Sentences with phrase «n't humanists»

Are they or aren't they humanists?

You then go on to say that these despots aren't interested in humans, demonstrating that they aren't humanists on your definition, though, so I'm not sure what your point is.

If you are not a Humanist, then may I ask what you do believe?

This «non-religious» concept of Jesus as «the man for others» is certainly not a humanist or ethical reductionism.

The real target, it turns out, was not a humanist conspiracy of the late twentieth century, but one of the fundamental principles of modern political life.

@Sara I thought I was fairly clear in explaining that they are not Humanists becuase they are not concerned with human worth.

Not the leaders of the Renaissance and not the Humanists of the sixteenth century saved the church from destruction, but Martin Luther, the revolutionary and the arch-heretic.

I think you mean atheists, not humanists?

Stalin, Mao, and Polpot were all atheists and they were communists, not humanists.

Not all humanists, of course, are to be found attacking Christianity or denying God; many of them indeed strike me as wistful people.

He is not a humanist.

I'm sorry if I'm not a humanist.

Not exact matches

While atheists and other secular Humanists may rejoice, this is not good news for the nation.

«One of the reasons I was perhaps asked to be president of the British Humanist Association is that it was felt that I wouldn't call someone with religious faith «stupid» as that's naive and simplistic,» he says.

As secular humanists we are typically «not» trying to enforce «laws» on you «believers» that take away your equal rights under the conti - tution.

I don't care what all the secular humanists and their ilk think, there IS an agenda to discredit Christianity in America and the rest of the Western world.

It will probably have Muslims of different views using it some of whom may be conservative but as long as they are willing to share with liberal Muslims, Jews, Christians, humanists, etc. why not.

This may come as a shock to you — BUT - evolution could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court — if it is a «Law» of science and not a theory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all pretty smart

Also if I do not follow the canon believed by most Christians (give or take some duterocannonical books) I might as well be Baha'i, Muslim, or Secular Humanist.

You said, «The humanist morality is based completely on what is in the best interest of the human creation not what is in the mind of the creator.»

BTW: In case I am not being clear, I do not «blame» secularists or Humanists for this situation.

The retrieval of patristic sources in the sixteenth century was not merely the happy product of Renaissance humanist learning, although of course it was that as well.

I prefer to be humanist and do good but in the name of our humanity and not in the name of any religion.

You attempted to claim that Humanists believe everyone is born good and yet that is not the case... your one quote proves nothing and certainly doesn't cover all humanists, that is painting with a broad brush - something Christians scream and whine about having doneHumanists believe everyone is born good and yet that is not the case... your one quote proves nothing and certainly doesn't cover all humanists, that is painting with a broad brush - something Christians scream and whine about having donehumanists, that is painting with a broad brush - something Christians scream and whine about having done to them.

So, while I will say again that I am not an authority on either, I do know enough to be able to tell when a person belongs in the Christian camp or the Humanist camp, I believe.

I truly am amused that the ones in the discussions that those who would characterize themselves as enlightened and tolerant humanists are the least tolerant of the group when it comes to ideas that are not in concert with theirs.

Humanism is opposed to this ideology, not only because it's always based on unprovable religious superstition but because humanists believe strongly that the fate of humanity is not subject to divine whims but rests with humanity itself.

You said, «From a humanist perspective God does not seem to make sense.»

Agnostics / secular humanists believe their is no evidence that proves the existance of God therefore at this time the most rational and logical belief system would not incorporate a God.

Perhaps the late medieval church, but their sins were greatly exaggerated by the Humanists of the Enlightenment (as well as the Protestants) and so we have to take the reports with a grain of salt and also make sure that we don't condense several hundred years of bad history into a single solitary condemnation.

Why not establish a humanist set of rules we can all live by and call it a day?

This not only helps to explain religion's primordial, irrepressible, widespread, and seemingly inextinguishable character in the human experience, it also suggests that the skeptical Enlightenment, secular humanist, and New Atheist visions for a totally secular human world are simply not realistic — they are cutting against a very strong grain in the nature of reality's structure and so will fail to achieve their purpose.

But Yamasaki was not content with cold modernism, preaching instead the humanist ideals of surprise, serenity, and delight.

Thus the Commission called for a Christian concern for Higher Education which helps critical rational and humanist evaluation of both the western and Indian cultures to build a new cultural concept which subordinated religious traditions, technology and politics to personal values according to the principle «Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath», enunciated by Jesus and illustrated in the idea of Incarnation of God in Christ.

He is not less concerned than the materialist or the scientific humanist for the welfare of men, but more so; for he has glimpsed something of man's value and potentiality in the eyes of God.

Today it is not the vague humanist who is regarded as the enemy of Communism in, for example, Eastern Germany; it is the Christian, who has standards and loyalties which are rooted in God.

It automatically becomes a serious offense to injure or exploit other people, not because of some vague humanist values but because God has done man the unspeakable honor of identifying himself with the human race.

And I really got ta say «progressive» Christians (two words that should never go together, the Gospel is timeless and therefore can not be progressive) have much more in common with atheists and secular humanists than they do with other actual Christians.

They must not join others in passionate condemnation (or support), in the name of fifty humanist motifs put forward by non-Christians, of such a politics conducted by a statesman who calls himself Christian.

It is what all are supposed to be opposed to, not only by Marxists, who spent more than a century vilifying (and misdefining) the term, but also by humanists, poets, playwrights, churchmen, journalists, and all sensitive spirits.

Such services are not truly interfaith nowadays unless they include Catholics and Jews, Muslims and Sikhs, and perhaps a secular humanist, too.

But it is easier than watching people slink away ashamed of their ignorance because they don't know what a «secular humanist» is and what they «stand for».

«It is not enough that we are growing in numbers,» said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association.

I am NOT telling anyone how to LIVE Rational Humanist.

We are, in sum, a nation where the venerable Christian humanist center has not held.

@Rational Humanist / / «If they can't understand that their religion does not trump the rights of their workers and does not trump any government law...» =========================

What many folks seem to encourage jovially are rival bickering between young blooded humanists who banter about incessantly never judging their owned amorous infidelities and always trivializing the bitterness of others» written and even oral wordage... «I am what I am Sam» are the earmarks of standalone infidels who dare not seek the fidelities of devotional humanisms flavored austerities emanating with frugal discourse above the plainness of written and / or spoken dysenteries... «Bite the bullet» antagonists on both young sides might never find frugally endorsed concessions nor open their doors ever so gently...

As an agnostic atheist humanist, I still see no reason not to call a christian on not following what their leader commanded.

«Humanist Manifesto 2000» does not have a list of signatories anywhere near the status of those who signed the first manifesto in 1933, but Paul Kurtz and his International Academy of Humanism did manage to recruit nine Nobel laureates and comedian Steve Allen.

As a Secular Humanist, a politician's beliefs don't matter to me.