Secular Humanism vs. Religious Interpretations of Morality

Secular humanism is misrepresented when equated with the actions of past communist regimes.

### The Misconceptions of Secular Humanism and Its Historical Context
* 📖 The only information about Jesus that one may have comes from the Bible, which is often **debated in terms of its advice and teachings**.
* 🔍 For a detailed analysis, ironchariots.org provides a verse-by-verse deconstruction of The Sermon on the Mount, highlighting that Jesus offered "**some good advice, some crappy advice, and some questionable advice**."
* ⚖ The claim that secular humanism has produced rapists and murderers is challenged, as there is **no secular humanist organization or country that has intentionally done so**.
* 🌍 It is argued that there has never been a true **secular humanist government**, with past examples like the Soviet Union being **mischaracterized**.
* 📜 Critics are encouraged to read the secular humanist manifestos to understand that what occurred in communist countries was **not representative of secular humanism**.
* 🚫 The actions in these countries involved a **religious-like structure centered around an individual**, which contradicts the principles of **humanism**.
* 🤔 The conversation suggests a distinction between atheism and secular humanism, emphasizing that the **atrocities committed in the name of atheism** do not reflect the values of **secular humanism**.

Sure, but when you hold Christ up as a particular figure, the only information that I have about Jesus comes from the Bible. And rather than going through all of it again, because there's lots of people's questions, if you go to ironchariots.org, you will find a verse-by-verse deconstruction of The Sermon on the Mount, where I point out that Jesus gave some good advice, some crappy advice, and some questionable advice. And that's not enough. And there's not a secular humanist organization or country on the planet that has ever produced, as a

good thing, an intentional good thing, rapists and murderers. So, well, that's that's highly debatable. That's highly debatable. One of the things absolutely true, because there's never been a secular humanist government on the planet, I don't know, I think the Soviets were pretty

secular then with all with all due apologies, you do not know the first thing about what secular humanism is. You should read the secular humanist manifestos because what happened in Russia in communist countries was an institution of a religious-like structure, surrounded around centered

around an individual and forced atheism. None of which is consistent with humanism, none of it. And and we can talk about this later, and I'd be happy to point you to this because you can say that it was an atheist thing, um, that went awry, but you can't call it

secular humanism. It it's just not there. There's no humanism in what was done there. But

Matt Dillahunty EXPLODES on Jordan Peterson

Pangburn

Critique of using Jesus as a moral example and introduction to Iron Chariots website

Speaker's knowledge of Jesus comes solely from the Bible.

Reference to ironchariots.org for a verse-by-verse analysis of the Sermon on the Mount.

Jesus's advice categorized as good, bad, and questionable.

Debate on secular humanism and its association with negative historical events

Questioning the claim that secular humanism produces rapists and murderers.

Soviet Union example is challenged as not representative of secular humanism.

Soviet system described as a religious-like structure with forced atheism.

Distinction made between atheism and secular humanism.

Emphasis on the lack of humanism in the Soviet system