News4 mins ago
Atheist or Humanist - what's in a name?
77 Answers
A comment from someone that they had no problem with humanists (or words to that effect), and the “Why are atheists so mistrusted (despised?) by those who believe?” thread got me thinking. Would the religious see atheists as less of a threat if they dropped the word ‘atheist’ and adopted the term ‘humanist’ instead?
http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism
http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Kiki, // Sorry, Naomi, I was not ignoring you. I wouldn't dare!//
‘Dare’ is a bit of a strong word, but I’m pleased you’ve seen my post - and I trust you won’t be saying you’ve yet to see reasonable or reasoned dialogue in R&S again.
//Let people explore their relationship with whatever they perceive god to be.... as long as it doesn't involve beating up people whose religious experience is different.//
No one is stopping them – but personal religious belief should not intrude uninvited into other people’s lives at all. Damage is not limited only to the physical.
‘Dare’ is a bit of a strong word, but I’m pleased you’ve seen my post - and I trust you won’t be saying you’ve yet to see reasonable or reasoned dialogue in R&S again.
//Let people explore their relationship with whatever they perceive god to be.... as long as it doesn't involve beating up people whose religious experience is different.//
No one is stopping them – but personal religious belief should not intrude uninvited into other people’s lives at all. Damage is not limited only to the physical.
naomi24
Question Author
Mibs, //No need to be gettin' all Uppity on me now, just because you've adopted a Label. :o) //
I vividly recall telling someone here many years ago that I don’t attach a label to myself, but a label was nevertheless pretty much foisted upon me on these very pages – I’ve just decided to change it. Have a custard pie. Sperlatt! Oops, sorry. I see you already have one. ;o)
Whether or not I accept the label of 'atheist' depends entirely on how one chooses to define it. In this thread alone, several different definitions are given and that's why I've given up on attempts to apply a term to myself that is not specific to what I am. I am only an atheist to the extent that I am not a theist in spite of all the negative connotations and excess baggage theists and others attempt to load it down with.
The term 'atheist' as it is commonly used is an ill defined superfluous, typically derogatory and pejorative term. I see no need for a term created on behalf of theists to differentiate myself from that which I am not, just to promote the delusion that they are somehow special for believing without regard for reason in something I do not. I accept the label of 'atheist' only in terms of it essential meaning, someone who does not hold a belief in a deity. If that shoe fits, wear it proudly, if only in the company of those who do not seek to attach more 'meaning' to it than actually applies in an attempt to obfuscate its essential and true meaning.
Your memory on this account might well be better than mine. I see no point in what would most likely be a futile attempt to dredge up the past where a simple apology would be well spent along with a promise to in the future refrain from foisting any labels on you that you have not adopted on your own behalf. I am not here to belittle people who are perfectly capable of doing that disservice through the ideas and principles they choose to define themselves with. It is those ideas and principles by which they belittle themselves that it is my intention to challenge. I'm actually on their side . . . whether or not they are capable of appreciating my efforts.
Yet another fine thread you've lured me into, you, you . . . oh never mind. ;o)
Question Author
Mibs, //No need to be gettin' all Uppity on me now, just because you've adopted a Label. :o) //
I vividly recall telling someone here many years ago that I don’t attach a label to myself, but a label was nevertheless pretty much foisted upon me on these very pages – I’ve just decided to change it. Have a custard pie. Sperlatt! Oops, sorry. I see you already have one. ;o)
Whether or not I accept the label of 'atheist' depends entirely on how one chooses to define it. In this thread alone, several different definitions are given and that's why I've given up on attempts to apply a term to myself that is not specific to what I am. I am only an atheist to the extent that I am not a theist in spite of all the negative connotations and excess baggage theists and others attempt to load it down with.
The term 'atheist' as it is commonly used is an ill defined superfluous, typically derogatory and pejorative term. I see no need for a term created on behalf of theists to differentiate myself from that which I am not, just to promote the delusion that they are somehow special for believing without regard for reason in something I do not. I accept the label of 'atheist' only in terms of it essential meaning, someone who does not hold a belief in a deity. If that shoe fits, wear it proudly, if only in the company of those who do not seek to attach more 'meaning' to it than actually applies in an attempt to obfuscate its essential and true meaning.
Your memory on this account might well be better than mine. I see no point in what would most likely be a futile attempt to dredge up the past where a simple apology would be well spent along with a promise to in the future refrain from foisting any labels on you that you have not adopted on your own behalf. I am not here to belittle people who are perfectly capable of doing that disservice through the ideas and principles they choose to define themselves with. It is those ideas and principles by which they belittle themselves that it is my intention to challenge. I'm actually on their side . . . whether or not they are capable of appreciating my efforts.
Yet another fine thread you've lured me into, you, you . . . oh never mind. ;o)
Kiki, I think I’ve told you before I don’t discuss my personal life on AB. I don’t, however, like to see all the effort that has been made on these pages over the years by intelligent and knowledgeable people dismissed as lightly as you dismissed it, and I therefore sought your confirmation that on this occasion, at least, you had recognised reasoned and rational dialogue.
Incidentally, I doubt the WI would have me. I hate cooking and sewing – and all manner of get-together girly stuff! ;o)
Mibs, I agree with you – the word ‘Atheist shouldn’t exist at all - but you didn’t stick the label on me – I just gave you a custard pie because you like them so much. :o)
Back to my label. It became attached because it was generally agreed that when we talk about ‘God’ here it usually refers to the God of Abraham, and since my studies leave me in no doubt whatsoever that he was not the creator God - if there ever was such a thing - for the purposes of discussion, I agreed to label myself ‘Atheist’.
I trust that clarifies that? Want another custard pie? :o)
Incidentally, I doubt the WI would have me. I hate cooking and sewing – and all manner of get-together girly stuff! ;o)
Mibs, I agree with you – the word ‘Atheist shouldn’t exist at all - but you didn’t stick the label on me – I just gave you a custard pie because you like them so much. :o)
Back to my label. It became attached because it was generally agreed that when we talk about ‘God’ here it usually refers to the God of Abraham, and since my studies leave me in no doubt whatsoever that he was not the creator God - if there ever was such a thing - for the purposes of discussion, I agreed to label myself ‘Atheist’.
I trust that clarifies that? Want another custard pie? :o)
Naomi, I think you probably guessed that my questions weren't entirely serious. It was a frivolous response to your 'You've been a naughty girl and don't do it again' comment, which I must admit had me spitting my tea over the keyboard with laughter.
Sorry, but I maintain that there frequently is a lack of reasoned argument - you have accused people of that many times in the past. If you want me to find specific examples, I can. As for reasonable, I can only say, 'I trust you won't be saying.....' etc, etc, etc. Go, child, and sin no more.
;-)
Sorry, but I maintain that there frequently is a lack of reasoned argument - you have accused people of that many times in the past. If you want me to find specific examples, I can. As for reasonable, I can only say, 'I trust you won't be saying.....' etc, etc, etc. Go, child, and sin no more.
;-)
I am a Atheist for the simple reason my experience of life and everything I have studied have convinced me that there is no proof that God exists .
There is no ideology , philosophy , beliefs, doctrines or any other fantasy attached to the word. You could be a right wing fascist or an extreme communist or dedicate your life to helping others and still be an Atheist.
Atheism is not a religion , it doesn't even deny that there may be forces that we can not yet detect. W
There is no ideology , philosophy , beliefs, doctrines or any other fantasy attached to the word. You could be a right wing fascist or an extreme communist or dedicate your life to helping others and still be an Atheist.
Atheism is not a religion , it doesn't even deny that there may be forces that we can not yet detect. W
plautus
If we are to debate the label rather than the argument then all is lost.
For what my twopennorth is worth, I think that "humanist" is a weasel word, devoid of any intellectual significance. At least "atheist" is clear and honest.
21:02 Tue 13th Nov 2012
The legitimacy of a concept rests on its definition, the description of that in reality to which the concept refers. If there is no agreement on what the term means than any subsequent discussion is futile. Meaning is everything.
If we are to debate the label rather than the argument then all is lost.
For what my twopennorth is worth, I think that "humanist" is a weasel word, devoid of any intellectual significance. At least "atheist" is clear and honest.
21:02 Tue 13th Nov 2012
The legitimacy of a concept rests on its definition, the description of that in reality to which the concept refers. If there is no agreement on what the term means than any subsequent discussion is futile. Meaning is everything.
I would disagree with your last comment, Plautus. Humanism has plenty of intellectual currency.
Defining 'Humanism'
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.
It has the advantage that you are not being defined solely by your attitude toward religion. Should the need arise, ones stance on belief and faith can be further clarified.
We all go on about not labelling others because to do so makes presumptive value judgements based upon a generalisation upon an individual. Sometimes though, it can act as a convenient shorthand, especially if self applied.
Defining 'Humanism'
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.
It has the advantage that you are not being defined solely by your attitude toward religion. Should the need arise, ones stance on belief and faith can be further clarified.
We all go on about not labelling others because to do so makes presumptive value judgements based upon a generalisation upon an individual. Sometimes though, it can act as a convenient shorthand, especially if self applied.
Kiki, //'You've been a naughty girl and don't do it again'//
I didn’t say that….
….. and you didn’t say this: //I maintain that there frequently is a lack of reasoned argument//
You’ve leapt from ‘no reasonable or reasoned dialogue’ to ‘frequently a lack of reasoned argument’ Big difference there – and a rather disingenuous shift on your part – if I may say so.
Plautus, I suggest you read the rest of the thread and the links. It’s all there. As LG says ‘it [Humanist] has the advantage that you are not being defined solely by your attitude toward religion’. Therefore, since it offers a more comprehensive description, rather than being a ‘weasel’ word, it is, in fact, more honest.
I didn’t say that….
….. and you didn’t say this: //I maintain that there frequently is a lack of reasoned argument//
You’ve leapt from ‘no reasonable or reasoned dialogue’ to ‘frequently a lack of reasoned argument’ Big difference there – and a rather disingenuous shift on your part – if I may say so.
Plautus, I suggest you read the rest of the thread and the links. It’s all there. As LG says ‘it [Humanist] has the advantage that you are not being defined solely by your attitude toward religion’. Therefore, since it offers a more comprehensive description, rather than being a ‘weasel’ word, it is, in fact, more honest.
lol, Naomi, I think you're probably smart enough to know that I wasn't claiming to quote you word for word, but rather attempting to convey the effect that your somewhat unfortunate choice of words had, that of being a rather hectoring schoolmarm. Not deliberate on your part, I'm sure, but I felt it worth trying to point that out in a light-hearted way. Your choice of words really did make me laugh, that's all.
'Disingenuous' - an interesting choice of words, when I clearly recall you berating me for using that same word to describe a certain post by an ex-ABer. I'd refer you to it, but the post has been deleted. I'll leave you to work out why.
As for including the word 'frequently' - consider it removed. OPs allow their threads to wander ludicrously off-topic and dialogue inevitably descends into rudeness and nit-picking.
I'll leave you to have the last word. Again. ;-)
'Disingenuous' - an interesting choice of words, when I clearly recall you berating me for using that same word to describe a certain post by an ex-ABer. I'd refer you to it, but the post has been deleted. I'll leave you to work out why.
As for including the word 'frequently' - consider it removed. OPs allow their threads to wander ludicrously off-topic and dialogue inevitably descends into rudeness and nit-picking.
I'll leave you to have the last word. Again. ;-)
There is a vast difference between theism and religion. Theism is a blindness to reality and none of us want to face reality at times. It can be a crutch, a comfort, a hope , a desire . It may affect ones judgement for good or bad but in isolation it's not of major importance.
It is when theism is turned into a religion with all its mumbo-jumbo, rules , regulations and punishments that the problems arise.
God supposedly set the standard by destroying millions in Genesis because
they wouldn't abide by his rules. We have followed his lead ever since.
It is when theism is turned into a religion with all its mumbo-jumbo, rules , regulations and punishments that the problems arise.
God supposedly set the standard by destroying millions in Genesis because
they wouldn't abide by his rules. We have followed his lead ever since.
kiki - thats like saying episodes of de ja vu are actually spontaneous real time travel - because 'how do we know theyre not?'
or that people who are falling are actually flying... just in a very short downward flight... its perception and logic that tells us whats really going on.
atheists base their opinion on lots of thought processes - improbability, likelihood, rationality, common sense, logic, absence of evidence or proof, non-fantastical and impossible stories etc etc
or that people who are falling are actually flying... just in a very short downward flight... its perception and logic that tells us whats really going on.
atheists base their opinion on lots of thought processes - improbability, likelihood, rationality, common sense, logic, absence of evidence or proof, non-fantastical and impossible stories etc etc
Just for those that might be interested.
I mentioned the case of Sanal Edamaraku in an earlier post - Indian sceptic who is under threat of arrest following a blasphemy charge laid against him by the Catholic Church in India - This was after he showed that a supposed miracle weeping jesus statue was actually effluent from a broken waste pipe.
Anyway, he is coming to an event in London in November, and this is a link just in case anyone is near enough or has time to attend.
http://
I mentioned the case of Sanal Edamaraku in an earlier post - Indian sceptic who is under threat of arrest following a blasphemy charge laid against him by the Catholic Church in India - This was after he showed that a supposed miracle weeping jesus statue was actually effluent from a broken waste pipe.
Anyway, he is coming to an event in London in November, and this is a link just in case anyone is near enough or has time to attend.
http://
Kiki, what a pity you chose to edit the second statement rather than the first. Perhaps if you continue to read the posts in R&S in time you will be able to recognise reasonable or reasoned dialogue when you see it.
If you want to continue in the same vein, please feel free to do so, bearing in mind, of course, that I may well be a hectoring schoolmarm and rather hurt by your disparaging comments - and then let the rest of us get on with the discussion.
If you want to continue in the same vein, please feel free to do so, bearing in mind, of course, that I may well be a hectoring schoolmarm and rather hurt by your disparaging comments - and then let the rest of us get on with the discussion.
Latest Posts
News11 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works14 mins ago
The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News19 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.