Can you be smarter than even “God”?

[Joy4Uall]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

It would be great if god was a better communicator - can we agree on that? For example, you want the best communication between you and your children, right? Same thing with god and his "children" (humanity), right?

......

God's infinite foreknowledge has predestined you to Heaven or Hell already.

We can't bring forward that god has "infinite foreknowledge" or else of course he would have spoken up and agreed with Scientific Humanism's "no slavery" belief, obviously!

He does not have "foreknowledge", just the knowledge that barbaric men had in barbaric times (slavery is cool, kill gays, women need to shut up in church, women are inferior to men and only worth half a man, etc.) So we believe god was just created by men of those days (not women, by the way.) When a particular unique god cares about us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence that he's more real than the other 5000 gods, then we will consider him being real. Until then, he's not WORTHY of our worship.

 

[Votto]

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

It would be great if god was a better communicator - can we agree on that? For example, you want the best communication between you and your children, right? Same thing with god and his "children" (humanity), right?

......

God's infinite foreknowledge has predestined you to Heaven or Hell already.

We can't bring forward that god has "infinite foreknowledge" or else of course he would have spoken up and agreed with Scientific Humanism's "no slavery" belief, obviously!

He does not have "foreknowledge", just the knowledge that barbaric men had in barbaric times (slavery is cool, kill gays, women need to shut up in church, women are inferior to men and only worth half a man, etc.) So we believe god was just created by men of those days (not women, by the way.) When a particular unique god cares about us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence that he's more real than the other 5000 gods, then we will consider him being real. Until then, he's not WORTHY of our worship.

Now that you have made yourself a god, what will you do to "save" mankind?

What's the plan Stan?

 

[featherlite]

I'm agnostic, and it's getting harder to hang on to even that, so I doubt if anyone could be smarter than what I think God is.----- that is, if he is rea------l. It's pretty easy to be smarter than the bible thumping idiots who claim they have no doubt that he exists. The goofy crap they come up with to justify their hateful behavior is just amazing.

Faith is a puzzling concept to those driven by ego

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I can think of a person driven by ego, he allegedly said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In other words it's all about HIM - HE matters, and nothing else. Me, me, me!....is basically what he's saying? No, I'm not talking about Trump.

Jesus came to serve, not to be served. "Man" has this almost obsessive desire to be worshiped. How can you be smarter than an all knowing creator. The dark forces have convinced many that contentment is achieved only by satisfying the urges of the self and nothing could be further from the truth.
Weren't you the one who posted ( somewhere else) on and on about ridding the world of faith, now you think faith in science and secular humanisn is the only way?

 

[Votto]

I'm agnostic, and it's getting harder to hang on to even that, so I doubt if anyone could be smarter than what I think God is.----- that is, if he is rea------l. It's pretty easy to be smarter than the bible thumping idiots who claim they have no doubt that he exists. The goofy crap they come up with to justify their hateful behavior is just amazing.

Faith is a puzzling concept to those driven by ego

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

I can think of a person driven by ego, he allegedly said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In other words it's all about HIM - HE matters, and nothing else. Me, me, me!....is basically what he's saying? No, I'm not talking about Trump.

Jesus came to serve, not to be served. "Man" has this almost obsessive desire to be worshiped. How can you be smarter than an all knowing creator. The dark forces have convinced many that contentment is achieved only by satisfying the urges of the self and nothing could be further from the truth.
Weren't you the one who posted ( somewhere else) on and on about ridding the world of faith, now you think faith in science and secular humanisn is the only way?

He is paving the way for what the Bible says must happen. A world leader will seize power and rise up and give us "peace".........for a short time.

But you're right, Jesus said before you lead you must serve but no one seems to want to do that.

 

[Meane]

My book would be clear enough that my followers would know they are never to behead their fellow humans, burn them at the stake, stone them to death, molest children, or any other form of killing or debauchery on your fellow man. There wouldn't be room for interpretation, I'd make that shit as clear as a Chilton's auto manual with diagrams and images. Anyone that tried to profit from my book in any way would be cleaning the latrine at Shawshank Prison forever. And if I was watching 12,000 Jews a day being gassed to death in gas chambers I would immediately say "ok, enough of this batshit, here I am I've put a stop to all of it".

And I would have known drowning the entire Earth with a flood and leaving one family left would not solve anything and the human race would be right back where it was before slaughtering all those people for nothing.

But that's just me.

What would you have done/did when they killed the Jews? If you have a good heart it is your purpose to do good not to expect the world to be perfect.

Let me jump in here - the best solution is to not bring forward the parts of the Bible were the god/heroes approve of killing innocent people, or killing people of other faiths. Your children deserve this. Moses and Elijah slaughtering people is not the best thing to teach our children - it teaches that killing is the best solution, but killing is not the best solution.

Well, you know, if they didn't do all the mass killing there would probably not be room for you here.

Let's not even JOKE about the atrocities in the Bible - god's approval of those atrocities has lead to a less ethical world - so it has caused untold damage on the morality of our species. We deserve a belief system that moves beyond god's morality - into the 21 century.

Oh please, human is a piece of shit. I thought it wasn't so when I was a child, but I've learned, the human mind with its weakness and the vices that follow, will never change.

 

[IsaacNewton]

.....

And I would have known drowning the entire Earth with a flood and leaving one family left would not solve anything and the human race would be right back where it was before slaughtering all those people for nothing.

But that's just me.

You are more compassionate than even their god is. That's impressive. I assume that you are more compassionate than their god is because you are driven by love for humanity, and by fairness (one reason why you oppose eternal torture for ethical non-believers like Gandhi, I'm sure.)

If people could just be as loving as you are, then the world would be a better place (and no US President would say that a book that says "kill the infidels wherever you find them" is a great book - like Obama did.) He was well-intended, but not as compassionate as you are. You have zero-tolerance for violent verses - and your way is the best, of course.

Ah another 'but Obama' blah blah derpy-derp. The bible offers the same horrific pablum as the Koran. Take off the rose colored glasses and give up on the Obama caused everything from WW2 to the eruption of Mt Vesuvius that destroyed Pompei.

Yeah the point of my post is why would a god NOT do all those things? Why allow people to be slaughtered by the millions. "Oh it's part of his plan". Yeah that plan sucks then. You could come up with a million plans better off the top of your head.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

It would be great if god was a better communicator - can we agree on that? For example, you want the best communication between you and your children, right? Same thing with god and his "children" (humanity), right?

......

God's infinite foreknowledge has predestined you to Heaven or Hell already.

We can't bring forward that god has "infinite foreknowledge" or else of course he would have spoken up and agreed with Scientific Humanism's "no slavery" belief, obviously!

He does not have "foreknowledge", just the knowledge that barbaric men had in barbaric times (slavery is cool, kill gays, women need to shut up in church, women are inferior to men and only worth half a man, etc.) So we believe god was just created by men of those days (not women, by the way.) When a particular unique god cares about us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence that he's more real than the other 5000 gods, then we will consider him being real. Until then, he's not WORTHY of our worship.

Now that you have made yourself a god, what will you do to "save" mankind?

What's the plan Stan?

Nope, not a god, just more ethical than one.
I have a hunch that you are too - let me ask you this question to find out - Votto, which is more moral, throwing Jews into a "lake of fire", or throwing them into ovens?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your thoughts, guys?

With Scientific Humanism we can possibly show you many things that are so great that they even go beyond what billions of people consider to be the smartest entity of all time – their god. You might not believe this because all your life Jesus/Bible, while well-intended, have told you that you are a “sinner”. But we can show you how you are a winner, not a “sinner”. The Golden Rule is wonderful, but in the verse right before mentioning the Golden Rule, Jesus allegedly said that you are “evil” or “wicked” – but we believe that you are good….and smart too! So we might have to improve your self-image before you believe that you can maybe be even smarter than “god”.
We love the good parts of other belief systems/religions, and have brought forward a number of the good things that their gods have allegedly said. We believe that about 70-80% of most religious texts are good, so let’s focus on those good parts – and move beyond the other 20 – 30%.

Four ways you could possibly be smarter than even “god”

1. Scientific Humanism has a great principle: “let’s have the most compassionate belief system.” So instead of killing virtually all humans in the Biblical god’s alleged world-wide flood, which also killed almost all innocent animals, too, would you be smart enough to forgive them, instead? Are you smart enough and loving enough to think up creative solutions instead of resorting to genocide of virtually all humans and virtually all animals….such as to come down and educate them? As a Scientific Humanist, because our belief system is based on evidence, reason, and common sense, you can answer “yes” to all the questions herein. We believe in you! However, if you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, then The Center For Scientific Humanism offers you a potentially great way to improve your self-esteem.
Unlike Scientific Humanism, their god generalized that all humans were bad, so he killed every single person (except the eight people on Noah’s Ark.) However, Scientific Humanism has a principle that states: “people are innately good”, so would you have been more compassionate than he was? Because we respect all groups so much, we have the principle “don’t stereotype”. But generalizing an entire group like that is even worse than saying, for example, “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!” So would you also be smart enough to not generalize about an entire group?
We believe “love your brother/sister like yourself”. Would you be loving enough to at least have spared families who had babies?

2. As a Scientific Humanist, you strive to create the most loving belief system that you possibly can. If you were in god’s shoes you’d pick a “prophet” (to spread your most-important-message-of-all-time!) that lived up to the highest moral standard of Scientific Humanism. You would have picked someone who believes in our axiom of “love everybody, equally”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Moses (Moses had 3000 innocent people killed in Exodus 32:25-28 - this is slightly more than the 2,996 innocent people that Osama Bin Laden had killed on 9/11/2001.)

3. As a Scientific Humanist, you are so caring that you believe that you need to take care of our most vulnerable family members, first! You would have picked someone who believes in our cherished principle of “put children first”. One thing Scientific Humanism holds “sacred” is our children. We teach to “love your children so much that you could never abandon them.” You also believe in our principle of “avoid extremism”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Jesus (Jesus wanted his followers to abandon their own children, and to hate their own children.)

4. If you were god giving his favorite “prophets” the most important messages of all time, then thinking like a Scientific Humanist, would do that with at least 30 witnesses, and not just to the prophet all my himself, alone? Doing so would of course keep fewer people out of the “hell” you created because 30 witnesses is far more credible and believable than just to one self-serving person. As a Scientific Humanist you are driven by your love of humanity (one reason that “humanity” is in the name!) Those 30 would remember what you told them more than just one single person would, too, of course.Most people don’t believe that a particular god’s prophet is actually telling the truth, since no religion has over 29% of the world’s population as followers. When talking to Moses via the “burning bush”, or to Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormon founder), would you have done that with 30 witnesses, so that your message was believed by far more people? People could think that one person could just be drunk, or high, or delusional, or lying about the encounter – but 30 people would be far more believable. Instead of the prophet saying “god talked to me”, the groups would say “god talked to us” – this helps people to more easily believe a prophet’s self-serving/unscientific unique claim of being the greatest human ever favored by god. If you would do this, then more people would follow your word, so fewer would need to be tortured in the “after-life”. As a loving Scientific Humanist you strive for win/win situations like this!

ScientificHumanism.org

If you proselytizing bastards come on my lawn to try and hand me tracts for your fucked up religion, I'm turning the sprinklers on you.

Fucking atheists are worse than Jehovah's witnesses.

WHAT business of yours is it what I do or don't believe?

 

[Joy4Uall]

.....

And I would have known drowning the entire Earth with a flood and leaving one family left would not solve anything and the human race would be right back where it was before slaughtering all those people for nothing.

But that's just me.

You are more compassionate than even their god is. That's impressive. I assume that you are more compassionate than their god is because you are driven by love for humanity, and by fairness (one reason why you oppose eternal torture for ethical non-believers like Gandhi, I'm sure.)

If people could just be as loving as you are, then the world would be a better place (and no US President would say that a book that says "kill the infidels wherever you find them" is a great book - like Obama did.) He was well-intended, but not as compassionate as you are. You have zero-tolerance for violent verses - and your way is the best, of course.

Ah another 'but Obama' blah blah derpy-derp. The bible offers the same horrific pablum as the Koran. Take off the rose colored glasses and give up on the Obama caused everything from WW2 to the eruption of Mt Vesuvius that destroyed Pompei.

Yeah the point of my post is why would a god NOT do all those things? Why allow people to be slaughtered by the millions. "Oh it's part of his plan". Yeah that plan sucks then. You could come up with a million plans better off the top of your head.

If people can "come up with a million plans better off the top of your head" then that would mean that they are indeed better than god (on an important issue.)" Thereby helping prove the claims in the OP.

PS Bush, too, believed that Islam was a religion of peace, so Bush also got it wrong. We love Muslims, but don't endorse the bad parts of the Islamic texts - Bush/Obama seem to, unfortunately.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Your thoughts, guys?

With Scientific Humanism we can possibly show you many things that are so great that they even go beyond what billions of people consider to be the smartest entity of all time – their god. You might not believe this because all your life Jesus/Bible, while well-intended, have told you that you are a “sinner”. But we can show you how you are a winner, not a “sinner”. The Golden Rule is wonderful, but in the verse right before mentioning the Golden Rule, Jesus allegedly said that you are “evil” or “wicked” – but we believe that you are good….and smart too! So we might have to improve your self-image before you believe that you can maybe be even smarter than “god”.
We love the good parts of other belief systems/religions, and have brought forward a number of the good things that their gods have allegedly said. We believe that about 70-80% of most religious texts are good, so let’s focus on those good parts – and move beyond the other 20 – 30%.

Four ways you could possibly be smarter than even “god”

1. Scientific Humanism has a great principle: “let’s have the most compassionate belief system.” So instead of killing virtually all humans in the Biblical god’s alleged world-wide flood, which also killed almost all innocent animals, too, would you be smart enough to forgive them, instead? Are you smart enough and loving enough to think up creative solutions instead of resorting to genocide of virtually all humans and virtually all animals….such as to come down and educate them? As a Scientific Humanist, because our belief system is based on evidence, reason, and common sense, you can answer “yes” to all the questions herein. We believe in you! However, if you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, then The Center For Scientific Humanism offers you a potentially great way to improve your self-esteem.
Unlike Scientific Humanism, their god generalized that all humans were bad, so he killed every single person (except the eight people on Noah’s Ark.) However, Scientific Humanism has a principle that states: “people are innately good”, so would you have been more compassionate than he was? Because we respect all groups so much, we have the principle “don’t stereotype”. But generalizing an entire group like that is even worse than saying, for example, “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!” So would you also be smart enough to not generalize about an entire group?
We believe “love your brother/sister like yourself”. Would you be loving enough to at least have spared families who had babies?

2. As a Scientific Humanist, you strive to create the most loving belief system that you possibly can. If you were in god’s shoes you’d pick a “prophet” (to spread your most-important-message-of-all-time!) that lived up to the highest moral standard of Scientific Humanism. You would have picked someone who believes in our axiom of “love everybody, equally”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Moses (Moses had 3000 innocent people killed in Exodus 32:25-28 - this is slightly more than the 2,996 innocent people that Osama Bin Laden had killed on 9/11/2001.)

3. As a Scientific Humanist, you are so caring that you believe that you need to take care of our most vulnerable family members, first! You would have picked someone who believes in our cherished principle of “put children first”. One thing Scientific Humanism holds “sacred” is our children. We teach to “love your children so much that you could never abandon them.” You also believe in our principle of “avoid extremism”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Jesus (Jesus wanted his followers to abandon their own children, and to hate their own children.)

4. If you were god giving his favorite “prophets” the most important messages of all time, then thinking like a Scientific Humanist, would do that with at least 30 witnesses, and not just to the prophet all my himself, alone? Doing so would of course keep fewer people out of the “hell” you created because 30 witnesses is far more credible and believable than just to one self-serving person. As a Scientific Humanist you are driven by your love of humanity (one reason that “humanity” is in the name!) Those 30 would remember what you told them more than just one single person would, too, of course.Most people don’t believe that a particular god’s prophet is actually telling the truth, since no religion has over 29% of the world’s population as followers. When talking to Moses via the “burning bush”, or to Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormon founder), would you have done that with 30 witnesses, so that your message was believed by far more people? People could think that one person could just be drunk, or high, or delusional, or lying about the encounter – but 30 people would be far more believable. Instead of the prophet saying “god talked to me”, the groups would say “god talked to us” – this helps people to more easily believe a prophet’s self-serving/unscientific unique claim of being the greatest human ever favored by god. If you would do this, then more people would follow your word, so fewer would need to be tortured in the “after-life”. As a loving Scientific Humanist you strive for win/win situations like this!

ScientificHumanism.org

If you proselytizing bastards come on my lawn to try and hand me tracts for your fucked up religion, I'm turning the sprinklers on you.

Fucking atheists are worse than Jehovah's witnesses.

WHAT business of yours is it what I do or don't believe?

I think we can assume that since you didn't refute, point by point, the 4 claims in the OP that you can't refute them. (That's ok, I think they are pretty good points, so don't feel bad.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

[Q

I think we can assume that since you didn't refute, point by point, the 4 claims in the OP that you can't refute them. (That's ok, I think they are pretty good points, so don't feel bad.)

You can believe any idiocy you like. Believe in one god, no god, or a thousand gods. I could not care less.

Why do you not extend the same courtesy to others?

 

[Joy4Uall]

.....

And I would have known drowning the entire Earth with a flood and leaving one family left would not solve anything and the human race would be right back where it was before slaughtering all those people for nothing.

But that's just me.

You are more compassionate than even their god is. That's impressive. I assume that you are more compassionate than their god is because you are driven by love for humanity, and by fairness (one reason why you oppose eternal torture for ethical non-believers like Gandhi, I'm sure.)

If people could just be as loving as you are, then the world would be a better place (and no US President would say that a book that says "kill the infidels wherever you find them" is a great book - like Obama did.) He was well-intended, but not as compassionate as you are. You have zero-tolerance for violent verses - and your way is the best, of course.

Ah another 'but Obama' blah blah derpy-derp. The bible offers the same horrific pablum as the Koran. .....

Agreed! The Abrahamic faiths are basically equal in good stuff (lots of good stuff), and equal in bad stuff (lots of bad stuff.) So it would appear that neither one is better than the other, so therefore neither one is "from god".
But we are hopeful - if one of those gods actually loves us like is claimed, then it would be great when and it they produce a court-room level of evidence that they are the one true god, and the others are just impostors. He love humanity enough to believe that we DESERVE a god that would love us that much - so we'll believe in one only if and when they love us enough to do that (and to not send non-believers to "hell"....that's a deal-breaker to a loving Scientific Humanist....put love first.

 

[Joy4Uall]

[Q

I think we can assume that since you didn't refute, point by point, the 4 claims in the OP that you can't refute them. (That's ok, I think they are pretty good points, so don't feel bad.)

You can believe any idiocy you like. Believe in one god, no god, or a thousand gods. I could not care less.

Why do you not extend the same courtesy to others?

Your thoughts, guys?

With Scientific Humanism we can possibly show you many things that are so great that they even go beyond what billions of people consider to be the smartest entity of all time – their god. You might not believe this because all your life Jesus/Bible, while well-intended, have told you that you are a “sinner”. But we can show you how you are a winner, not a “sinner”. The Golden Rule is wonderful, but in the verse right before mentioning the Golden Rule, Jesus allegedly said that you are “evil” or “wicked” – but we believe that you are good….and smart too! So we might have to improve your self-image before you believe that you can maybe be even smarter than “god”.
We love the good parts of other belief systems/religions, and have brought forward a number of the good things that their gods have allegedly said. We believe that about 70-80% of most religious texts are good, so let’s focus on those good parts – and move beyond the other 20 – 30%.

Four ways you could possibly be smarter than even “god”

1. Scientific Humanism has a great principle: “let’s have the most compassionate belief system.” So instead of killing virtually all humans in the Biblical god’s alleged world-wide flood, which also killed almost all innocent animals, too, would you be smart enough to forgive them, instead? Are you smart enough and loving enough to think up creative solutions instead of resorting to genocide of virtually all humans and virtually all animals….such as to come down and educate them? As a Scientific Humanist, because our belief system is based on evidence, reason, and common sense, you can answer “yes” to all the questions herein. We believe in you! However, if you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, then The Center For Scientific Humanism offers you a potentially great way to improve your self-esteem.
Unlike Scientific Humanism, their god generalized that all humans were bad, so he killed every single person (except the eight people on Noah’s Ark.) However, Scientific Humanism has a principle that states: “people are innately good”, so would you have been more compassionate than he was? Because we respect all groups so much, we have the principle “don’t stereotype”. But generalizing an entire group like that is even worse than saying, for example, “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!” So would you also be smart enough to not generalize about an entire group?
We believe “love your brother/sister like yourself”. Would you be loving enough to at least have spared families who had babies?

2. As a Scientific Humanist, you strive to create the most loving belief system that you possibly can. If you were in god’s shoes you’d pick a “prophet” (to spread your most-important-message-of-all-time!) that lived up to the highest moral standard of Scientific Humanism. You would have picked someone who believes in our axiom of “love everybody, equally”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Moses (Moses had 3000 innocent people killed in Exodus 32:25-28 - this is slightly more than the 2,996 innocent people that Osama Bin Laden had killed on 9/11/2001.)

3. As a Scientific Humanist, you are so caring that you believe that you need to take care of our most vulnerable family members, first! You would have picked someone who believes in our cherished principle of “put children first”. One thing Scientific Humanism holds “sacred” is our children. We teach to “love your children so much that you could never abandon them.” You also believe in our principle of “avoid extremism”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Jesus (Jesus wanted his followers to abandon their own children, and to hate their own children.)

4. If you were god giving his favorite “prophets” the most important messages of all time, then thinking like a Scientific Humanist, would do that with at least 30 witnesses, and not just to the prophet all my himself, alone? Doing so would of course keep fewer people out of the “hell” you created because 30 witnesses is far more credible and believable than just to one self-serving person. As a Scientific Humanist you are driven by your love of humanity (one reason that “humanity” is in the name!) Those 30 would remember what you told them more than just one single person would, too, of course.Most people don’t believe that a particular god’s prophet is actually telling the truth, since no religion has over 29% of the world’s population as followers. When talking to Moses via the “burning bush”, or to Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormon founder), would you have done that with 30 witnesses, so that your message was believed by far more people? People could think that one person could just be drunk, or high, or delusional, or lying about the encounter – but 30 people would be far more believable. Instead of the prophet saying “god talked to me”, the groups would say “god talked to us” – this helps people to more easily believe a prophet’s self-serving/unscientific unique claim of being the greatest human ever favored by god. If you would do this, then more people would follow your word, so fewer would need to be tortured in the “after-life”. As a loving Scientific Humanist you strive for win/win situations like this!

ScientificHumanism.org

If you proselytizing bastards come on my lawn to try and hand me tracts for your fucked up religion, ......................

One "religion" teaches love towards gays, tolerance, compassion towards gays
The other religion (that does have some good parts as well) does teach hatred, intolerance, and non-compassion towards gays - and has had 2000 years to improve that, and failed, unfortunately for humanity.
So it's hard to say that the first one is a "fucked up religion". The second religion has it's moments, but also is in serious need of reform, of course.

 

[Joy4Uall]

[Q

I think we can assume that since you didn't refute, point by point, the 4 claims in the OP that you can't refute them. (That's ok, I think they are pretty good points, so don't feel bad.)

You can believe any idiocy you like. Believe in one god, no god, or a thousand gods. I could not care less.

Why do you not extend the same courtesy to others?

We do indeed believe in religious freedom more than Jesus does - we strongly believe in freedom of religion (it's "1b" in our ten "Commandments"!), but Jesus says in John 14:6, and in verses below, that if you don't have religious freedom (well, for over 99.99999999999999% of your total existence, counting the "after-life"). Torturing people for not thinking like your religion does is not "freedom of religion", of course.
Love Christians, so much so that if it were up to you you'd let them into "heaven", and avoid "hell", even though they won't extend the same courtesy to you. The best way to increase their love and compassion is to show them more love and compassion than they show you. Be a role model to them.

John 14:6: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
Acts 4:12, 2 Thessalonians 1:1-10, John 3:18, John 10:27-28, Matthew 10:32, Luke 12:8, John 5:2, John 3:36, John 6:47, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9, Revelation 19:20, 20:10,14-15, 21:8, John 15:6: Jesus said “Unless a person remains united with me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up. Such branches are gathered and thrown into the fire, where they are burned up."

 

[Joy4Uall]

Your thoughts, guys?

With Scientific Humanism we can possibly show you many things that are so great that they even go beyond what billions of people consider to be the smartest entity of all time – their god. You might not believe this because all your life Jesus/Bible, while well-intended, have told you that you are a “sinner”. But we can show you how you are a winner, not a “sinner”. The Golden Rule is wonderful, but in the verse right before mentioning the Golden Rule, Jesus allegedly said that you are “evil” or “wicked” – but we believe that you are good….and smart too! So we might have to improve your self-image before you believe that you can maybe be even smarter than “god”.
We love the good parts of other belief systems/religions, and have brought forward a number of the good things that their gods have allegedly said. We believe that about 70-80% of most religious texts are good, so let’s focus on those good parts – and move beyond the other 20 – 30%.

Four ways you could possibly be smarter than even “god”

1. Scientific Humanism has a great principle: “let’s have the most compassionate belief system.” So instead of killing virtually all humans in the Biblical god’s alleged world-wide flood, which also killed almost all innocent animals, too, would you be smart enough to forgive them, instead? Are you smart enough and loving enough to think up creative solutions instead of resorting to genocide of virtually all humans and virtually all animals….such as to come down and educate them? As a Scientific Humanist, because our belief system is based on evidence, reason, and common sense, you can answer “yes” to all the questions herein. We believe in you! However, if you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, then The Center For Scientific Humanism offers you a potentially great way to improve your self-esteem.
Unlike Scientific Humanism, their god generalized that all humans were bad, so he killed every single person (except the eight people on Noah’s Ark.) However, Scientific Humanism has a principle that states: “people are innately good”, so would you have been more compassionate than he was? Because we respect all groups so much, we have the principle “don’t stereotype”. But generalizing an entire group like that is even worse than saying, for example, “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!” So would you also be smart enough to not generalize about an entire group?
We believe “love your brother/sister like yourself”. Would you be loving enough to at least have spared families who had babies?

2. As a Scientific Humanist, you strive to create the most loving belief system that you possibly can. If you were in god’s shoes you’d pick a “prophet” (to spread your most-important-message-of-all-time!) that lived up to the highest moral standard of Scientific Humanism. You would have picked someone who believes in our axiom of “love everybody, equally”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Moses (Moses had 3000 innocent people killed in Exodus 32:25-28 - this is slightly more than the 2,996 innocent people that Osama Bin Laden had killed on 9/11/2001.)

3. As a Scientific Humanist, you are so caring that you believe that you need to take care of our most vulnerable family members, first! You would have picked someone who believes in our cherished principle of “put children first”. One thing Scientific Humanism holds “sacred” is our children. We teach to “love your children so much that you could never abandon them.” You also believe in our principle of “avoid extremism”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Jesus (Jesus wanted his followers to abandon their own children, and to hate their own children.)

4. If you were god giving his favorite “prophets” the most important messages of all time, then thinking like a Scientific Humanist, would do that with at least 30 witnesses, and not just to the prophet all my himself, alone? Doing so would of course keep fewer people out of the “hell” you created because 30 witnesses is far more credible and believable than just to one self-serving person. As a Scientific Humanist you are driven by your love of humanity (one reason that “humanity” is in the name!) Those 30 would remember what you told them more than just one single person would, too, of course.Most people don’t believe that a particular god’s prophet is actually telling the truth, since no religion has over 29% of the world’s population as followers. When talking to Moses via the “burning bush”, or to Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormon founder), would you have done that with 30 witnesses, so that your message was believed by far more people? People could think that one person could just be drunk, or high, or delusional, or lying about the encounter – but 30 people would be far more believable. Instead of the prophet saying “god talked to me”, the groups would say “god talked to us” – this helps people to more easily believe a prophet’s self-serving/unscientific unique claim of being the greatest human ever favored by god. If you would do this, then more people would follow your word, so fewer would need to be tortured in the “after-life”. As a loving Scientific Humanist you strive for win/win situations like this!

ScientificHumanism.org

.....

Fucking atheists are worse than Jehovah's witnesses.

......

Hopefully we can respect others enough to not call them vile names (Jesus called people "vipers", and we choose not to endorse that verse in the Bible to our children.) Thanks.

We will likely believe in a god that cares about us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence for his existence - above the 5000+ other gods that are would obviously be false if there is only one god.
Here's a pray that we can say: "god, please provide a court-room level of evidence that you are more real than any other god, so that we can believe in you and therefore avoid hell. Thank you".

Can you please say this prayer to your god: "god, please provide a court-room level of evidence that you are more real than any other god, so that non-believers can believe in you and therefore avoid hell. Thank you".

Thanks.
Have a great week!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your thoughts, guys?

With Scientific Humanism we can possibly show you many things that are so great that they even go beyond what billions of people consider to be the smartest entity of all time – their god. You might not believe this because all your life Jesus/Bible, while well-intended, have told you that you are a “sinner”. But we can show you how you are a winner, not a “sinner”. The Golden Rule is wonderful, but in the verse right before mentioning the Golden Rule, Jesus allegedly said that you are “evil” or “wicked” – but we believe that you are good….and smart too! So we might have to improve your self-image before you believe that you can maybe be even smarter than “god”.
We love the good parts of other belief systems/religions, and have brought forward a number of the good things that their gods have allegedly said. We believe that about 70-80% of most religious texts are good, so let’s focus on those good parts – and move beyond the other 20 – 30%.

Four ways you could possibly be smarter than even “god”

1. Scientific Humanism has a great principle: “let’s have the most compassionate belief system.” So instead of killing virtually all humans in the Biblical god’s alleged world-wide flood, which also killed almost all innocent animals, too, would you be smart enough to forgive them, instead? Are you smart enough and loving enough to think up creative solutions instead of resorting to genocide of virtually all humans and virtually all animals….such as to come down and educate them? As a Scientific Humanist, because our belief system is based on evidence, reason, and common sense, you can answer “yes” to all the questions herein. We believe in you! However, if you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, then The Center For Scientific Humanism offers you a potentially great way to improve your self-esteem.
Unlike Scientific Humanism, their god generalized that all humans were bad, so he killed every single person (except the eight people on Noah’s Ark.) However, Scientific Humanism has a principle that states: “people are innately good”, so would you have been more compassionate than he was? Because we respect all groups so much, we have the principle “don’t stereotype”. But generalizing an entire group like that is even worse than saying, for example, “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!” So would you also be smart enough to not generalize about an entire group?
We believe “love your brother/sister like yourself”. Would you be loving enough to at least have spared families who had babies?

2. As a Scientific Humanist, you strive to create the most loving belief system that you possibly can. If you were in god’s shoes you’d pick a “prophet” (to spread your most-important-message-of-all-time!) that lived up to the highest moral standard of Scientific Humanism. You would have picked someone who believes in our axiom of “love everybody, equally”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Moses (Moses had 3000 innocent people killed in Exodus 32:25-28 - this is slightly more than the 2,996 innocent people that Osama Bin Laden had killed on 9/11/2001.)

3. As a Scientific Humanist, you are so caring that you believe that you need to take care of our most vulnerable family members, first! You would have picked someone who believes in our cherished principle of “put children first”. One thing Scientific Humanism holds “sacred” is our children. We teach to “love your children so much that you could never abandon them.” You also believe in our principle of “avoid extremism”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Jesus (Jesus wanted his followers to abandon their own children, and to hate their own children.)

4. If you were god giving his favorite “prophets” the most important messages of all time, then thinking like a Scientific Humanist, would do that with at least 30 witnesses, and not just to the prophet all my himself, alone? Doing so would of course keep fewer people out of the “hell” you created because 30 witnesses is far more credible and believable than just to one self-serving person. As a Scientific Humanist you are driven by your love of humanity (one reason that “humanity” is in the name!) Those 30 would remember what you told them more than just one single person would, too, of course.Most people don’t believe that a particular god’s prophet is actually telling the truth, since no religion has over 29% of the world’s population as followers. When talking to Moses via the “burning bush”, or to Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormon founder), would you have done that with 30 witnesses, so that your message was believed by far more people? People could think that one person could just be drunk, or high, or delusional, or lying about the encounter – but 30 people would be far more believable. Instead of the prophet saying “god talked to me”, the groups would say “god talked to us” – this helps people to more easily believe a prophet’s self-serving/unscientific unique claim of being the greatest human ever favored by god. If you would do this, then more people would follow your word, so fewer would need to be tortured in the “after-life”. As a loving Scientific Humanist you strive for win/win situations like this!

ScientificHumanism.org

.....

Fucking atheists are worse than Jehovah's witnesses.

......

Hopefully we can respect others enough to not call them vile names (Jesus called people "vipers", and we choose not to endorse that verse in the Bible to our children.) Thanks.

We will likely believe in a god that cares about us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence for his existence - above the 5000+ other gods that are would obviously be false if there is only one god.
Here's a pray that we can say: "god, please provide a court-room level of evidence that you are more real than any other god, so that we can believe in you and therefore avoid hell. Thank you".

Can you please say this prayer to your god: "god, please provide a court-room level of evidence that you are more real than any other god, so that non-believers can believe in you and therefore avoid hell. Thank you".

Thanks.
Have a great week!

I have no respect at all for Atheists. It's as if a bunch of legalistic zealots finally grasp that there is no evidence of a god, but love the trappings of religion so much that they built dogmatic adherence to Nogod. No one is more determined to "convert" others than are atheists.

Oh, I can say no prayer to "my god." I used to have a god, but he kept crapping on the rug so I had to get rid of him....

 

[rightwinger]

Your thoughts, guys?

With Scientific Humanism we can possibly show you many things that are so great that they even go beyond what billions of people consider to be the smartest entity of all time – their god. You might not believe this because all your life Jesus/Bible, while well-intended, have told you that you are a “sinner”. But we can show you how you are a winner, not a “sinner”. The Golden Rule is wonderful, but in the verse right before mentioning the Golden Rule, Jesus allegedly said that you are “evil” or “wicked” – but we believe that you are good….and smart too! So we might have to improve your self-image before you believe that you can maybe be even smarter than “god”.
We love the good parts of other belief systems/religions, and have brought forward a number of the good things that their gods have allegedly said. We believe that about 70-80% of most religious texts are good, so let’s focus on those good parts – and move beyond the other 20 – 30%.

Four ways you could possibly be smarter than even “god”

1. Scientific Humanism has a great principle: “let’s have the most compassionate belief system.” So instead of killing virtually all humans in the Biblical god’s alleged world-wide flood, which also killed almost all innocent animals, too, would you be smart enough to forgive them, instead? Are you smart enough and loving enough to think up creative solutions instead of resorting to genocide of virtually all humans and virtually all animals….such as to come down and educate them? As a Scientific Humanist, because our belief system is based on evidence, reason, and common sense, you can answer “yes” to all the questions herein. We believe in you! However, if you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, then The Center For Scientific Humanism offers you a potentially great way to improve your self-esteem.
Unlike Scientific Humanism, their god generalized that all humans were bad, so he killed every single person (except the eight people on Noah’s Ark.) However, Scientific Humanism has a principle that states: “people are innately good”, so would you have been more compassionate than he was? Because we respect all groups so much, we have the principle “don’t stereotype”. But generalizing an entire group like that is even worse than saying, for example, “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!” So would you also be smart enough to not generalize about an entire group?
We believe “love your brother/sister like yourself”. Would you be loving enough to at least have spared families who had babies?

2. As a Scientific Humanist, you strive to create the most loving belief system that you possibly can. If you were in god’s shoes you’d pick a “prophet” (to spread your most-important-message-of-all-time!) that lived up to the highest moral standard of Scientific Humanism. You would have picked someone who believes in our axiom of “love everybody, equally”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Moses (Moses had 3000 innocent people killed in Exodus 32:25-28 - this is slightly more than the 2,996 innocent people that Osama Bin Laden had killed on 9/11/2001.)

3. As a Scientific Humanist, you are so caring that you believe that you need to take care of our most vulnerable family members, first! You would have picked someone who believes in our cherished principle of “put children first”. One thing Scientific Humanism holds “sacred” is our children. We teach to “love your children so much that you could never abandon them.” You also believe in our principle of “avoid extremism”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Jesus (Jesus wanted his followers to abandon their own children, and to hate their own children.)

4. If you were god giving his favorite “prophets” the most important messages of all time, then thinking like a Scientific Humanist, would do that with at least 30 witnesses, and not just to the prophet all my himself, alone? Doing so would of course keep fewer people out of the “hell” you created because 30 witnesses is far more credible and believable than just to one self-serving person. As a Scientific Humanist you are driven by your love of humanity (one reason that “humanity” is in the name!) Those 30 would remember what you told them more than just one single person would, too, of course.Most people don’t believe that a particular god’s prophet is actually telling the truth, since no religion has over 29% of the world’s population as followers. When talking to Moses via the “burning bush”, or to Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormon founder), would you have done that with 30 witnesses, so that your message was believed by far more people? People could think that one person could just be drunk, or high, or delusional, or lying about the encounter – but 30 people would be far more believable. Instead of the prophet saying “god talked to me”, the groups would say “god talked to us” – this helps people to more easily believe a prophet’s self-serving/unscientific unique claim of being the greatest human ever favored by god. If you would do this, then more people would follow your word, so fewer would need to be tortured in the “after-life”. As a loving Scientific Humanist you strive for win/win situations like this!

ScientificHumanism.org

.....

Fucking atheists are worse than Jehovah's witnesses.

......

Hopefully we can respect others enough to not call them vile names (Jesus called people "vipers", and we choose not to endorse that verse in the Bible to our children.) Thanks.

We will likely believe in a god that cares about us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence for his existence - above the 5000+ other gods that are would obviously be false if there is only one god.
Here's a pray that we can say: "god, please provide a court-room level of evidence that you are more real than any other god, so that we can believe in you and therefore avoid hell. Thank you".

Can you please say this prayer to your god: "god, please provide a court-room level of evidence that you are more real than any other god, so that non-believers can believe in you and therefore avoid hell. Thank you".

Thanks.
Have a great week!

I have no respect at all for Atheists. It's as if a bunch of legalistic zealots finally grasp that there is no evidence of a god, but love the trappings of religion so much that they built dogmatic adherence to Nogod. No one is more determined to "convert" others than are atheists.

Oh, I can say no prayer to "my god." I used to have a god, but he kept crapping on the rug so I had to get rid of him....

I have never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convert me

 

[IsaacNewton]

And what about Odd God. Maybe you can be smarter than Even God, but what about his twin.

And there you have it, the bad joke of the day. Thank you try the veal.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your thoughts, guys?

With Scientific Humanism we can possibly show you many things that are so great that they even go beyond what billions of people consider to be the smartest entity of all time – their god. You might not believe this because all your life Jesus/Bible, while well-intended, have told you that you are a “sinner”. But we can show you how you are a winner, not a “sinner”. The Golden Rule is wonderful, but in the verse right before mentioning the Golden Rule, Jesus allegedly said that you are “evil” or “wicked” – but we believe that you are good….and smart too! So we might have to improve your self-image before you believe that you can maybe be even smarter than “god”.
We love the good parts of other belief systems/religions, and have brought forward a number of the good things that their gods have allegedly said. We believe that about 70-80% of most religious texts are good, so let’s focus on those good parts – and move beyond the other 20 – 30%.

Four ways you could possibly be smarter than even “god”

1. Scientific Humanism has a great principle: “let’s have the most compassionate belief system.” So instead of killing virtually all humans in the Biblical god’s alleged world-wide flood, which also killed almost all innocent animals, too, would you be smart enough to forgive them, instead? Are you smart enough and loving enough to think up creative solutions instead of resorting to genocide of virtually all humans and virtually all animals….such as to come down and educate them? As a Scientific Humanist, because our belief system is based on evidence, reason, and common sense, you can answer “yes” to all the questions herein. We believe in you! However, if you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions, then The Center For Scientific Humanism offers you a potentially great way to improve your self-esteem.
Unlike Scientific Humanism, their god generalized that all humans were bad, so he killed every single person (except the eight people on Noah’s Ark.) However, Scientific Humanism has a principle that states: “people are innately good”, so would you have been more compassionate than he was? Because we respect all groups so much, we have the principle “don’t stereotype”. But generalizing an entire group like that is even worse than saying, for example, “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!” So would you also be smart enough to not generalize about an entire group?
We believe “love your brother/sister like yourself”. Would you be loving enough to at least have spared families who had babies?

2. As a Scientific Humanist, you strive to create the most loving belief system that you possibly can. If you were in god’s shoes you’d pick a “prophet” (to spread your most-important-message-of-all-time!) that lived up to the highest moral standard of Scientific Humanism. You would have picked someone who believes in our axiom of “love everybody, equally”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Moses (Moses had 3000 innocent people killed in Exodus 32:25-28 - this is slightly more than the 2,996 innocent people that Osama Bin Laden had killed on 9/11/2001.)

3. As a Scientific Humanist, you are so caring that you believe that you need to take care of our most vulnerable family members, first! You would have picked someone who believes in our cherished principle of “put children first”. One thing Scientific Humanism holds “sacred” is our children. We teach to “love your children so much that you could never abandon them.” You also believe in our principle of “avoid extremism”. So you would have moved beyond picking someone even as great as Jesus (Jesus wanted his followers to abandon their own children, and to hate their own children.)

4. If you were god giving his favorite “prophets” the most important messages of all time, then thinking like a Scientific Humanist, would do that with at least 30 witnesses, and not just to the prophet all my himself, alone? Doing so would of course keep fewer people out of the “hell” you created because 30 witnesses is far more credible and believable than just to one self-serving person. As a Scientific Humanist you are driven by your love of humanity (one reason that “humanity” is in the name!) Those 30 would remember what you told them more than just one single person would, too, of course.Most people don’t believe that a particular god’s prophet is actually telling the truth, since no religion has over 29% of the world’s population as followers. When talking to Moses via the “burning bush”, or to Joseph Smith, Jr. (Mormon founder), would you have done that with 30 witnesses, so that your message was believed by far more people? People could think that one person could just be drunk, or high, or delusional, or lying about the encounter – but 30 people would be far more believable. Instead of the prophet saying “god talked to me”, the groups would say “god talked to us” – this helps people to more easily believe a prophet’s self-serving/unscientific unique claim of being the greatest human ever favored by god. If you would do this, then more people would follow your word, so fewer would need to be tortured in the “after-life”. As a loving Scientific Humanist you strive for win/win situations like this!

ScientificHumanism.org

.....

Fucking atheists are worse than Jehovah's witnesses.

......

Hopefully we can respect others enough to not call them vile names (Jesus called people "vipers", and we choose not to endorse that verse in the Bible to our children.) Thanks.

We will likely believe in a god that cares about us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence for his existence - above the 5000+ other gods that are would obviously be false if there is only one god.
Here's a pray that we can say: "god, please provide a court-room level of evidence that you are more real than any other god, so that we can believe in you and therefore avoid hell. Thank you".

Can you please say this prayer to your god: "god, please provide a court-room level of evidence that you are more real than any other god, so that non-believers can believe in you and therefore avoid hell. Thank you".

Thanks.
Have a great week!

I have no respect at all for Atheists. It's as if a bunch of legalistic zealots finally grasp that there is no evidence of a god, but love the trappings of religion so much that they built dogmatic adherence to Nogod. No one is more determined to "convert" others than are atheists.

Oh, I can say no prayer to "my god." I used to have a god, but he kept crapping on the rug so I had to get rid of him....

I have never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convert me

I've never met an atheist who DIDN'T try and convert me.

 

[Divine Wind]

We like some of the philosophical teachings in the Bible, and urge people to read the Bible and all of the top 10 religions - lots of good stuff there. New Atheists tend to only bash, in a mean-spirited way, the Bible and other religions. They say mostly what they are against (Dawkins had a big "A" button on his lapel - he's Atheist - "a" means non, I'm NOT a theist). We like to spell out what we are FOR, mostly.

But ultimately we couldn't ethically bring forward into our belief system the immoral parts of the Bible (it's ok to beat slaves to death as long as the death drags out past a few days), so we have a more ethical belief system - the best of the best - than Christians have. Our children deserve the best! I'm sure that you love your kids too much to endorse a book (Bible/Qur'an) that says to KILL them if they turn out like god (allegedly) made them - say if they turn out gay.

Scientific Humanism:
No slavery.

Bible:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

"We"? I've noticed you've done this a few times. One might be a simple writing error, but multiple times proves you intended to say "we". Are you the official spokesperson for all "Scientific Humanists"? Is that an elected position or an appointed one?

Very valid question. When I say "we" I'm generally referring to the typical Scientific Humanist, but I have not been elected Pope of Scientific Humanism.

How about the High Priest of Atheists like Richard Dawkins?

Good one. Yes, some New Atheists have raised him to god-like status....ironic, no? Hehe. "Atheist Pope Richard Dawkins".

Fortunately, Scientific Humanists have moved beyond Dawkins to not create a mean-spirited belief system - Dawkins is often viewed as mean and condescending to no end. He also doesn't promote, as much, what he's FOR. In that photoshopped graphic it even shows the religious symbols crossed out, we don't do that, we bring forward the scientifically-correct parts that happen to be what's best for the world (Golden Rule, etc.). But no, like Dawkins, we know that science is more accurate than the unscientific parts of those religions' texts. Dawkins and Scientific Humanists are too smart to bring forward the dragons, and unicorns, and "angels" (and "jinns" in Islam) that the Bible mentions.
We have many things that we are FOR (see below).
The more one if FOR something, and less only AGAINST something, the better off it is for the world. A positive belief system, not a negative one.


The Ten Commandments of Scientific Humanism

1. Believe in freedom:
a. Political (secular democracy)
b. Religious
c. Freedom of speech (vs. being overly politically-correct, etc.)

2. Be extremely skeptical of all supernatural-related claims.
For the answers to Universe/Nature look to evidence-based scientific-inquiry (current and future progress,) and human reason.

3. Increase the overall happiness of society, by being very ethical, legal, and being good for the sake of being good.

4. Have love and compassion for everyone in the world brother/sisterhood, even people of different religious/political/societal beliefs, and your “enemies”. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

5. Treat people equally, regardless of gender, race, “caste”, sexual-orientation, etc.

6. Follow our '12 Best Steps to Wellness''

7. Work smart and hard.

8. Do charity/volunteer work.

9. Work for peace and harmony.

10. Help our environment.

Is acting smug, superior and haughty #11?

Actually, I'd be hard pressed to find any mainstream religious, political or secular group that disagrees with those principles. I agree with all of them 100% except #6 and only because I don't know what that is. OTOH, following a healthy lifestyle is always a good goal.