Good question.

What could humanists consider so valuable that, if really forced to, they would become radicalized? See? People need to be pushed into a corner for them to resort to extremism. Desperate times call for desperate measures. How could we do that to humanists? Beats me! Humanism seems inherently pacifist, willing to wait it out - let people come to their senses seems to be their principle - rather than aggressively pursue their agenda.

Is no secret that groups of Faith have been victims of extremist views. — TheQuestion

So cavemen just never existed huh. Or if so they were an enlightened and peaceful society far beyond anything we have today then.

And just think, they have the nerve to call us crazy. :smirk:

The problems aren’t the radical or extremist views, but the acts committed in their name. So it isn’t clear to me why we would mitigate the view and not the act.

The question I am asking is “Have the Humanist groups or non-believers group taken precautions to mitigate such extreme ideology in your inner circle?”

Has the question even arose? Christians fell victim to this, the Muslims have fell victim to this, and other groups fell victim to radicalism and extremism, is your group next? — TheQuestion

Well I think the obvious answer to this, and it is often proffered by conservatives and celebrity motivational speakers like Jordan Peterson, is that Communism (in the 20th century) was the leading example - secular, fundamentalist, dictatorial and the death of millions.

I would simply include political ideology as an example of a faith based system. It may not be based on an unverifiable supernatural entities but it is (in some cases) based on assumptions of human transformation through the application of a single worldview.

Generally secular humanism's ideas are based on evidence and critical thinking, so it is probably less prone to extreme irrational beliefs than religions (in many of their expressions). By and large, if an ideology coalesces around the view that it can and should save people (this include politics) it may start to mess with people's lives and accept no dissent.

:100:

The problems aren’t the radical or extremist views, but the acts committed in their name. So it isn’t clear to me why we would mitigate the view and not the act. — NOS4A2

The problems aren’t the radical or extremist views, but the acts committed in their name. So it isn’t clear to me why we would mitigate the view and not the act. — NOS4A2

:100: :up:

When it comes to mitigating the act, what is permitted? Prophylactic? After-the-fact only?

Regarding the view, it's rather innocuous in itself. But can it ever rise to the level of an incitement that warrants mitigation? And if so, then again, prophylactic or after-the-fact only?

What is mitigation? When I think of mitigation I think of reduction, not elimination. So, can we just reduce the impacts of the act while allowing some negative consequences to still be born by innocent third parties?

The point is being missed here is that the ideology or beliefs is not the culprit.

Is the psychological behavior that motivates radicalism behavior.

Take for example Red shoes.

Let's say there is someone who dislike Red Shoes.

Than let's say this person who dislikes red shoes meet someone who says. All people who wear red shoes are evil.

Then the person who dislikes red shoes now hate people who wear red shoe because the subjective idea exists that all people who wear red shoes are evil.

That becomes a domino effect of other negative thought that may lead to radical ideology.

Is the art of manipulation and controlling the masses by adding subjective opinion to an already existing negative idea. To nurse and enhance contempt and negative perspective to motivate violence and hate.

All conviction and ideology is vulnerable to this method of manipulation.

I see secular humanism as a catalyst for the next trend of radical ideology and extremism.

Not because the values are bad but the motive that defends these values maybe easily corruptable.

That's the core of my argument that all beliefs and values can be corrupted. But can only be corrupted by your defined motives to believe in these values.

If you believe that something Is negative based on a subjective bais of your own personal experiences. Than you will be vulnerable to external manipulation through “re-enforced negative agreement”

“Re-enforced negative agreement” is a method of psychological manipulation.

By taking your fear, rejection, contempt and inadequacies and Re-enforcing these thoughts through agreeing with your perspective.

If you believe all religion is bad I will agree with you but not out of sincerity.

I will agree with you to feed your hate and contempt, to try to manipulate your thought processes by adding other subjective thoughts saying.

Religion is the cause of all violence and suffering.

I would continue by adding more subjective negative ideology. Feeding into that negative emotional spectrum to prime you to make them more susceptible for control.

Once the foundation is set I would add subtle messages to our conversation to insinuate certain acts of violence but not out right confessing it.

So I wouldn't be liable or be directly connected to such actions committed but still be able to achieve my motives.

Then let nature takes it course and see the drama unfold.

I believe that secular Humanism Has that potential catalyst for the next Radical Extremist movement.
Again not because of the ideology but by some of the people who represents the ideology and the motives they harbor.

That's with all groups, politics and faith.

If you have something to hate, religion and religious people. Than hateful people will become most easiest to control. Not saying all spectral Humanist hate religion but is the emphasis on motive not ideology. Trying to make that clear since my post may come across as confusing.

And hateful people are broken due to broken past experience which makes it easy to control them through subjective thought manipulation.

This method only works if the subject meets certain parameters.

And to keep them motivated they need to keep a grandiose sense of self worth and make them feel they are on a crusade.

But like I said this method of manipulation can be applied in any ideology platform. And you don't need to believe what they do just feed into whatever negative things already exists in them.

And that is what makes Radicalism very seductive and dangerous is through false justification and false validation that makes them act on violence.

I am not going to lie, I am Christian so I can’t relate to Humanist ideology. But I am preaching about Unity, tolerance and peace.

We as Christians are trying our best to create a model of good Christian, bad Christan in a attempt to weed out radical extremist Christian views. We acknowledge it is escalating to rapidly and becoming overwhelming concerning.

Trying to bring awareness to others by saying utilizing your own philosophy, like I use my own Christian philosophy to suppress these radical views.

I believe the Humanist community should a least bring some awareness of the potential of Humanism radiclism.

Like Christian try to correct other Christians saying “Hay this is not the way”

Humanist can do the same if a fellow peer is exhibiting behavior that is concerning. Maybe preach passive non-belief stance, through tolerance and peaceful disagreement using your philosophy.

In other words, once your ideology cross the line to violence you have become a radical.