“

The majority of the world’s Christians are in the Catholic faiths: Roman, Orthodox and Anglican. It is a fallacy of the Protestant minority to bleat “Sola scriptura!” which is neither traditional nor biblical.

Within this Protestant minority, American fundamentalism is the lunatic fringe. They are dangerous because they have votes and guns. A rabid dog is dangerous because it is rabid, not because it is a dog. Fundies, as Christians, are foaming at the mouth and it is NOT “God” or “the” Bible that makes them crazy. Fanaticism of ANY kind is dangerous to society.

Well-meaning but unwise freethinkers play right into the hands of their enemies by entering into dialogue with the fundie wackos on THEIR terms.

An example is the foolish billboard reference to “God” in the singular, thereby insulting countless millions of polytheists. Exactly WHICH “God” don’t we “believe in” anyway? Kierkegaard’s? Tillichs? Barth’s? The Pope’s? Spinoza’s? Montaigne’s? Kant’s? Mother Teresa’s? It is really dumb to argue “belief” with the crazies about undefined entities.

What matters is their ACTIONS. Those are real, observable and measurable. Fundies’ ACTIONS can be discussed, but they prefer to sucker you into talking about their “God” where THEY have the advantage of “playing on the home ground.”

I am very much concerned about the sociopolitical and political implications of theism. The antonym of theism is not Humanism, it is atheism. Humanism is not about theism or atheism. Humanism is about what is human.

Political implications of anything are issues of politics. Humanism is about ethics.

As to:
“If you want to grow humanism and reach out to all the doubters out there, telling them that even considering the question of their doubt in the existence of a god is childish is not going to bring more humanists to our side.”

I do not have a “side.” I am not in a combat.

I do not feel driven to “reach out to doubters” because I am not a missionary. In fact, I am contemptuous of self-appointed missionaries regardless of the cause that motivates them.

If people choose to believe or doubt in imaginary stuff I really do not care – what matters to me is what they DO. Believing in “Manifest Destiny” was not morally wrong; murdering Indians was.

Mermaids, unicorns, leprechauns, gods and fairies really do not interest me much.

There is a non-existent glorious world out there in cyberspace that has done more damage recently than faith in Christ’s coming glorious Kingdom; it is the withering away of the state achieved by the entirely imaginary process of historical determinism. The Inquisition was formally abolished in 1820 but Mao’s Glorious Cultural Revolution caused 29 million deaths in our time. Let’s worry less about Jesus and more about Lenin.

Are they equally exercised about belief and nonbelief in mermaids and leprechauns? Should we set out to recruit the amermaidists and the aleprechaunists?

Personally, I prefer to walk away from such children’s squabbles and say “I am a Humanist. My interest is in what is human – and that includes ethics, a human responsibility. I am not into metaphysics.”

According to Humanist Manifesto 2, Humanism is not a metaphysical stance but is an ethical process through which we can all move above and beyond the assertions and denials of past religions.

Billboards about gods diminish Humanism by presenting the appearance that we care about their “gods.” Do you? If you are not yet free from your childhood indoctrination you may think there is something worth denying. I don’t.

It would make just as much sense to erect signs proclaiming “Don’t believe in mermaids? You are not alone.”

And don’t overlook the unicorns, fairies and Santa Claus. Let’s not make one silly superstition appear more important to us than the others.

I apologize for the use of “man” that would seem to exclude females. I assure all of you it was inadvertant.

Regardless of what laws and rules this man claims god has set it is clear that any belief that posits god as the arbiter of what is moral is not man centered and therefore incompatible with Humanism. While Francis may be unconcerned with what someone does in the privacy of their own home or in the church of his or her choice. Generally I would say he was right, but of course were there a theist who thought allah was telling him to kill people as part of a jihad against the United States. Or a theist who believed that god wanted him to shoot and kill and abortion doctor in a church. Or a theist who believed that god gave his people a parcel of land and this irrevocable covenant was the basis for his country invading and occupying a land 2,000 years after his people had been expelled. I would say there was much to be concerned about with any of these scenarios. He and I both share a concern about what a person does but what I think Francis conveniently ignores is that much of what someone does is directly related to the importance one places on god

Humanism is about humans. It is not a position about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, gods or mermaids. It is about what is human – and that is undeniably real. Would you bother trying to each out to non-believers in unicorns? Really, who cares? Why bother offending stupid gullible people for no purpose?

I am very concerned about what people DO. But when they go home and close the door I really don’t care if they light a candle and chant “om,” or recite the kol nidre, bow toward Mecca, or pray the Rosary, so long as they are not imposing their superstitions on others.

“Do you believe in God?” is not a real question. It is just a way to elicit a predetermined answer, like asking “Do you believe in kindness to animals?” That silly billboard is just baiting the rubes, like poking the monkey at the zoo with a stick.

Personally I am not a theist or an atheist because I do not choose to define myself by categories of unwarranted unprovable belief or disbelief in speculations about imaginary entities. A skeptic, I say a pox on them all. I do not choose to get down in the sandbox and throw sand at children squabbling over a non-issue.

I am deeply offended by your claim that lobsters don’t taste good and are unhealthy. I love to eat lobsters and the title of your post makes me question whether I, in fact, think lobsters are delicious.

Look, I’m cool with YOU not liking lobster, but it’s in the constitution of the United States of America that you must love to eat lobster. And now you’re making me think I don’t love to eat lobster! Well, sir, you are infringing on my constitutional right.

Maybe if you think about how, with some butter sauce, lobsters actually taste quite good. Think about it. You’re at a nice restaurant and the lobster arrives, cooked to perfection, and there’s that sauce ready to be dripped all over that meat-y tail… mmm… I bet your mouth is watering just thinking about it… Oh, but wait, I thought you don’t like lobster! I’m just going to have to take that lobster away from you. No lobster for you Mr. Writey-pants.

In conclusion, stop your anti-lobster scare tactics. I’m not gonna get salmonella (if the lobster is cooked correctly) and I’m not going to lose my job just by eating lobster, as you claim in your title. Lobster tastes delicious.