looks like. The sign emits vibes of hope for the future and the kind of world which would be perfect. It is what religions talk of and promote as a reason for support.

This utopia, however, does not come from a god. It is a utopia that can be reached here on earth and in good time. Instead of using a god to reach it, humans can reach it by themselves by believing in humanism. From this the link author concludes humanism is another for of religion.

Humanists believe in the ability of humans to successfully deal with whatever they face without resorting to a spiritual being. Christians often say, “Atheists don’t believe in anything.” Then, when humanists make it known they believe in humans the accusation is humanism is a religion.

I don’t see why being optimistic about the future means one is religious.

 

21 Responses

    1. Harris Mills

      These are the teachings of Jesus Christ, and have been for 2000 years. To think otherwise is to embrace the error of individual interpretations of his word .

  1. mark anthony

    do you really think that you can build an earthy Utopia? how many times has mankind made the mistake of trying to do just that? and what have been the results: wars, police states, totalitarian ideologies, persecutions. foolish utopian experiments. anyway what it your definition of a utopia? maybe something like Huxley’s Brave New World? I keep in my study a quote from a 16th century gentleman, Louis Bourgeois by name: “age after age their tragic empires rise. Built why they dream and in that dreaming weep. Would man but wake from out his haunted sleep, earth might be fair and all men glad and wise..” a lot to think about in these few words. much better than some goofy sign in goofy California. in fine, it seems that atheists can’t be charged with not believing in anything. In this instance at least it seems that they believe in too much, much too much.

    1. mark 10:23 do you really think you can build an earthly Utopia?

      Well, no. But whatever society atheists can build will be as good as that of Christians, Hindus or any other religion. I think what we have now is as good as we will ever get. Also, I think it’s pretty good.

      1. mark anthony

        ah yes, pretty good in a materialistic way. but not so great in some other ways. as you say, one thing is most certainly true: everybody who has tried to build a civilization has messed up big time. I doubt that the forthcoming atheistic civilization will do any better. watch out: it may do even worse.

  2. godless

    I would prefer it more if the black lives matter was changed to all lives matter and completely omit no human is illegal.

  3. Grant Bucson

    Yeah no thanks. I’m not a cucked atheist like yourself and would rather actually put something meaningful in my lawn if I did. I don’t believe in immigration (illegal or not), nor black lives matter, gay marriage or other goofy things on that sign. It is really embarrassing to be an atheist sometimes with idiots like yourself. Further this “utopia” world view is not only foolish it’s misdirected. You claim to be logical and fact based but your political views are still up in the clouds. You may have age on me, but it’s obvious who the wiser one is here.

  4. jja

    So unborn babies don’t matter?! It is sick if your concept of love includes the dismembering and destroying unborn babies. You don’t preach love – you preach violence. And, if you think that Black LIves (also) Matter, you should also say that their unborn babies matter, but they are killed off in disproportionate numbers. How is it “kindness” to half deliver a baby then inject its brain with poison to kill it. Kindness? You are nuts if you think that is kindness. Kindness is being respectful of women’s rights, but someone’s rights may not infringe on the life of another – mother or not. You have a warped sense of kindness, love, and acceptance.

    Also, everyone believes that no human is illegal, but a heck of a lot do immigrate illegally. No one says illegal human/person. People say illegal immigrant. Big difference. Don’t suggest people who don’t want open borders are immoral idiots.

    Grow up and see your views on abortion as vile – or, if you agree with abortion, sounds like you agree that there are lots of children who should have been aborted. Why don’t you go tell them that you wish that they had been killed when they were unborn – that sound like the love you think you are preaching.

    1. jja 10:16 Thanks for commenting. I do not believe one fertilized cell is a human being. Anti abortionists have the notion one fertilized cell is a human being and to me this a ridiculous idea.

      1. mark anthony

        seems that you keep coming back to the one fertilized cell argument. you do not “believe” (as an article of faith?) that one or more fertilized cells can be called human (but maybe a billion or a trillion then?). all that aside, I think that it is time to think this thru’ a bit, looking at the way people in the philosophy business (keeping in mind that philosophy is not theology) look at the matter. to simplify, there are two basic ways in which bioethicists/philosophers respond to the point that you so assiduously try to defend. the first, looking at the empirical evidence, concludes that the fertilized cell takes on a human nature(or form) that directs, shapes, determines the subsequent development, unfolding of the human organism (the “looks” of the developing human being irrelevant) . the form/nature perdures thru the human life time while the constituent matter, of course, changes momentarily. this, is the so-called classical view, a view which, similarly, would hold that an acorn is, in fact, an oak tree, an actual oak tree with potential for becoming the sturdy, leafy thing that someone will see someday. in contrast, your view, is a nominalistic view which holds, in effect, that there is no perduring nature/form but only a category of things that look alike and which the mind groups into categories simply because they happen to have certain characteristics or “looks” in common. therefore, if it doesn’t “look” human, it’s not human. so to go to the point of the matter, this is the divide that pits nominalists and philosophical realists against each other. and which, obviously, fuels the abortion debate.

        1. mark 3:58 the fertilized cell takes on a human nature (or form) that directs, shapes, determines the subsequent development….
          Just to help you summarize, the shorter way of making that argument, made to me too many times to recount, is “The fertilized eggs is a potential human being.”

          Yes, that is true. So is one sperm cell a potential human being. The sperm cell just needs certain things to happen to become a human being. One thing is needs is unity with a female’s egg. Then, the sperm depends 100% on the mother to develop. That is why women consider the fertilized egg to be part of her body. Neither the sperm cell nor the fertilized egg is a human being.

          Speaking of philosophy, different cultures consider the beginning of a human being at different times. Much to the consternation of many pro life readers here I often point to a tribe I read about which has high infant mortality. This infant mortality takes such a emotional toll of parents the custom began to not name babies until they are two years old thus reducing the level of attachment during the period when babies often die. The child becomes a human being or person at two years old. You may join others here in claiming I advocate death of infants up to two years of age. Like the character Joe Friday on the old TV program, Dragnet, I deal with facts, “Just the facts, ma’am.”

          1. mark anthony

            the fertilized egg is a human with potential, not a potential human, therein lies a very fundamental, ontological difference. as to different people having different philosophical views as to the beginning of life: much of that can be attributed to simple ignorance of prenatal development. we didn’t fully understand the process until the middle of the 19th century (when science found out a few things that science didn’t know before). BTW, I have been told that the ancient Chinese considered an infant to be a year old at birth. old Aristotle didn’t think that human life didn’t begin until 40 days in utero (90 for a female). but A. didn’t have a microscope. as to dependency that doesn’t make the cut. we are all dependent to a large degree: dependency one way or the other doesn’t define the nature/form of a thing. the acorn is totally dependent on its environment, so is the human child in utero. as to sperm cells (or eggs), they don’t go anywhere unless they get into an egg. and when do, WOW, things really happen. otherwise sperm cells simply dissipate.

          2. mark anthony

            not saying that you think that it’s OK to kill babies up to two yrs simply because the tribe doesn’t consider them persons. Peter Singer, however, does hold such a view. you must admit that a lot of pro-abortion arguments, if taken to their logical conclusion, might well support old Pete’s enlightened views re infanticide.

  5. Harris Mills

    No, but with love and care it has the potential to be – just as you do. To end that life is violence.

Comments are closed.