This is one thing about humanism confuses me very much.
On one hand, humanist groups often present themselves are communities or interest groups for the non-religious people in society. In the intro video] to the European Humanist Federation, it is even presented “the not religious… the non-stamp collectors”. I have seen humanist groups claim all non-religious people as humanists.
Yet at the same time, it is often claimed that humanism is not just non-religion, but more than that, and humanists will often say so as well if you push them on it. But why then do humanist groups present themselves as groups for non-religious people in general? Surely you must be aware that not all of the non-religious share the values and beliefs that humanists promote?
Opinions seem to differ here, but according to some, humanists reject pseudoscience and superstitious beliefs that are not of a religious origin, in addition to rejecting religious superstitions. Thus, scientific skepticism is then considered part of humanism. As it turns out, according to a survey] in the US, religiously unaffiliated are not less likely than the religiously affiliated to believe in classic paranormal beliefs (majorities of both the religious and the non-religious have this kind of beliefs). If humanists want to claim non-religious people in general as humanists, then they can’t say that humanists reject such beliefs. Because clearly, most non-religious people don’t reject superstitious beliefs.
I would very much appreciate if you could sort this out for me. Thank you.
This is one thing about humanism confuses me very much. On one hand, humanist groups often present themselves are communities or interest groups for the non-religious people in society. In the intro video] to the European Humanist Federation, it is even presented "the not religious... the non-stamp collectors". I have seen humanist groups claim all non-religious people as humanists. Yet at the same time, it is often claimed that humanism is not just non-religion, but more than that, and humanists will often say so as well if you push them on it. But why then do humanist groups present themselves as groups for non-religious people in general? Surely you must be aware that not all of the non-religious share the values and beliefs that humanists promote? Probably for the same reason that religions promote themselves as groups for believers in general. Surely you (and they) must know that not all religious people share the values that various religions promote. Opinions seem to differ here, but according to some, humanists reject pseudoscience and superstitious beliefs that are not of a religious origin, Humanists reject pseudoscience and superstitious beliefs that are of religious origin, as well. in addition to rejecting religious superstitions. Thus, scientific skepticism is then considered part of humanism. As it turns out, according to a survey] in the US, religiously unaffiliated are not less likely than the religiously affiliated to believe in classic paranormal beliefs (majorities of both the religious and the non-religious have this kind of beliefs). If humanists want to claim non-religious people in general as humanists, then they can't say that humanists reject such beliefs. Because clearly, most non-religious people don't reject superstitious beliefs. Presumably you have some objective evidence of this I would very much appreciate if you could sort this out for me. Thank you.Humanists suggest Humanism to anyone who might think he can accept Humanist positions on morality, superstitions and the paranormal. This is not much different than a religious person suggesting their morality, superstitions and beliefs in the paranormal to those who might accept it. I don't understand your confusion. Humanists are not forcing their beliefs on anyone, but explaining their positions to those who might be interested. Surely you can see the parallels to a religious person explaining his beliefs to someone who might be interested in that religion. Religious proselytizing has been going on for millennia, and continues to this day. Yet when Humanists do something similar it sends the religious into a tailspin of confusion. Perhaps you can explain the strange phenomenon you describe here.
This is one thing about humanism confuses me very much. On one hand, humanist groups often present themselves are communities or interest groups for the non-religious people in society. In the intro video] to the European Humanist Federation, it is even presented "the not religious... the non-stamp collectors". I have seen humanist groups claim all non-religious people as humanists. Yet at the same time, it is often claimed that humanism is not just non-religion, but more than that, and humanists will often say so as well if you push them on it. But why then do humanist groups present themselves as groups for non-religious people in general? Surely you must be aware that not all of the non-religious share the values and beliefs that humanists promote? Opinions seem to differ here, but according to some, humanists reject pseudoscience and superstitious beliefs that are not of a religious origin, in addition to rejecting religious superstitions. Thus, scientific skepticism is then considered part of humanism. As it turns out, according to a survey] in the US, religiously unaffiliated are not less likely than the religiously affiliated to believe in classic paranormal beliefs (majorities of both the religious and the non-religious have this kind of beliefs). If humanists want to claim non-religious people in general as humanists, then they can't say that humanists reject such beliefs. Because clearly, most non-religious people don't reject superstitious beliefs. I would very much appreciate if you could sort this out for me. Thank you.From my perspective, I do not consider it appropriate for me to claim that anyone else is a humanist, unless that person has claimed the label for themselves. Even then, I might not consider them to be humanists, unless their words and actions also supported the claim. And again, from my perspective, I think that the most important factor in claiming the title of humanist, is one's orientation toward what is in the best interests of humanity. (For me, it is secondary that the person understands that anything supernatural is only fiction.) So, for example, if Pope Francis were to suddenly begin to label himself as a humanist, I would not immediately disavow his claim, since much of his words and deeds do seem to be oriented towards the betterment of humanity. So you see, in my way of thinking, there are persons who could claim to be humanists even though they believe in supernatural things. (Personally, I think that they are ignorant humanists, but humanists nonetheless.) Conversely, one could completely understand that all things supernatural are fiction, and still not be a humanist. Stalin, for example, may have not believed in anything supernatural, but he was no humanist.
This is one thing about humanism confuses me very much. On one hand, humanist groups often present themselves are communities or interest groups for the non-religious people in society. In the intro video] to the European Humanist Federation, it is even presented "the not religious... the non-stamp collectors". I have seen humanist groups claim all non-religious people as humanists. Yet at the same time, it is often claimed that humanism is not just non-religion, but more than that, and humanists will often say so as well if you push them on it. But why then do humanist groups present themselves as groups for non-religious people in general? Surely you must be aware that not all of the non-religious share the values and beliefs that humanists promote? Opinions seem to differ here, but according to some, humanists reject pseudoscience and superstitious beliefs that are not of a religious origin, in addition to rejecting religious superstitions. Thus, scientific skepticism is then considered part of humanism. As it turns out, according to a survey] in the US, religiously unaffiliated are not less likely than the religiously affiliated to believe in classic paranormal beliefs (majorities of both the religious and the non-religious have this kind of beliefs). If humanists want to claim non-religious people in general as humanists, then they can't say that humanists reject such beliefs. Because clearly, most non-religious people don't reject superstitious beliefs. I would very much appreciate if you could sort this out for me. Thank you.Wish I could. Humanism as a lifestyle platform is on target. Then Humanism vomits all over itself if you mention "soul". Neither Humanism nor Humanists vomit. It's theists, especially, Christians, who vomit at the mention of Humanism. They vomit easily. They are that unsure of their beliefs. LL
You’re thinking too hard about this. You’re trying to classify/categorize/label. Don’t. By and large if someone feels science is important, reason is important, and doesn’t generally believe in supernatural things, then they fall under secular humanism. Do they actually label themselves that way? Probably not. Does it matter? No. Is a Vegan who occasionally eats a burger not a Vegan? No. Sometimes a burger is just so so tasty, and sometimes believing in ghosts is just fun.
This is one thing about humanism confuses me very much. On one hand, humanist groups often present themselves are communities or interest groups for the non-religious people in society. In the intro video] to the European Humanist Federation, it is even presented "the not religious... the non-stamp collectors". I have seen humanist groups claim all non-religious people as humanists. Yet at the same time, it is often claimed that humanism is not just non-religion, but more than that, and humanists will often say so as well if you push them on it. But why then do humanist groups present themselves as groups for non-religious people in general? Surely you must be aware that not all of the non-religious share the values and beliefs that humanists promote? Opinions seem to differ here, but according to some, humanists reject pseudoscience and superstitious beliefs that are not of a religious origin, in addition to rejecting religious superstitions. Thus, scientific skepticism is then considered part of humanism. As it turns out, according to a survey] in the US, religiously unaffiliated are not less likely than the religiously affiliated to believe in classic paranormal beliefs (majorities of both the religious and the non-religious have this kind of beliefs). If humanists want to claim non-religious people in general as humanists, then they can't say that humanists reject such beliefs. Because clearly, most non-religious people don't reject superstitious beliefs. I would very much appreciate if you could sort this out for me. Thank you.From my perspective, I do not consider it appropriate for me to claim that anyone else is a humanist, unless that person has claimed the label for themselves. Even then, I might not consider them to be humanists, unless their words and actions also supported the claim. And again, from my perspective, I think that the most important factor in claiming the title of humanist, is one's orientation toward what is in the best interests of humanity. (For me, it is secondary that the person understands that anything supernatural is only fiction.) So, for example, if Pope Francis were to suddenly begin to label himself as a humanist, I would not immediately disavow his claim, since much of his words and deeds do seem to be oriented towards the betterment of humanity. So you see, in my way of thinking, there are persons who could claim to be humanists even though they believe in supernatural things. (Personally, I think that they are ignorant humanists, but humanists nonetheless.) Conversely, one could completely understand that all things supernatural are fiction, and still not be a humanist. Stalin, for example, may have not believed in anything supernatural, but he was no humanist. Being an x-humanist I understand the confusion that Irmin is describing and I also think your answer is very helpful. TimB, what categories of dualism or monism does humanism fit? Tell us, AMH, what does an ex-Humanist stand for? What philosophy is ex-Humanism? Please be specific.
I agree people should be able to label themselves. That doesn’t mean labeling others is wrong. We label Christians from the 13th century as “early humanists”, for example. So, you found a speech where maybe someone made a claim that isn’t true, big deal. That doesn’t say anything about others who also call themselves humanist. It seems you are complaining about labeling and doing labeling in the same post.
If you want to say, SOME humanist are guilty of acting some way, I can grapple with that. I understand that some, perhaps many non-believers attached attributes to the personalities of other non-believers. I think it is harder to do that with non-believers, because each one has a different philosophical motivation. At least, if you know someone is a Baptist, you can some idea of what they’ve read and what they are likely to think.
So, I can’t help sort out anything until you decide what you’re talking about.
This is one thing about humanism confuses me very much. On one hand, humanist groups often present themselves are communities or interest groups for the non-religious people in society. In the intro video] to the European Humanist Federation, it is even presented "the not religious... the non-stamp collectors". I have seen humanist groups claim all non-religious people as humanists. Yet at the same time, it is often claimed that humanism is not just non-religion, but more than that, and humanists will often say so as well if you push them on it. But why then do humanist groups present themselves as groups for non-religious people in general? Surely you must be aware that not all of the non-religious share the values and beliefs that humanists promote? Opinions seem to differ here, but according to some, humanists reject pseudoscience and superstitious beliefs that are not of a religious origin, in addition to rejecting religious superstitions. Thus, scientific skepticism is then considered part of humanism. As it turns out, according to a survey] in the US, religiously unaffiliated are not less likely than the religiously affiliated to believe in classic paranormal beliefs (majorities of both the religious and the non-religious have this kind of beliefs). If humanists want to claim non-religious people in general as humanists, then they can't say that humanists reject such beliefs. Because clearly, most non-religious people don't reject superstitious beliefs. I would very much appreciate if you could sort this out for me. Thank you.From my perspective, I do not consider it appropriate for me to claim that anyone else is a humanist, unless that person has claimed the label for themselves. Even then, I might not consider them to be humanists, unless their words and actions also supported the claim. And again, from my perspective, I think that the most important factor in claiming the title of humanist, is one's orientation toward what is in the best interests of humanity. (For me, it is secondary that the person understands that anything supernatural is only fiction.) So, for example, if Pope Francis were to suddenly begin to label himself as a humanist, I would not immediately disavow his claim, since much of his words and deeds do seem to be oriented towards the betterment of humanity. So you see, in my way of thinking, there are persons who could claim to be humanists even though they believe in supernatural things. (Personally, I think that they are ignorant humanists, but humanists nonetheless.) Conversely, one could completely understand that all things supernatural are fiction, and still not be a humanist. Stalin, for example, may have not believed in anything supernatural, but he was no humanist. There is no rule that a humanist cannot believe in the supernatural. A humanist is someone who lives his life as if there is no god. There are no hard and fast rules, but most humanists are also rationalists who have either given up belief in the supernatural or never develped a belief in it. Lois
This is one thing about humanism confuses me very much. On one hand, humanist groups often present themselves are communities or interest groups for the non-religious people in society. In the intro video] to the European Humanist Federation, it is even presented "the not religious... the non-stamp collectors". I have seen humanist groups claim all non-religious people as humanists. Yet at the same time, it is often claimed that humanism is not just non-religion, but more than that, and humanists will often say so as well if you push them on it. But why then do humanist groups present themselves as groups for non-religious people in general? Surely you must be aware that not all of the non-religious share the values and beliefs that humanists promote? Opinions seem to differ here, but according to some, humanists reject pseudoscience and superstitious beliefs that are not of a religious origin, in addition to rejecting religious superstitions. Thus, scientific skepticism is then considered part of humanism. As it turns out, according to a survey] in the US, religiously unaffiliated are not less likely than the religiously affiliated to believe in classic paranormal beliefs (majorities of both the religious and the non-religious have this kind of beliefs). If humanists want to claim non-religious people in general as humanists, then they can't say that humanists reject such beliefs. Because clearly, most non-religious people don't reject superstitious beliefs. I would very much appreciate if you could sort this out for me. Thank you.To a humanist the welfare of humans (immediate and long term) is paramount. We choose our actions based on how they affect others and ourselves, choosing the action that benefits the most. Technically a humanist can believe anything they want as long as they use positive human impact as their moral compass. The thing is, most humanists don't believe in a god because to believe in god means you put the supposed teachings of your god above the welfare of others. (If your god coincidentally teaches humanism, then you are accidentally a humanist.) Since most humanists are atheists and have chosen humanism rationally and not accidentally, they sort of claim the word for themselves and the few accidental humanists are drowned out. Atheists are humans so have all the wonderful character flaws that theists have, so whenatheists get together it's totally possible to have the militant ones seem to set the rules, even though there really aren't any.
Humanism as a lifestyle platform is on target.I'm curious what is the "lifestyle" of a humanist? Have any specifics?
Then Humanism vomits all over itself if you mention "soul".Not sure what that means. The question of a "soul" doesn't seem that challenging or frightening. Can you be any more specific what's being vomited?
The thing is, most humanists don't believe in a god because to believe in god means you put the supposed teachings of your god above the welfare of others.No! We don't believe in a personal God, because the notion of a personal God turns to pure nonsense as soon as one starts to look at creation and evolution and fullness of our world and the universe around us No human is capable of understanding the "teachings of the God of Time and Creation" because that book is written in the fabric of the universe and we humans can not comprehend it all. We can get wisps and whispers perhaps. If we are real attentive, and imaginative, we can certainty create Shadow Plays that give some sense of security - but to fool oneself to thinking that's actually GOD herself, is pure human hubris. Our brains (and hearts) simply aren't big enough. Hell most men can't even figure out that they are controlled by their peckers - and we think we can grasp god :lol: :lol: :lol:
The thing is, most humanists don't believe in a god because to believe in god means you put the supposed teachings of your god above the welfare of others.No! We don't believe in a personal God, because the notion of a personal God turns to pure nonsense as soon as one starts to look at creation and evolution and fullness of our world and the universe around us No human is capable of understanding the "teachings of the God of Time and Creation" because that book is written in the fabric of the universe and we humans can not comprehend it all. We can get wisps and whispers perhaps. If we are real attentive, and imaginative, we can certainty create Shadow Plays that give some sense of security - but to fool oneself to thinking that's actually GOD herself, is pure human hubris. Our brains (and hearts) simply aren't big enough. Hell most men can't even figure out that they are controlled by their peckers - and we think we can grasp god :lol: :lol: :lol: I think I'm right. Isn't humanism basically putting human welfare at the top of your priority list? A theist can be a humanist if they believe their God teaches it. Why does the theoretical incomprehensibility of a god's teaching make it incompatible with humanism? I'll grant you the unlikliness and the pointlessness of god-based humanism, but it is possible. Maybe you're talking more about the reasons for being a humanist and I'm simply saying theists can be humanists (however unlikely that may be.) Your second paragraph kinda threw me for a loop. Are you being sarcastic or figurative or mocking of theists or what? Sorry for being so dense, but I want to make sure I understand you fully.
No human is capable of understanding the "teachings of the God of Time and Creation" because that book is written in the fabric of the universe and we humans can not comprehend it all. We can get wisps and whispers perhaps. If we are real attentive, and imaginative, we can certainty create Shadow Plays that give some sense of security - but to fool oneself to thinking that's actually GOD herself, is pure human hubris. Our brains (and hearts) simply aren't big enough.Your second paragraph kinda threw me for a loop. Are you being sarcastic or figurative or mocking of theists or what? Sorry for being so dense, but I want to make sure I understand you fully. Perhaps all of thee above. The term God is such a gushy, all encompassing thing that I do play with it sometime, in what I hope is in the truest Zen teacher spirit (not that I know much about Zen ;-P ) God is absolutely, positively, certainly not a personal being who is consciously concerned about his special humans running around in one corner of her infinite extend. She is certainly not any more concerned with being praised by humans, than I am of having flies chanting endless adulations to what a fine human I am. But beyond that there's a huge universe out there, with forces and drives we can't even conceive of. On a personal level I've had little cosmic whispers in my ear, even some subtle, but oh so important nudges that have slightly but significantly altered the path I was on, not that I think that was God, but "cosmic" they certainly were/are. In other words I believe in "The mystery", in the something beyond my ability to conceive (though it's fun trying) let alone touch, or "know"
Isn't humanism basically putting human welfare at the top of your priority list?It would be fun to have someone weigh in that understand official Humanism better than I do. I have never ever thought of it in those terms. To me humanism has always been about appreciating my part in the world. _____________________________________________ Although you bring up something that often goes through my mind. That the American obsess with our "self-interest" above all else is at the root of most of our global problems. For instance, in the run up to the Cheney/Bush War for Shock and Profits - every fuking politician and news report gushed about "our interests" "our interests" "our interests" "our interests" "our interests" "our interests" "our interests" "our interests" Never once asking what it might look like from the perspective of those living over there. And never one a serious thought for what their legitimate interests might be. And we have the gaul to wonder why the terrorism keeps getting worse (think ISIS). And our solution more weapons of mass destruction deployed for our self interest. But then I've managed to carve a modest, but satisfyingly fulfilling life, by not putting my own self interests above others and by striving to respect the needs of 'the others' I'm personally dealing with. Not that I don't have as strong a territorial imperative as anyone, maybe it's as simple as not feeling superior and having a bit of empathy for 'the other ones'. I've alway considering that attitude sort of a humanist thing too. As I've mention before I feel in love with, and identify with, the term "Humanism" - not with the endless words that have been written about it.