How would you reply to atheist critiques of humanism?

I certainly have no criticism. I am a Humanist who has been a vice president of the American Humanist Association, President of the Humanist Association of Los Angeles, a member of Atheists United and CFI, and a member of the Atheist Alliance who developed and edited their magazine, Secular Nation, and I am 100% atheist and 100% Humanist and I support the Humanist Manifesto 100%. I see absolutely no contradiction in any of this.
My thoughts exactly Lois and I'm 100% behind your statement. And no you don't need to be an atheist to be a humanist. You can be an apatheist and fit right in. And as I stated before, I completely supported the Humanist manifesto when I evolved from theist to agnostic, then on to apatheist and finally atheist, coming to that conclusion after twenty years of research. Well, actually I'm not an atheist, I'm a polyatheist. I regretfully dropped my belief in my favorite goddess Athena. It was very hard for me to let her go. Cap't Jack
Athena is a different matter altogether. :roll: Lois

Why was my post replying to LoisL removed!? Is this some sort of joke?
I posted that if humanism is non-theistic, then it is atheistic, because that’s what the word means.
Also, the descriptions given by many humanist organizations seem to imply that atheism is part of the humanist package. Consider the description given by the Norwegian Humanist Association], which is probably the biggest humanist organization in the world by capita (and may very well be in absolute numbers too):

The Norwegian Humanist Association is an organization for people who base their ethics on human, not religious values. Our members are agnostics or atheists. We support the following statement of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
I'm open to be shown wrong of course, but to me this is what a plain reading suggests.
Why was my post replying to LoisL removed!? Is this some sort of joke? I posted that if humanism is non-theistic, then it is atheistic, because that's what the word means. Also, the descriptions given by many humanist organizations seem to imply that atheism is part of the humanist package. Consider the description given by the Norwegian Humanist Association], which is probably the biggest humanist organization in the world by capita (and may very well be in absolute numbers too):
The Norwegian Humanist Association is an organization for people who base their ethics on human, not religious values. Our members are agnostics or atheists. We support the following statement of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
I'm open to be shown wrong of course, but to me this is what a plain reading suggests.
You read it differently than I do and you view the meaning of Humanism differently, too. When Huminists say that Humanism is non theistic they mean that Humanists take no specific position on belief in god. This simply means that humanists don't focus on atheism or theism, that Humanism can be accepted on its own merits by anyone, atheist and theist alike and that the AHA and other Humanist organizations that belong to the IHEU have no requiremebts as to who can join the humanist movement as long as they agree to humanist principles of how to live a moral life without the imposition of a god. The IHEU and its members don't require that members be atheists, only that they acceptvthe premise people can live moral and ethical lives without direction by a god. This is a position that is open to interpretation, but we are talking about the Humanist position and not individual interpretations here. Lois
Why was my post replying to LoisL removed!? Is this some sort of joke? I posted that if humanism is non-theistic, then it is atheistic, because that's what the word means. Also, the descriptions given by many humanist organizations seem to imply that atheism is part of the humanist package. Consider the description given by the Norwegian Humanist Association], which is probably the biggest humanist organization in the world by capita (and may very well be in absolute numbers too):
The Norwegian Humanist Association is an organization for people who base their ethics on human, not religious values. Our members are agnostics or atheists. We support the following statement of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
I'm open to be shown wrong of course, but to me this is what a plain reading suggests.
You read it differently than I do and you view the meaning of Humanism differently, too. When Huminists say that Humanism is non theistic they mean that Humanists take no specific position on belief in god. This simply means that humanists don't focus on atheism or theism, that Humanism can be accepted on its own merits by anyone, atheist and theist alike and that the AHA and other Humanist organizations that belong to the IHEU have no requiremebts as to who can join the humanist movement as long as they agree to humanist principles of how to live a moral life without the imposition of a god. The IHEU and its members don't require that members be atheists, only that they acceptvthe premise people can live moral and ethical lives without direction by a god. This is a position that is open to interpretation, but we are talking about the Humanist position and not individual interpretations here. Lois This is certainly different from how it is usually presented. Stepehn law in his Humanism: A Very Short Introduction present] atheism as a major point within it. But if it is as you say, then why does humanism seem to be so strongly connected to atheism? The AHA seems to view it as just one of the labels atheists (or "nontheists") use.
Thevillageatheist - 11 October 2014 08:06 AM I guess I’ll kick in here and add my thoughts to the pile. I’m a humanist AND an atheist and I was a humanist before I was an atheist, many moons ago. I find the two compatible BTW as a non-theist. Anti-theists may not however. And as to humanism becoming a movement, I personally hope so. And I further hope that for those in political power, humanism replaces religion as the prevailing philosophy before we completely destroy the environment. At least humanists know that there will be no Deus Ex Machina to rescue us from our own greed and stupidity. I’ve posted the Manifesto before but just out of curiosity I’d like to hear a criticism from the atheists here concerning any point: http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III Cap’t Jack You know me Cap’t, I ain’t shy, let’s look at the intro to this Manifesto
I know CC and I appreciate your candor. I just can't wrap my head around someone who has a problem with Humanism as a philosophy. Cap't Jack
Agreed
This is certainly different from how it is usually presented. Stepehn law in his Humanism: A Very Short Introduction present] atheism as a major point within it. But if it is as you say, then why does humanism seem to be so strongly connected to atheism? The AHA seems to view it as just one of the labels atheists (or "nontheists") use.
Humanism is strongly connected with atheism because so many of us atheists ARE Humanists. But the two words are not interchangeable with one another. As Stephen Law points out in the essay you quoted, many people claim that humanism is purely negative, defined solely by reference to the one thing we don't believe in. Nope, wrong. He's talking about Atheism. An atheist believes there is no God, period. That's it. End of story. A Humanist however, believes in people. You can be a Christian and believe in people, can't you? Does that help?
Why was my post replying to LoisL removed!? Is this some sort of joke? I posted that if humanism is non-theistic, then it is atheistic, because that's what the word means. Also, the descriptions given by many humanist organizations seem to imply that atheism is part of the humanist package. Consider the description given by the Norwegian Humanist Association], which is probably the biggest humanist organization in the world by capita (and may very well be in absolute numbers too):
The Norwegian Humanist Association is an organization for people who base their ethics on human, not religious values. Our members are agnostics or atheists. We support the following statement of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
I'm open to be shown wrong of course, but to me this is what a plain reading suggests.
I don't think Humanistic Organizations should limit membership to agnostics and atheists. Most religions have at least some humanistic principles as part of their doctrines. If persons who self identify as a member od a particular religion, choose to interpret and emphasize the humanistic beliefs within their doctrine, to the exclusion of non-humanistic beliefs, then it seems appropriate to me that they could also, legitimately, self-identify as humanists.

I have heard the relationship between humanism and atheism been described as follows:
Atheism is to humanism what the non-belief in Jesus as the son of a god is to Judaism or Islam.
All Jews and Muslims do not believe Jesus was the son of a god. But all who do not believe Jesus was the son of a god are not Jews or Muslims.
Likewise, all humanists are atheists. But not all atheists are humanists.
Is this not correct?

I have heard the relationship between humanism and atheism been described as follows: Atheism is to humanism what the non-belief in Jesus as the son of a god is to Judaism or Islam. All Jews and Muslims do not believe Jesus was the son of a god. But all who do not believe Jesus was the son of a god are not Jews or Muslims. Likewise, all humanists are atheists. But not all atheists are humanists. Is this not correct?
No, I don't think that is correct, at all, (that all humanists are atheists). I reject the idea that one must be an atheist or an agnostic to be a humanist. The atheist or agnostic / humanistic persons that have responded in this thread seem to be rejecting that idea as well. It is correct that not all atheists are humanists.

For example, I think that even a self identified Muslim could be a humanist, IF, their interpretation of Islamic doctrine did not preclude a primary belief in “a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.” AND as long as their interpretation of Islamic doctrine did not preclude a primary belief in the importance of “the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities.”

Why was my post replying to LoisL removed!? Is this some sort of joke? I posted that if humanism is non-theistic, then it is atheistic, because that's what the word means. No, it doesn't. It means theism is not an issue. Also, the descriptions given by many humanist organizations seem to imply that atheism is part of the humanist package. Consider the description given by the Norwegian Humanist Association], which is probably the biggest humanist organization in the world by capita (and may very well be in absolute numbers too):
The Norwegian Humanist Association is an organization for people who base their ethics on human, not religious values. Our members are agnostics or atheists. We support the following statement of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
I'm open to be shown wrong of course, but to me this is what a plain reading suggests.
Any Humanist organization is free to use whatever terms they wish to use.. It doesn't change the definition or essence of humanism that is accepted by most humanists. Here's as good an explanation of the differences between atheists and humanists that I''ve seen. What's the difference between a Humanist and an atheist? Humanism is basically a philosophical worldview centered around human derived knowledge. Humanists believe that we fallible humans have the sole responsibility to figure out the world we live in and take any actions needed to improve it. We acknowledge that science is the best tool we have for understanding the natural world. We believe that human rights forms the basis of morality. So how is that different from atheism? While it's true that many people who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic also describe themselves as Humanist, atheism or agnosticism is a theological view that holds that there either isn't a god or gods or there is no way of knowing. The basic creed of Humanism certainly holds that we don't rely on anyone's claim to things supernatural, especially if they are in conflict with science or human rights. If we did, we'd obviously be followers of whatever religious group we found convincing. But the views of what god or the gods are vary quite a bit between those who fall under the "big tent" definition of Humanism. For those of us who perceive that there is a basis to what the world's religions have tried to understand in terms of god or a transcendent something, but don't think any religion actually got it right, we can't honestly use terms like atheist or agnostic to describe ourselves. It just doesn't fit, anymore than saying we are followers of one of the world religions fits. It's all a fascinating topic, talking about something that must have always existed, but it is in many ways a side issue to what Humanism really means and stands for. That said, many modern people who describe themselves as being a Humanist often find themselves on the same sides of many issues (not to mention being members of the same organizations) of people that describe themselves as atheist or agnostic. This obviously is the natural result of agreeing in the unreliability of supposedly supernaturally derived knowledge. We also understand that any unfair prejudice or persecution made against those groups will probably be or is being aimed at us as well. Lois I was unable to include the link because CFI Forums identifies many links as spam. You can look it up by searching for andrewaasmith.
All Jews and Muslims do not believe Jesus was the son of a god. But all who do not believe Jesus was the son of a god are not Jews or Muslims.
Just to confuse things even more, there ARE Jews who accept the divinity of Jesus. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus
All Jews and Muslims do not believe Jesus was the son of a god. But all who do not believe Jesus was the son of a god are not Jews or Muslims.
Just to confuse things even more, there ARE Jews who accept the divinity of Jesus. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus Yes, there are irrational Jews as well as irrational Christians. Lois
All Jews and Muslims do not believe Jesus was the son of a god. But all who do not believe Jesus was the son of a god are not Jews or Muslims.
Just to confuse things even more, there ARE Jews who accept the divinity of Jesus. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus Yes, there are irrational Jews as well as irrational Christians. Lois I was told by a Jewish person, that it is possible for a Jew to be an atheist.

The Jews you refer to are Jews in the ehtnic/cultural sense, not as in religious adherents of Judaism.
Recently secular humanism was declared a religion] by a federal court in the US. The AHA (which I think is the biggest humanist organization in the US) defined humanism as “an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces”. If your definition of humanism permits for supernatural beliefs, it is at odds with how the big guys interpret the philosophy. Not necessarily wrong though.

All Jews and Muslims do not believe Jesus was the son of a god. But all who do not believe Jesus was the son of a god are not Jews or Muslims.
Just to confuse things even more, there ARE Jews who accept the divinity of Jesus. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus Yes, there are irrational Jews as well as irrational Christians. Lois I was told by a Jewish person, that it is possible for a Jew to be an atheist. It depends on one's definition of a Jew. Many would say that it requires a belief in the Jewish religion. Although there are people who identify themselves as secular Jews or cultural Jews, it's a controversial subject. An Orthodox Jew would not consider a Cutural or Secular Jew to be a real Jew. In fact they seem to draw the line at Orthodoxy and reject Conservative Jews and Reform Jews, too. People are free to define themselves any way they want, and to worship any way they want, but Orthodox Judaism is part of the Israeli government and, as such, Orthodox Jews are in charge of the religion and they define Jewish law. Anyone can define himself as an atheist. There is no law against it except in Islamic countries. Lois

I think that the main point that the fellow I spoke with was getting at, is that in Judaism, Belief in God, is almost irrelevant. What is critical is that a follower do the “right” thing. This apparently extends to someone doing the “right” things, for the wrong reasons. Thus a follower of Judaism who comes to believe that there is no God, will still be in good graces, even though they have become an atheist, as long as they do things that turn out to be “right”.

Recently secular humanism was declared a religion] by a federal court in the US. The AHA (which I think is the biggest humanist organization in the US) defined humanism as "an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces". If your definition of humanism permits for supernatural beliefs, it is at odds with how the big guys interpret the philosophy. Not necessarily wrong though.
This came as a surprise to me. Admittedly I let my subscription to "The Humanist" lapse about 20 years ago, but at that time we were insisting that Secular Humanism was NOT a religion. I can only suppose that the definition of "religion" has changed in the intervening years. Interesting.

The important words here are

“The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes," the ruling read.
That is, the clause did not define religion well enough to meet modern needs. The court doesn't get to say what a religion is or isn't, but it must define what the clause pertains to. This is basically a patch, to make other laws apply fairly and equally.

There are persons who now identify themselves as “Secular Muslims”. AFAIK, there is no broad organization of “secular Muslims”, so what they actually really believe is probably very individualistic. But, presumably, some of these persons could simply want to experience the cultural connection with other Muslims, and perhaps appreciate engagement in associated rituals, while having no significant interest or investment in believing in the underlying Islamic doctrines that can be interpreted in anti-humanistic ways. I believe that such persons could also, conceivably, legitimately, self identify as secular humanists.