the primary issue i have is with "rationality" being the be-all end-all. i am not religious, i don't subscribe to "magical" thinking, and i see myself as a very critical thinker. as such, i always find it interesting how so many humanists and atheists treat rationality (and Science) like a religion. as if everything in the universe needs to be broken down and described in an equation; shoehorned into whatever is accepted as "science" at the time. things like intuition, common sense, contextual observation, inherent biases, etc, seem to be ignored or dismissed. the fact that new scientific discoveries frequently contradict the currently accepted "laws of science" doesn't seem to stop folks from dogmatically referring to those "laws" as infallible. what i have asked my humanist friends: what is the "formula" for a tree?
Humaniust: Anyone who's Intelligent enough to see Religion is the biggest obstacle in Humanity's progress. Greetings from Iran where Religion has been used as a Weapon of Oppression.
Anyone can use a set of beliefs to abuse others. Especially Islam. It doesn’t make all aspects of religion bad or stupid. If anything, humanists steal morals from religion to create their own ideologies that will later be used to abuse others anyways. People suck.
Humanism yes, woke no, please explain how humanists are not religious, granted not all are or have been, but also many have been religious leaders, ie: Thomas More, a Great humanist, can humanist still be religious, or has that ship sailed with the times and is irrelevant??? Scotia gae brah! much love and support. but what this video refers to is secular humanism, not humanism, which was represented by both religious and non religious humans, i am not religious myself but love philosophy and history, so just curious about your representation as blanket fact. thank you for your insights on this question.
Language changes over time. Nowadays when people say "humanist" they are usually referring to a secular humanist. Or if referring to values they mean values that are from a non-supernatural source ("secular"). Humanism was originally about an interest in reading and writing...it was a movement of letters and intellectual critique. That usage went by the wayside a while ago, but that's probably what you are thinking of when you identify those religious humanists like Thomas More.
Atheists don’t have to believe that every human should be given the opportunity to prosper, or that we have social responsibilities. Atheists just lack a belief in a god, that’s it.
@@lampshademuncher5316 so the main difference is the lack of social responsibilities; Would it be correct to assume that the atheist doesn't believe in Morality since there is a lack of social responsibility? And would only view that (social responsibility) as something that the species has internally for group preservation? I apologize for the many questions I would just like to get someone's point of view that believes in atheism.
@@studentsofthescrolls771 It’s not that all atheists don’t believe in being moral, it’s just that it’s not necessary to be moral to be an atheist. All humanists are atheists, but not all atheists are humanists. Humanism requires someone to believe in social responsibility and to be an atheist, whilst atheism only requires a lack of a belief in a god. If someone says that they are an atheist, the only thing you can know about them is that they lack a belief in god, nothing else.
@@lampshademuncher5316 Thanks for the information, so in a recap to be an atheist one can accept morality or deny it; those that deny it, deny any and all objective morality leaving them in a State in which social responsibility is unnecessary. Which do you hold too if i may ask? And (last question) if one chooses to deny morality, then i would suppose that leaves the individual without right to claim he or she has been done wrong in the event something in-morale that has been done to their person? Seems as if the atheist loses in denying mortality, unless there is something i em missing in my analysis?
@@studentsofthescrolls771 I personally believe that all morality is subjective, including religious morality. I also believe in attempting to maximize wellbeing and taking on social responsibilities. I don’t think that you have to be religious to be moral. I don’t think anyone can truly determine whether or not something is objectively right or wrong, but I do use those words to describe certain things based on my personal opinion.
I believe this is inaccurate when it comes to beliefs about religion. The humanist ideals is based on actions with each other and individual religious beliefs are held sacred and respected by the individual. When you speak about humanism and then speak about religion and say humanists arent religious then you have dabbled in being a religion yourself.
@@Tortilla.Reform Makes sense to me except for the last comment about being a religion yourself. Look at their example, Einstein. He believed in god. His distain for the bomb he helped make wasn't from his religious beliefs though, it was from the damage to humanity that it enabled.
As a Humanist the choice of others to be religious is respected, only so long as those religious beliefs are kept personal, practised in private and are not part of a larger religious organisation, such as the Catholic Church; however these beliefs are not held "sacred". Humanists believe that religious organisations are harmful to individuals, societies, rational thought, and the future of humanity as a whole. So while I respect your right to practice religious beliefs in the privacy of your own home, I will fight against your church/synagogue/mosque/coven as long as it is an established organisation that has any influence over individuals or society.
I dont have against in humanism but there are some facts about that are not beyond their control like God is not exists.. Well just ask themselves how does they made and if they answer "by parents" well then where they came from??
Humanists can be religious, can have political opinions and the climate has no need to be mentioned. Socially responsible, really? Humanists can sit on their couch doing nothing for society just like most people. Humanism at its nutshell is the belief that humans are the most important creatures on the planet.
Nice video trying to define "humanism". Could have been more complete if it wasnt so narrowed in on the more modern branches and contained the historically more successfull examples for humanistic branches like socialism and communism and not so recent figures like Marx, Hittler, Stalin, Mao, Il...
"...and not so recent figures like Marx, Hittler, Stalin, Mao..." None of those people were humanists. They never identified as humanists, and their actions directly contradicted several core aspects of humanist ideology (equal rights for all, democracy over dictatorship, valuing the lives of others, etc.). Also, Hitler was not only deeply religious, he actively HATED non-religious people. Literally his first two decisions as head of the Nazi party were a) signing a treaty of support with the Catholic Church and b) banning and dismantling the Free Thinkers League, Germany's national atheist organisation. And quotes from Hitler expressing his disgust for atheists are well documented. Clearly, you have a lot to learn about what humanism actually is. Maybe try watching this video again.
@@EyeMixMusic 1. Maybe you just have to open a dictionary instead of only watching youtube-videos: Humanism stands for ALL IDEOLOGIES with the HUMAN IN FOCUS. That includes: Marxism, Socialism, Communism, National-Socialism... Just get your language right! 2. "Hitler was not only deeply religious, he actively HATED non-religious people" The whole of germany reading your line is laughing at you, right now. Hitler was only interested in power and thus would have said anything necessary to gain and maintain it. So he appeared religious to the church and non-religious to the socialist working class organisations. Get your historical knowledge right, also! 3. Whenever you refer to your favourite branch of humanism from now on, be specific and use its correct denotation. This way you avoid deceiving yourself and others. Dont stay ignorant! At least not that much ignorant.
@@EyeMixMusic You are misunderstanding the word "humanism". Get any dictionary, even wikipedia knows better than you. And dont try to whitewash the term, as if the S in NSDAP didnt stand for "social" or as if equal rights couldnt mean equally few rights or a humanistic dictatorship wasnt possible. Use the correct term for your favoured branch of humanism and dont try to hide the other branches under the table.
1. Every human should be given the freedom and opportunity to live their life to the fullest while respecting and protecting the rights of others and the planet. Why? This is an assertion without any logical basis. Also what if somebody living their life to the fullest conflicts with the rights of others or the planet? And how do you define what the rights of others are - let alone the planet?!? What a childish and superficial philosophical and ethical system this is!
Why? Because that's what Humanists belief. Maybe you should actually do some research and you'll find the answers to those questions very easily. It seems rather childish t whine loudly in the CZcams comments to me.
Actually, humanism means that you believe Jesus was human. This does not deny Jesus' divine nature, but it merely prescribes that humanity has a divine spark and that Jesus, as a human, perfectly captured that spark, by sacreficing himself. He did so guided by God, which is the psychological projection of the human will to survive, thrive, make wonders and connect all conciousness. Jesus could've called for civil war like Barrabas. But instead he chose crucefixion, so that all might see Jesus suffer, imprint the cross on their minds, and harm eachother no more, as we are filled with regret, and fear that Adonai will have revenge for His Son, but we are forgiven by the Lord, because of our brash, lowly nature, being descended from apes, 'we cannot have nice things'. Also the story of Adam and Eve and Sons is more about monogamy than anything else. 'Eating fruit of the forbidden tree' is chiefly a reference to adultery. Once you realize Jesus was human, you realize the potential in humanity itself. When humans aspire to co-create with eachother and with the Creator, when humans take responsability for their potential position, the divine spark will be a light that drives out all ignorance. Jesus was born in the Age of Fishes. Now it is the Age of The Man Who Carries Water. Incidently, since the beginning of Aquarius' age, men have begun to politically 'carry water' for women' rights. The issue of literally carrying water being gendered is in dispute, and now sometimes the man will carry water from the well, because she can or will not. She has always carried the water, but now he is less and less ashamed to carry water for her, and reaping the rewards of a more equitable society. Humans need fair play in order to thrive. Religious people refuse to see divinity in humanity, saying we are too fallen to enter Divine domain. Well, certainly with that attitude, humanists say. The most important thing in the world is the human man, because it connects with the the eternal and divine. I look at the stars and I see my creator looking back at me, a male creator in a sea of female energy. Jesus 'carried water' for an adulteress, saying 'he who us sinless, cast the first stone'. I hope that we carry water for eachother evermore, in every sense.
I don't know if you can get involved or join a movement into something that always existed, as you said. Wich means a time before political (democratic) economics. I don't get the logic. I think you simply are humanist by practicing not joining. Maybe I'm a bit too anarchistic on this one but it feels like you wanna make an economic hierarchical system out of it wich I can't agree with. Cause it's not about the money, Organisation n sht. Humanism should be autonomous because of the responsibility you carry with yourself. At the end you use a well made video about humanism as an advertisement for your "company". And they way you made it is like a Christian advertisement.
I think you've missed the point. Humanism is a movement towards critical thinking and reasoned analysis of our world and personal values. The whole purpose of videos like this and the movement as a whole is to get the idea out there into the world. Humans like labels. Many people have been Humanists all their lives without that label and that's fine; but many people not exposed to these ideas need to know there is an alternative out there than what they've been conditioned to believe without the benefit of reasoned self-analysis.
@Mentocthemindtaker of course I missed some points, english is not my language so I miss or misunderstand somethings sometimes. Thank you for takin the time to comment me. Maybe I was just disappointed because I wanted to see a definition not a commercial
Lmao. Id say i am a humanist but I do not support any of the issues that flashed on the screen. How is the murder of innocent children a humanist issue? Freedom of belief? thats totally unenforceable. Its freedom of expression.
Greetings from Scandinavia! I wish you all good health and happiness!
It Is really an enriching video yeah it really increased the ambiguities around this concept
Beautiful
It tells a lot of detail about what a humanist is so its good (from 9-y-o Flynn)
the primary issue i have is with "rationality" being the be-all end-all. i am not religious, i don't subscribe to "magical" thinking, and i see myself as a very critical thinker. as such, i always find it interesting how so many humanists and atheists treat rationality (and Science) like a religion. as if everything in the universe needs to be broken down and described in an equation; shoehorned into whatever is accepted as "science" at the time. things like intuition, common sense, contextual observation, inherent biases, etc, seem to be ignored or dismissed. the fact that new scientific discoveries frequently contradict the currently accepted "laws of science" doesn't seem to stop folks from dogmatically referring to those "laws" as infallible.
what i have asked my humanist friends: what is the "formula" for a tree?
So Humanism is basically axiomatic. I have been one most of my life without knowing.
Yet the entire ideology simply imports God concepts and eschews the judgement part of it.
@@semosancus5506 oh. Maybe I'm not a humanist then...
@@ZER0--It's certainly possible. At least I know for sure you can't live out Humanism without being a hypocrite.
@@semosancus5506 What utter bollocks. Humanism completely eschews "god concepts".
@@ZER0-- Ignore that other bloke, he's a religious troll.
I'm here 4 this!!!
Thank you so much ma'am 😘💖😘💖😘💖💖😘💖
Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thanks!
❤️
Human is humanist
Humaniust: Anyone who's Intelligent enough to see Religion is the biggest obstacle in Humanity's progress. Greetings from Iran where Religion has been used as a Weapon of Oppression.
Anyone can use a set of beliefs to abuse others. Especially Islam. It doesn’t make all aspects of religion bad or stupid. If anything, humanists steal morals from religion to create their own ideologies that will later be used to abuse others anyways. People suck.
I'm sure you'd rather be in America where politics is used as a weapon of oppression instead.
That is Islam bro
Islam is unique in its barbarism
I would love to become involved but the nearest group is over 60 miles away.
Humanism yes, woke no, please explain how humanists are not religious, granted not all are or have been, but also many have been religious leaders, ie: Thomas More, a Great humanist, can humanist still be religious, or has that ship sailed with the times and is irrelevant??? Scotia gae brah! much love and support. but what this video refers to is secular humanism, not humanism, which was represented by both religious and non religious humans, i am not religious myself but love philosophy and history, so just curious about your representation as blanket fact. thank you for your insights on this question.
Language changes over time. Nowadays when people say "humanist" they are usually referring to a secular humanist. Or if referring to values they mean values that are from a non-supernatural source ("secular").
Humanism was originally about an interest in reading and writing...it was a movement of letters and intellectual critique. That usage went by the wayside a while ago, but that's probably what you are thinking of when you identify those religious humanists like Thomas More.
@@KenHoodJr well put. maybe we should bring back the true meaning of testimony.... :)
So are humanists like atheist? What is the difference between the two if anyone can answer this?
Atheists don’t have to believe that every human should be given the opportunity to prosper, or that we have social responsibilities. Atheists just lack a belief in a god, that’s it.
@@lampshademuncher5316 so the main difference is the lack of social responsibilities; Would it be correct to assume that the atheist doesn't believe in Morality since there is a lack of social responsibility? And would only view that (social responsibility) as something that the species has internally for group preservation?
I apologize for the many questions I would just like to get someone's point of view that believes in atheism.
@@studentsofthescrolls771 It’s not that all atheists don’t believe in being moral, it’s just that it’s not necessary to be moral to be an atheist. All humanists are atheists, but not all atheists are humanists. Humanism requires someone to believe in social responsibility and to be an atheist, whilst atheism only requires a lack of a belief in a god. If someone says that they are an atheist, the only thing you can know about them is that they lack a belief in god, nothing else.
@@lampshademuncher5316 Thanks for the information, so in a recap to be an atheist one can accept morality or deny it; those that deny it, deny any and all objective morality leaving them in a State in which social responsibility is unnecessary. Which do you hold too if i may ask?
And (last question) if one chooses to deny morality, then i would suppose that leaves the individual without right to claim he or she has been done wrong in the event something in-morale that has been done to their person?
Seems as if the atheist loses in denying mortality, unless there is something i em missing in my analysis?
@@studentsofthescrolls771 I personally believe that all morality is subjective, including religious morality. I also believe in attempting to maximize wellbeing and taking on social responsibilities. I don’t think that you have to be religious to be moral. I don’t think anyone can truly determine whether or not something is objectively right or wrong, but I do use those words to describe certain things based on my personal opinion.
I believe this is inaccurate when it comes to beliefs about religion. The humanist ideals is based on actions with each other and individual religious beliefs are held sacred and respected by the individual. When you speak about humanism and then speak about religion and say humanists arent religious then you have dabbled in being a religion yourself.
Your analysis doesn’t really make sense or track logically, could you please explain your assertion further?
@@Tortilla.Reform Makes sense to me except for the last comment about being a religion yourself.
Look at their example, Einstein. He believed in god. His distain for the bomb he helped make wasn't from his religious beliefs though, it was from the damage to humanity that it enabled.
As a Humanist the choice of others to be religious is respected, only so long as those religious beliefs are kept personal, practised in private and are not part of a larger religious organisation, such as the Catholic Church; however these beliefs are not held "sacred". Humanists believe that religious organisations are harmful to individuals, societies, rational thought, and the future of humanity as a whole.
So while I respect your right to practice religious beliefs in the privacy of your own home, I will fight against your church/synagogue/mosque/coven as long as it is an established organisation that has any influence over individuals or society.
So like you're saying humanists are just people...thx
I've been one all my life and never knew. I've now got another label. Yea.
I guess that the majority of Noble Prizes being Believers are not rational then
I dont have against in humanism but there are some facts about that are not beyond their control like God is not exists.. Well just ask themselves how does they made and if they answer "by parents" well then where they came from??
You are discribing a liberalist, not a humanist.
Humanists can be religious, can have political opinions and the climate has no need to be mentioned.
Socially responsible, really? Humanists can sit on their couch doing nothing for society just like most people.
Humanism at its nutshell is the belief that humans are the most important creatures on the planet.
Clearly you have literally no understanding of Humanism.
@@Mentocthemindtaker clearly you're claiming the word for your niche world view.
your not a humanist if you believe in a god.
That's like saying you're not a humanist if you believe in evolution.
Also known as common sense.
Lol you’d think so
Nice video trying to define "humanism". Could have been more complete if it wasnt so narrowed in on the more modern branches and contained the historically more successfull examples for humanistic branches like socialism and communism and not so recent figures like Marx, Hittler, Stalin, Mao, Il...
"...and not so recent figures like Marx, Hittler, Stalin, Mao..." None of those people were humanists. They never identified as humanists, and their actions directly contradicted several core aspects of humanist ideology (equal rights for all, democracy over dictatorship, valuing the lives of others, etc.). Also, Hitler was not only deeply religious, he actively HATED non-religious people. Literally his first two decisions as head of the Nazi party were a) signing a treaty of support with the Catholic Church and b) banning and dismantling the Free Thinkers League, Germany's national atheist organisation. And quotes from Hitler expressing his disgust for atheists are well documented.
Clearly, you have a lot to learn about what humanism actually is. Maybe try watching this video again.
@@EyeMixMusic 1. Maybe you just have to open a dictionary instead of only watching youtube-videos: Humanism stands for ALL IDEOLOGIES with the HUMAN IN FOCUS. That includes: Marxism, Socialism, Communism, National-Socialism... Just get your language right!
2. "Hitler was not only deeply religious, he actively HATED non-religious people"
The whole of germany reading your line is laughing at you, right now. Hitler was only interested in power and thus would have said anything necessary to gain and maintain it. So he appeared religious to the church and non-religious to the socialist working class organisations. Get your historical knowledge right, also!
3. Whenever you refer to your favourite branch of humanism from now on, be specific and use its correct denotation. This way you avoid deceiving yourself and others. Dont stay ignorant! At least not that much ignorant.
@@EyeMixMusic You are misunderstanding the word "humanism". Get any dictionary, even wikipedia knows better than you.
And dont try to whitewash the term, as if the S in NSDAP didnt stand for "social" or as if equal rights couldnt mean equally few rights or a humanistic dictatorship wasnt possible.
Use the correct term for your favoured branch of humanism and dont try to hide the other branches under the table.
@@petermeyer6873 Show me the Wikipedia entry that says Hitler was a humanist. Or Marx. Or Stalin. Or Mao. Go ahead, I'll wait 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1. Every human should be given the freedom and opportunity to live their life to the fullest while respecting and protecting the rights of others and the planet. Why? This is an assertion without any logical basis. Also what if somebody living their life to the fullest conflicts with the rights of others or the planet? And how do you define what the rights of others are - let alone the planet?!? What a childish and superficial philosophical and ethical system this is!
Why? Because that's what Humanists belief.
Maybe you should actually do some research and you'll find the answers to those questions very easily. It seems rather childish t whine loudly in the CZcams comments to me.
This is not true.
Actually, humanism means that you believe Jesus was human. This does not deny Jesus' divine nature, but it merely prescribes that humanity has a divine spark and that Jesus, as a human, perfectly captured that spark, by sacreficing himself. He did so guided by God, which is the psychological projection of the human will to survive, thrive, make wonders and connect all conciousness. Jesus could've called for civil war like Barrabas. But instead he chose crucefixion, so that all might see Jesus suffer, imprint the cross on their minds, and harm eachother no more, as we are filled with regret, and fear that Adonai will have revenge for His Son, but we are forgiven by the Lord, because of our brash, lowly nature, being descended from apes, 'we cannot have nice things'.
Also the story of Adam and Eve and Sons is more about monogamy than anything else. 'Eating fruit of the forbidden tree' is chiefly a reference to adultery.
Once you realize Jesus was human, you realize the potential in humanity itself. When humans aspire to co-create with eachother and with the Creator, when humans take responsability for their potential position, the divine spark will be a light that drives out all ignorance. Jesus was born in the Age of Fishes. Now it is the Age of The Man Who Carries Water. Incidently, since the beginning of Aquarius' age, men have begun to politically 'carry water' for women' rights. The issue of literally carrying water being gendered is in dispute, and now sometimes the man will carry water from the well, because she can or will not. She has always carried the water, but now he is less and less ashamed to carry water for her, and reaping the rewards of a more equitable society. Humans need fair play in order to thrive. Religious people refuse to see divinity in humanity, saying we are too fallen to enter Divine domain. Well, certainly with that attitude, humanists say. The most important thing in the world is the human man, because it connects with the the eternal and divine. I look at the stars and I see my creator looking back at me, a male creator in a sea of female energy. Jesus 'carried water' for an adulteress, saying 'he who us sinless, cast the first stone'. I hope that we carry water for eachother evermore, in every sense.
🥱
lol, are you high?
Rickey Garvais is not a humanist. He doest respect the rights of everyone.
Who's rights doesn't he respect?
@@ZER0-- LGBTQ.
What a load of nonsense.
Paganism
paganism is better then abrahamic religions
@bharath Dev Not even close
@@anthonypaquette4830 Abrahamic religions have child marriage, marry your r@pist ideals, and slavery
I don't know if you can get involved or join a movement into something that always existed, as you said. Wich means a time before political (democratic) economics. I don't get the logic. I think you simply are humanist by practicing not joining. Maybe I'm a bit too anarchistic on this one but it feels like you wanna make an economic hierarchical system out of it wich I can't agree with. Cause it's not about the money, Organisation n sht. Humanism should be autonomous because of the responsibility you carry with yourself. At the end you use a well made video about humanism as an advertisement for your "company". And they way you made it is like a Christian advertisement.
I think you've missed the point. Humanism is a movement towards critical thinking and reasoned analysis of our world and personal values. The whole purpose of videos like this and the movement as a whole is to get the idea out there into the world.
Humans like labels. Many people have been Humanists all their lives without that label and that's fine; but many people not exposed to these ideas need to know there is an alternative out there than what they've been conditioned to believe without the benefit of reasoned self-analysis.
@Mentocthemindtaker of course I missed some points, english is not my language so I miss or misunderstand somethings sometimes. Thank you for takin the time to comment me.
Maybe I was just disappointed because I wanted to see a definition not a commercial
Lmao. Id say i am a humanist but I do not support any of the issues that flashed on the screen. How is the murder of innocent children a humanist issue? Freedom of belief? thats totally unenforceable. Its freedom of expression.
❤