“The pagan in Africa gets a piece of wood and builds him a god; the intellectual in the university gets his mind and builds himself a god.”
—Dr. Jack Hyles, from the sermon titled, How We Got Here

Humanism: The Atheist's Religion!!!

I. The different way Christians and Humanists view mankind:

GOD’S MAN	HUMANIST’S MAN
Created By God	Product Of Evolutionary Process
Image Of God	Image Of Nature And Social Heritage
Has Immortal Soul	Has No Soul
Has Eternal Purpose	Has No Eternal Purpose
Life After Death	No Life After Death

II. Humanism Is A Religion:

A. They have a bible: Humanist Manifesto I & II

B. They have an object of worship: Man himself

C. They have a priesthood and missionaries: Public educators

D. They have seminaries: teachers colleges

E. They have temples: schools colleges and universities

F. They are intolerant of other religions:

Humanists freely teach:	Humanists totally forbid teaching:
Atheism	God The Creator
Evolution Fact	Creation as Scientific
Situation Ethics	Moral Absolutes
Explicit Sex Education	Biblical View Of Sexuality
Perversions As Acceptable	Homosexuality Wrong
No Life After Death	Heaven, Hell, Judgment
These Concepts Can Be Taught Freely During School Hours To Captive Children	These Concepts Cannot Be Taught On School Premises- Even After School Hours End.

III. Basic Tenets Of Humanism

A. It affirms that the universe is self-existent and denies that it was created. Thus, it affirms the eternity of matter and denies the existence of God and His word of creation.

B. It affirms that man evolved by natural means. This means that they hold that God had nothing to do with bring man into being.

C. It affirms that man is totally physical, thus denying that man has a spirit or soul

D. It affirms that all religion is the result of social evolution. Faith in God is outmoded, Religion retards Human progress

E. It denies that God is the ultimate good, thus denying that men do either that which is really objectively wrong or that which is really objectively right.

F. It affirms that the ultimate end of man’s life is to be found in the here and now. Humanism rejects Heaven; it denies there is a Hell.

G. "Worship" of God and prayer to God is rejected. Man should rather use his time in seeking to promote social well-being.

H. It affirms that man must learn to depend upon science and must discourage hopes of heaven (which involves wishful thinking)

I. It holds that man alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, thus holding that God has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

IV. Effects Of Humanism:

A. Evolution is fact

B. there is no God

C. The Bible is a myth

D. Antagonistic towards all other religions

E. eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die

F. "If It Feels Good Do It"

G. Man answers only to himself

H. No Absolute truth or right and wrong

I. Man becomes self righteous

J. General unwillingness to follow authority

K. sexual freedom, homosexuality, easy divorce

L. suicide, abortion and euthanasia encouraged

M. Situation ethics: "lying is Ok if you need to"

N. Children are rebellious (Spanking children is outlawed as a form of discipline)

O. Take the "lock" from wedlock-Increased Divorce rate (If marriage partners are unhappy, divorce)

P. Materialism and acquisition of wealth

V. 4 Part Foundation Of Humanism

1. Atheism

2. Evolution

3. Autonomous Man (Answers Only To Self)

4. Relative Truth

VI. Quotations From The Humanist Bible

MANIFESTO I

ARTICLE 2: "Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process." ARTICLE 3: "Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected." ARTICLE 8: "Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now."

MANIFESTO II

ARTICLE 2: "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of damnation are both illusory and harmful...Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the ‘ghost in the machine’ and ‘separable soul.’ Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces...There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body." ARTICLE 5: "We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility."

VII. God’s Bible Against The Humanist Bible:

A. There is a God: Ps 14:1; Ps 2:3-6; Heb 11:1,6

B. The earth had a beginning and will come to and end: Gen 1:1; 2 Pe 3:10

C. Things which are seen are temporary: 2 Cor 4:17-18

D. Man made in image of God: Gen 1:27

E. Man is a dual being: Eccl 12:7; Jas 2:26; Phil 1:21f

F. Man cannot guide himself: Prov 3:5; 14:2

G. The Bible contains absolute truth for right & wrong: Jn 17:17; 2 Pe 1:3

H. Man’s duty is to fear God: Eccl 12:13

I. Man’s happiness and destiny are bound up in "love God with all heart mind and soul, and love man as self Mt 22:34-40; Rom 13:8-10 (Christ’s example of dying on cross is highest value of unselfish love and service)

J. We should not serve the flesh: Tit 3:3

K. There is life after death and judgment: Heb 9:27; Mt 25:46; Eccl 3:11

L. In the last days... 2 Ti 3:1-7

Steve Rudd

Humanism, by the admission of its own adherents, is defined as a philosophical, religious and moral point of view. One of its most prominent proponents was the late British biologist, Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of the famous Thomas Henry Huxley of Darwin's day. He wrote concerning this point of view in these words: "This new ideas-system, whose birth we of the mid-twentieth century are witnessing, I shall simply call Humanism, because it can only be based on our understanding of man and his environment. It must be organized around the facts and ideas of evolution, taking account of the discovery that man is part of a comprehensive evolutionary process, and cannot avoid playing a derisive role in it" . . . it will have nothing to do with absolutes, including absolute truth, absolute morality, absolute perfection and absolute authority.

(Essays of a Humanist, Harper & Row, 1964. pp 73, 74)

From this single quote we learn, therefore, that Humanism must embrace the so called "science" of evolution and that it refuses to have God or absolutes in its knowledge. This is entirely contradictory to the idea that the Bible is authoritative (II Tim 3:16,17); that Christ's Word is Truth (John 14:6) and that "it is not in man that walketh to direct his own steps" (Jer. 14:23).

The chief organ for the support of Humanism is The Humanist, published jointly by the American Journalist Association and the American Ethical Union. There is also a Fellowship of Religious Humanists, a quarterly Journal, whose president at one time was Lester Mondale, brother of the vice-president of the United States.

The policy statement of these organizations was set forth in the first named magazine in the May/June, 1933 issue. It was called the Humanist Manifesto I. An unprejudiced appraisal of the fifteen theses of that manifesto was given by the prestigious Yale Law Journal for 1978 in these words: First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process. Third: "Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values . . . religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method". (Yale Law Journal, Yale !,am Journal Co., New Haven, Conn. p.556.) This is pure and simple, scientific humanism!

One of the signers of that first Manifesto was the celebrated educator, Jolin Dewey, of whom Phyllis Schlafly says:

"The first humanist Manifesto, published in 1933, has had great status with educators because it was endorsed by the father of progressive education, John Dewey." (Phyllis Schlafly, in Woodbridge, N.J., New Tribune, 1977). That his philosophy of education has not been all that desirable is noted by a certain scientist when he wrote:

"Dewey based his philosophy upon experience as the ultimate authority in knowledge and conduct. This leads logically to the belief that human intelligence and the use of the scientific method can create the better society. This in turn leads naturally to the rejection of the supernatural element in religion, or in other words, to the rejection of God. . ." (Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith. Baker Book House, 1969, p.107).

But now there is also a Humanist Manifesto II. This lengthy statement of seventeen principles was first published in. The Humanist Sept./Oct. 1973, Vol. XXXlll, No. 5). It is divided into five sub-heads; Religion, Ethics, Individual, Democratic Society, and World Community. In the preface, the proponents state clearly: "As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons . . . is an unproved and outmoded faith." From the Manifesto itself, under the subject of religion, we have these words: "First: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals . . . We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species." (From Humanist Manifestos I and II, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. 4th Printing, 1976). It was this document that was signed by prominent scientists such as Linus Pauling, Francis Crick, Isaac Asimov, and the late Julian Huxley. This should leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to the position taken by some of our leading men of science. To this must be added the well-known atheist, Dr. Anthony Flew of England, whose debate with Dr. Thomas B. Warren turned into a defeat of atheism and a victory for creation!

Since evolution must be accepted into the humanist system, this tape will discuss the question of whether or not evolution can be considered as a principle of science. Yet there is more. A new thrust of "scientific humanism" is found in the January/February issue of the Humanist for 1977. It recently published a statement affirming evolution as a principle of science, and it was signed by some 163 scholars, all from leading universities and colleges. Among the number are some prominent liberal theologians. It was prepared for distribution to major public school districts in the United States. The ed4itors in their foreword stated that they, "regret the steady assault on the teaching of evolution in the public schools" and they object "to the demand for equal time for the theory of creation. . ." The statement points out that all forms of life (including human beings) developed by a lengthy process of evolution, thus accepting what Kerbut (in his Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, 1960) has called the general theory of evolution, as opposed to the special theory which deals with certain small variations observed in nature and in the laboratory. The evolution they are affirming is the Amoebae-to-man or Molecules-to-man theory. Let's examine the matter and inquire if it really does meet the demands of science and if it meets, as they put it, exceptionally well the demands of science as being firmly established . . . on rigorous evidence.

For a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, at least three criteria can be noted: (1) it must be supported by events or processes that can be observed to occur; (.2) the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future findings , and (3) the theory must be capable of falsification, that is, one must be able to devise some experiment, the failure of which would disprove the theory. It is on the basis of these criteria (or similar ones) that writers of the Humanist statement affirm that creation is not scientific!

Creation has not been witnessed by human observers, it cannot be tested experimentally, and as a theory it is unfalsifiable. So it may come as a shock to those scientific humanists that evolution, as defined, also fails to meet all three of these same criteria!

Evolution is of necessity an historical process which has not been witnessed by humans, and the unrepeatable and untestable events postulated for evolution are not amenable to evaluation on the basis of consistency and prediction. (Editorial "Origins" Vol. IV, Leoscience Research Institute, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 1977, p. t). No matter what is observed, there is almost always an appropriate evolutionary explanation for it. One scientist who has been critical of these claims of humanists said: "This . . . makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime stories, instead of empirical investigators." This quote is from the 1977 article Review of Evolution and the Diversity of Life, from the journal, Systematic Zoology, Vol. 26,

Pages 224-228, and repeated in the editorial "Origins" as previously cited. So much, then for the science in scientific humanism. It is false! Evolution is not a principle of science!

As for humanism as a philosophy and point of view, it is outright atheism, masquerading under the guise of science and religion. It fails to understand what human need is. Man's need for moral and spiritual guidance, yes, even for salvation, are just as human as our need for food, clothing, and shelter. Worship of God is for man's sake as much as for God's. Humanism, in its appeal to intellectual snobbery, errs most filthy in dethroning the God of Heaven and enthroning himself as Lord of creation! An increased awareness of the acceptance of this false philosophy into our society and what God's Word, the Bible, says about it will lead to a stronger commitment to God and eventually to a revitalized faith! Christians can have nothing to do with scientific humanism!

Original Link

---