Is there any philosophical difference between a Humanist and a Communist?

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 04:58:16 -0500

pretty self explanatory.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 6:53 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:53:34 -0500

Yeah, if one lives under a rock... lol

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 7:15 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:15:45 -0500

actually the words itself don't mean anything :).

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Dec 17 at 2015 10:19 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:19:52 -0500

Yes. One is a personal ideology and the other a political ideology. Communists like to think of themselves as humanists but, in practice, they are merely tyrants. The most common failing among humanists is that they are typically humorless snobs

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 10:45 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:45:56 -0500

The two are completely unrelated. Its like asking if there is any difference between Christians and football fans. Some Christians like football and some football fans are Christians, but one has nothing to dow with the other.

Some Humanists are probably communists, others are socialists, others are capitalists. Even among all of those diverse people, some are liberal, some are conservative, some Humanists are even Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.

Humanists are just people who have a worldview that does not include direct intervention of or involvement of supernatural beings. Not all Humanists are atheists, not all Humanists think that there is no god, though I would wager that most Humanists are at least agnostic, it is not a requirement. The religious person who thinks that we humans make our own lot in life and that their particular good is too big to be involved with anything as trivial as the life of an individual human might be a Humanist.

Even the very religious, whose own faith guides their actions yet who don't take any interest in converting others or in "saving" them may be Humanists. The Dalai Lama is considered by many to be a Humanist, as is Pope Francis.

Mainly being a Humanist means not being an bad person, helping others where one can (converting them to religion is NOT helping them) and understanding that one's personal rights end right where another person's begin. THAT is Humanism.

Communism, on the other hand, is a political system in which all people work to the best of their own ability and all wealth is distributed and controlled by the state for the benefit of all. It works great on paper, but once human nature is mixed in, it all falls apart. Communists, like Christians, Atheists, red heads and football fans, come in all shapes and sizes and has no relation to anything else about a person other than his or her political ideology. Communism isn't even really about being liberal or conservative, just about a belief that private property is a bad thing. If one was to go back to Russia in the 1950s or to America today, you would likely find about an equal number of people who are socially liberal and socially conservative. One has nothing to do with the other.

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Dec 21 at 2015 2:33 AM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 02:33:48 -0500

MAJ Andrew Fishkin
I am fustrated with RP not your reply. I will try once again to post a reply to your arguments and if RP freezes up I am simply done with RP. ( all those in favor of that have already blocked me)
Sir you are describing what an ATHEIST is and i agree. A philosophically consistent atheist can live a good life, and enjoy that life without doing harm to others. Many of my friends are atheist just like that , they dont take much very seriously and they enjoy their lives best they can. Now we will probally disagree about this but I beleive a philosophically consistent atheist doesnt pretend that things matter, they dont look for meaning in their lives and they dont get all worked up about politics or other issues because the very nature of our existence is merely a glorious accident to them. I get it and I agree that if that was my conclusion about our origins I would be sitting right next to them eating twinkies and rolling another joint. I take no issue with this outlook because these people are not trying to say things matter, or trying to change things to fit their outlook on life...they are simply enjoying their existence. These philosophically consistent atheist are not humansit and they are not the problem.
Humanist can be whatever you want to define them as but that vagueness allows for alot of misconceptions. If a person is a theist and a humanist they are really just a theist. Not concerned about this classification either. Now you can divide any number of philosophies into many different classes of humansim, but I will lump all the ATHEIST humanist together. These are people who are atheist but they still think things matter. To the degree that they do not reflect at all upon their origin or their inevitable end, they can think wahterver they want. But when these secular humanist begin to make things up like ....the survival of the species matters, or they say things like ' we are the rational philosophy and we make our decisions based upon scientific prinicples...That is when we begin to have a problem. First ....natural law abhors a humanist. There is no science that lends any support for the humansit belief. To make claims.... like liberal humanist do.... about being the scientific party, etc, is purely garbage. If a scientist is a secular humansit, thats doesnt mean that their expertise in their particular scientifc feild lends any support for their personal philosophy. Natural law does not concern herself with things that secular humanist say are true. Natural law doesnt care if the human species survives or is wiped out tommorrow. Any belief that there is some greater purpose for the human species is simply made up. Secular humanism is simply a man made religion for atheist who dont want to accept a philosophically consistent version of their belief...aka the NOTHINGNESS. going to next block incase this is 'frozen' like all my other replies..

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Dec 21 at 2015 2:36 AM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 02:36:11 -0500

PART2 incase this is filed out of order...
The communist in Russia and China where both atheists who did not take atheism to its consistent end. They did not embrace the nonthingness. Instead they , like Marx, said their was no God but humanity can still live in a moral orderly society.