Our stall at the Hyde Park Festival

You cannot rectify stupidity. That said, though, no child is stupid. You have to be an optimist if you are going to teach, yet I do not like pushing our agenda onto children. I know that it would be best, even still childhood should be an idyll far from worries. As J. M. Barrie said, Every time you say that you don't believe in fairies, you kill a fairy.

If you have young children it is fun for you and for them as well if you have those fantasy games. It is good for the child's imagination. Parents do well to let the very young believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the various other fantasies for children.
They will eventually catch you when you sneak into their room to take the tooth and put the $ under their pillow.
They will soon tell you the truth about Santa Claus and so on.
They also need stories like Hansel and Gretel, witches and wizards etc.
That's the fun of childhood.
It is very different from trying to impose false beliefs that might last through adulthood and to use this to impose a system of belief based on guilt and fear.

I think what we would impose would be entirely more strict, siliboi9. One thing that we would actively discourage is fantasy, we wouldn't ban it, we would explain it.

"I think what we would impose would be entirely more strict, siliboi9."

Who is "we" carusmm? I think you are speaking only on behalf of yourself.
Young kids do enjoy fantasy and it does them a lot of good and no harm.

Adults who believe in prayer miracles and astro travel are something else again.
Humanists and Atheists have an uphill job ahead of them if they spend time talking to that kind.

I agree that fantasy does children a lot of good; but if you wish to combat hopeless faith in prayer and juju and the like, you must attack the hopeless naivete of the child. In fact, frankly though, I think that nothing can help us.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was right. However, today, imagine telling most parents that they should let their children run wild in the formative years and then imagine their reaction. To quote a Sean Penn character, We're in a box.

So you have been out looking for more atheists or for people who can be converted to atheism. Atheism is a religion itself but it just leads to materialism and nihilism.
Thats the world you want but God will beat you in the end.

Mary, what makes you think that we are the Devil?

Jesus said "Unless you become as a child you shall not reach the kingdom of heaven".
Paul said "When I was a child I thought as a child and did as a child, now I am a man I've put away childish things".

Was Jesus saying: Unless you lay yourself open to belief, then you will not experience the wonders of belief? And was Paul saying: Belief is ok but there comes a time when you have to face the real world?

The thing about HumanismAtheism is that it seems to want to pull the moon and stars from the sky because they think they have no real influence on our lives, when they are the framework for so many of our dreams, that make life bearable.

What is the purpose of denying yourself everything and replacing it with nothing? Come closer and I will sprinkle you with holy water.

Bullshit, Julio.

As usual, our religious friends have missed the point of atheism entirely. And, as usual, there's more than a hint of hypocrisy in the accusations. Charges of materialism are particularly amusing when they emanate from the direction of the Catholic church.

I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else, but for me Humanism/Atheism means that the world I can see and touch and smell and try to understand is the world I should be thinking about. As someone with an interest in science, I find that the more I know the more wondrous the world seems. To call my way of life "nihilism" is, frankly, absurd. I might say the same about you, Mary, with more justification, as your entirely unsupported view that there is another, better world to come can only lead to you devaluing this one.

To truly express how I feel I turn, as I so often must, to the words of one more eloquent than I, the late, great Douglas Adams:

"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."

It is a crude generalisation to say that religion leads to 'materialism and nihilism', though I don't mind making it as well.

Truly free, and anyone else it may apply to, it seems to me to be an anomaly that we know that in the material world 'every action is accompanies by an equal and opposite reaction' and we know that in the world of physics 'energy or mass cannot be lost, but is always converted one to the other'.
Yet we, or rather you, can believe that in the world of existence we can go through life paying no attention to whether we cause suffering, or happiness, and there is no balancing, no retribution, or reward for what we have contributed to in our life on earth.
So (regardless of your claims to know) there may well be a next. or another, life/existence which may be better or may be worse to keep the whole universe in balance,
I wonder what your Humanist opinions would be about that idea?

Mona, a truth in science is not necessarily a truth for humanity. I have seen the mistake made a number of times. The laws of thermodynamics seem a particular favourite, even though atomic theory is not kind to the soul.

Mona, it opens up a field of logic that those of us who have made mistakes would need redemption.

It seems that God's grand plan is redemption for all of us, he must be vain. My question to you, Julio, is: What is so logical about it, God and everything?

Well isn't it true that we make mistakes becaue we have been programmed by our past experiences? So what is sin and who are really guilty of the sins they commit?

The religious have a good one for that, Jeff, it is called original sin.

Jeff, you have got me pondering. I am sure that I will find the answer in Sartre. I will get back to you.

"To the originators of (the humanist) tradition man was born 'good' or at least was ethically neutral until corrupt philosophy and inequitable institutions perverted his will -- a conception that is untenable since the epoch of psycho-analysis and unthinkable in terms derived through Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger. The humanism of the contemporary existentialists is decidedly disillusioned and of a profound ethical tension not least in the case of M. Sartre whose ethic of action is the Kantian one of universal validity insofar as the agent can estimate it." Philip Mairet

I think that that answers Jeff's question: respect your parents, however I can imagine them being told by a teacher that their child just needs a bit of simple philosophy in order to be set straight. They would look at the teacher strange.

Mona, where do you get this idea that Humanists (or Atheists) go through life paying no attention to whether we cause suffering or happiness? That's a fairly sweeping assumption with no basis in reality whatsoever. The fact that we choose to focus on those things which we know are true does not in any way diminish our capacity for love, compassion, empathy or any of the qualities you seem to believe are exclusive to theists.

There may indeed be another world. There may be a flying spaghetti monster or a giant teapot that orbits Saturn watching over us all. However, there is no evidence at all for any of these things, so why on earth insist that any of them are real?

No need for all that fancy-sounding philosophical stuff, of course all children are born innocent. It is only their unfortunate encounters in life - usually brought about by the greed, selfishness, or stupidity of others - that corrupts their thinking and actions.

It is best to act, trulyfree, as if there is no God, no matter what your upbringing. If you cannot trust yourself, who can you trust?

William, I think that part of the disillusionment which existentialists feel is with children and their tension is with institutions.

Truly free, you misunderstood. I never said, or suggested that Humanists go through life paying no attention to whether they do good or evil. What I was saying was that as Humanists do not believe in any life other than this one, then it is obvious that they must think it makes no difference if people do good or evil, for there will be no reckoning for them.
There is a difference.
If that is not an accurate assessment of the Humanist position then please explain what their position is..

Where there is a way, Miss Mona, there is a means. Humanists fear dishonour in the eyes of man, Miss Mona.

I remember a local humanist once saying that we should handle objections with an iron hand in a velvet glove instead of kid gloves. I found either way that it is near to impossible to avoid just being plain blasphemous. It is an awkward situation. Does one go on, full steam ahead and crash, or does one back off and hold up traffic? For me, speed is of the essence, yet dying holds no appeal. I suppose, when all is said and done, we all have to die sometime.

Mona, I apologise for being sassy and calling ya Miss Mona and all. But you come to us as if we was dumb-arse niggers and you was the plantation owner's daughter. Any-ol'-how, it might just be the way with y'all.

Oh I'm sorry carusmm, ' didn't know you was tryin' ta keep it a secret.

It is no secret, Mona, that you are low-grade material. Didn't the whites think that the blacks were keeping secrets from them? I am your superior, Mona, make no mistake about it.

Freedom ain't no secret, Mona, but I will not be having any of the freedom that you are selling. I say, Let my people go. I say, Let my people go. I say, Let my people go. Oh, yeah. I think that I am going to dance now.

"as Humanists do not believe in any life other than this one, then it is obvious that they must think it makes no difference if people do good or evil, for there will be no reckoning for them.
There is a difference.
If that is not an accurate assessment of the Humanist position then please explain what their position is.."

Mona it looks as though you subscribe to the view of a life hereafter in which there are rewards and punishments for our deeds on earth.
Humanists don't subscribe to that view but do indeed think it makes a difference whether we do good or evil. The rewards and punishments are those we encounter in our lifetimes.

We may not get justice.
Hitler, Stalin and Augusto Pinochet did not receive the punishments that match their crimes and many people don't receive the rewards that would match their good deeds, but that doesn't justify creating an imaginary after world in which these things are set right.
In any case the God of the Bible could hardly dispense sensible justice.

Truly free did not misunderstand you, the misunderstanding was yours.

Ok wisernow, if that's what you believe then that's what you believe. and when comes right down to it reality is all about what people choose to believe it is. You'll get no argument from me on that.

But just let me (once again) correct the little point. It seems that humanists do have rather thin skins and assume every observation to be an assault on them. I was (once again, again) not accusing humanists of being uncaring and/or evildoers, I was merely pointing out that in believing that this life is the sum total of existence then (as you have admitted) it makes no difference, i.e there is no motivation for (crooks and conmen) to care about the rest of society because they, only having one life, know there is no comeback for the evil that they inflict on everyone else.

Again again again, Is this not an accurate assessment of the Humanist position, so why the sharp rebuke?

Mona, I have answered your question. Our position on ethics is the Kantian position on action. Your problem is that you do not read or at the very least you do not understand what you read or more possibly you are not reading in the right places. All of which indicate an unhealthy person.

How the hell do you know what she reads, or does not read, or what she understands, or does not understand , you arrogant demented egotist?

What I know, Carlos, is far more than you.

Mona, I think it's interesting that you consider the prospect of reward or punishment in the next life to be the primary motivating factors in people's behaviour towards each other. I understood you perfectly - you think that as I do not believe in an afterlife I can therefore act with impunity and fear no consequences.

It may surprise you to learn that I treat other people with respect and kindness because I think it is the right thing to do, not because I fear retribution if I do otherwise.

It seems to me that a morality based on potential judgment in the hereafter rather than an internal sense of right and wrong is inherently flawed. How could I ever trust the motivation of someone who only does good because they think they're being watched? That kind of self-management is highly suspect, in my humble opinion.

Why be so humble, trulyfree? Your opinion is valuable.

What you know carusmm, or rather what you pretend to know, is what so many children of our time have learned, and that is how to cut and paste clever sounding bits from the internet. The trouble is you don't know how to put them in logical context.

I rarely use the internet, Anne, so up yours.

The Christian mistakes good manners for refinement. He made it with the Nazis. He will make it again with whatever bastard comes along.

Mona, Christians pray, humanists blaspheme.

'God helps those who help themselves.'

Hmm.

Anne, further to your inquiry, I think that a book is beyond me, so you may have a point about me not being able to put things into a logical context. But it is a mad world, stranger things have happened.

'God is dead.'

The Injuns are on the warpath.

Oh dear carusmm please lay off the attempts at humour, you do not have the wit nor alertness for it

I received a piece of junk in the mail today, the WA Humanist News. What a waste of paper.

There you have it carusmm is part of evolution. He has evolved from insulting everyone on the web page individually and has now progressed to insulting everyone in Humanists WA en block.

Well that's progress in how this demented uncivilised person gets his kicks.

I give credit where credit is due, Peter.

On another matter, Peter, did you get what I meant by 'Injuns'? I meant the God-botherers; and I did not mean to insult Native Americans, though I probably have.

Who cares? Insulting comes naturally to you and is part of your pathetic attempts to be noticed.

At least I do not resort to threats, Peter.

I sense that someone is on the funny weeed