Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Secular Humanist rejects religious dogma, but would not be disqualified from subscribing to the idea of a deity. That deity would not be assigned responsibility for human fortune or misadventure, humans are at all times responsible for the quality of life and should reason their way to a proper ethical balance.
It is "irreligious' rather than "atheistic", although of course these ideas frequently overlap.
There are religious humanists, which is why we differentiate with "secular", but most americans ignore the distinction and use "secular humanist" as one word (mostly pejorative), to describe all humanists. Thus the confusion.
Also there is a distinction between atheism and secularism.
Secularism is the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, no other strings attached.
This is why I would far rather use the word 'Humanist' as it offers a better and more distinct definition of the moral code I identify with. Unfortunately not many people are familiar with the word or indeed have even heard the word 'Humanism'.
This is why I would far rather use the word 'Humanist' as it offers a better and more distinct definition of the moral code I identify with. Unfortunately not many people are familiar with the word or indeed have even heard the word 'Humanism'.
I think most fundamentalists are familiar with the word, although their understanding of it is rudimentary; it is just another entity in their pantheon of bogeymen. They usually refer to it as "secular humanism" and ascribe unspeakable evil to it, often without bothering to define exactly what that evil is and to adequately argue whatever evidence they (likely don't) have for that appellation. It seems to be mostly their stand-in for what they see as the creeping secularism in a society that was once "Christian" -- itself a highly questionable notion.
So a "secular humanist" is one who seeks to "remove god" from schools, government, public spaces, etc. As such the secular humanist is probably one and the same with atheists, both nicely disposed of under the rubric of "god hater". It would be a rare evangelical who would have a nuanced enough understanding that although many humanists are atheists, not all humanists are atheists and not all atheists are humanists.
Whatever one does, one should never go to a secular humanist website and actually understand what they are actually about and what their actual objectives are. Because that's lots less scary. Not good bogeyman material.
A Secular Humanist rejects religious dogma, but would not be disqualified from subscribing to the idea of a deity. That deity would not be assigned responsibility for human fortune or misadventure, humans are at all times responsible for the quality of life and should reason their way to a proper ethical balance.
It is "irreligious' rather than "atheistic", although of course these ideas frequently overlap.
Thanks. I was going to say 'Yes'. But you are right - this can also cover religious believers who nevertheless reject organized religion as an authority and believe that the world should be organized and run on secular, non -religious lines. And, apart from a few Theocratic states, most of the world actually is.
In practical fact, howeve, a large majority of humanists would, I would be willing to bet, are atheist, in actial beliefs, if not in the title they choose to go by.
A Secular Humanist rejects religious dogma, but would not be disqualified from subscribing to the idea of a deity. That deity would not be assigned responsibility for human fortune or misadventure, humans are at all times responsible for the quality of life and should reason their way to a proper ethical balance.
It is "irreligious' rather than "atheistic", although of course these ideas frequently overlap.
this sounds perfect.
I am going to take the label "humanist". Now I have to memorize the definition. Because that is how I think. I find myself stating "I am atheist by definition but not one of those kind." all the time.
As far as putting science first and religion second I don't think that way. I look at data to draw conclusions. "secular" to me is kind of a funny word. Practice what you preach. It is simple as that. "love and compassion" seems to work better than "hate and discontent" so I strive for that. And fail. The first place I learnt that is from the bible. No big deal.
I use scientific method for everything. It applies to most things I know. I wish it had a different name so religious people don't turn away from it. All it mean is that the "truth" can be found by crosschecking yourself with as many people as possible. Not everybody will agree, but the more that do the closer to what the "truth is" you are. And sometimes we just don't know but that is ok. There is no need to make stuff up. The only requirement is to learn more and retest incessantly.
In Ireland we have Atheist Ireland which I am one of the original founding members of..... and there exists Humanist Ireland.
There are people that are members of both.
There are members of each who have never even considered membership of the other yet.
And there are members of each who have considered it and would never join the other.
What this tells me..... is also what reading a simply dictionary tells me..... there are many overlaps in goals, agendas and ideals between the two..... but they are not the same thing either by any means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.