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.
I am also both an Atheist and a Humanist and don’t see how I could be one without being the other.
The political issue is a problem in today’s environment, but I think that is changing fast. I try to vote for the person who at least knows Africa is a continent. The best we can hope for is someone intelligent enough to see more than one view, and has a good grasp on reality. That sounds like I just described an Atheist.
I also have to consider my self a humanist as well as an atheist, but I also strongly feel I too am an anti-theist much like Hiichens.
This quote really tells it al:
"I was a secular humanist before I knew the term. I have not believed in God since childhood's end. I believe a belief in any deity is adolescent, shameful and dangerous. How would you feel, surrounded by billions of human beings taking Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy and the stork seriously, and capable of shaming, maiming or murdering in their name?
I am embarrassed to live in a world retaining any faith in church, prayer or a celestial creator. I do not believe in Heaven, Hell or a Hereafter; in angels, demons, ghosts, goblins, the Devil, vampires, ghouls, zombies, witches, warlocks, UFOs or other delusions; and in very few mundane individuals--politicians, lawyers, judges, priests, militarists, censors and just plain people. I respect the individual's right to abortion, suicide and euthanasia. I support birth control. I wish to Good that society were rid of smoking, drinking and drugs."
Forrest Ackerman
An atheist doesn't recognize or believe in god or religion. It's separate and different from humanism. Humanisn is an attitude, belief and a practice of such beliefs in the form of how one views and treats others. Atheism has nothing to do with humanism. A religious person can also be a humanist for that matter.
The political party will arise from a more rational voting public. It can't be done by getting all the Humanists together and campaigning since the others will just call them atheists and that will be enough to scupper any chance of them getting anywhere.
As atheists does it not upset you that its impossible to hold office in a country that was founded with the principle of the seperation of church and state??? As others have argued, atheists are not always humanists, and therefore not all humanists are atheists. But Humanists do agree with the opinion that government and religion should be seperate and so doesn't it stand to reason that atheists should look into joining the humanist movement? If only to get a political voice that agrees that religion should not be a prerequisite to hold office?
Personally I would love to see the "in god we trust" statements taken off of american currency. How can a country claim to have no religious bias when its currency states it trusts god?? Doesn't that bother you as atheists living in america?
As atheists does it not upset you that its impossible to hold office in a country that was founded with the principle of the seperation of church and state??? As others have argued, atheists are not always humanists, and therefore not all humanists are atheists. But Humanists do agree with the opinion that government and religion should be seperate and so doesn't it stand to reason that atheists should look into joining the humanist movement? If only to get a political voice that agrees that religion should not be a prerequisite to hold office?
Personally I would love to see the "in god we trust" statements taken off of american currency. How can a country claim to have no religious bias when its currency states it trusts god?? Doesn't that bother you as atheists living in america?
It's possible to hold office. It's just that you have to lie about it. But of course, if you're holding office, you're already a lying, conniving sumbitch, so what's one more?
And of course it bothers us. I did say that the *only* thing atheists can unite on is the removal of religious bias from government. But that's all. So far all of the questions you have raised about what we would like to see are indeed religious bias in government. Yes we would like to see action on that. But most people have more important issues to them than some ridges on a worthless coin.
Consider this:
Two atheists.
Both agree that "In God We Trust" should be removed from the Pledge and money.
One wants all guns banned and confiscated.
The other wants open carry for anyone, including criminals that have served their time.
Which issue do you think is going to determine if they both vote for the same candidate, or for different candidates? Which issue is most likely to be more important to them?
I only got to the bottom of the first page of posts to see that the OP is either being purposefully combative or patently argumentative, or simply does not understand either common definitions or philosophy. As others have so accurately noted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native
Wrong, the bolded statement above is short, sweet, and clear.
(rflmn™ notes: following point well statedTo the followers of any deity, take your fantasy, your book, your rules, your agenda and stay out of my life, my government, my law books, my grand-kids science textbooks, and we shall peacefully co-exist. Intrude in my life, and we shall have a problem.
NO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone
But atheists are the unrepresented minority in america. According to one study they are the most despised of all the american minorities (http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf). And declaring yourself atheist is basically political suicide in america. But if people that are atheists began also being humanists then we could have a political party that actually represents our views.
Surveys, statistics and opinions, all. Atheists are a growing group, and when coupled with the non-Christian religions, form a big majority over the Christian crowd. Education is having it's predictable effect ,as is common sense and all those NatGeo, NOVA, Science Channel and Science documentaries with their outstanding graphic explanations and unavoidable conclusions. Try though they might to have such information banned, they will fail, and in fact already are, to be sure.
BTW, weren't Christian also a highly despised group back in old rome? So what? You seem to have survived and even dominated for a brief part of this Earth's eventual history. you even invoked The Spanish Inquisition once in power. nice move, but it did forever seal your fate as a possible political power. People can now see what happens if we're polite to you!
Suppression of Knowledge has always failed. Let's review The Spanish Inquisition or the current Catholic Church's admission of both Evolution and synthetic life. They don't want to look stupid, after all....
Now, at this point, I will agree that there would likely be no avowed non-Christian politicians with even a hope of winning. does that make this religion the right one, or simply another schoolyard bully?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvrwlk etc
I guess I don't see how humanist and atheist are not synonymous. I personally do not know any atheists who would say that they do not emphasize reason, scientific inquiry, or human fulfillment in the natural world while still rejecting the importance of belief in god (humanist).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a political party that shared your opinion?
Why? My disbelief in a spiritual hokus-pokus Magical Myth Master is not politically motivated. Only the devoutly Christian amongst us would dream of having a religiously oriented political power, and thus the potential for being in power and enforcing their beliefs on the 49% who might well despise it.
There's absolutely noroom for religious philosophy in any management of a democratic non-theocracy. Wherever we do have such thuggo theocracies, the people are always subjugated, and live in perpetual fear of persecution.
Well we made it 7 posts before Stalin arrived, whose taking bets on how long it takes for Hitler to join him?
You mean of course, Hitler the devout Christian, who invoked God to support his great schemes? Sounds familiar; many Christian egotists have tried that one.
So do atheists deserve any sort of political representation?
We hope not, and it would be especially nice if we were to have world leaders who intelligently declined any religious overtones or commentaries. In fact, their personal religious beliefs should be held secret, and not be a factor in their election.
After all we're now living with the effects of the various stupid blessings and assumptions by the Bush crowd. They are always intensely insulting to many citizens. Barama's obligatory "God Bless America!" endings are perfunctory at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF
OP seems a little confused as to what 'Atheist' really means...
These are overlapping terms, OP - one can easily be both. All 'atheist' means is literally, that one is 'without' THEISM.
(snipped for brevity)
In truth, all the word 'atheist' means is that one is without a belief in God, or is, literally, without theism.
Nicely stated, P4LF. but possibly or probably lost on this poster, who has an agenda to be sure.
As atheists does it not upset you that its impossible to hold office in a country that was founded with the principle of the seperation of church and state??? As others have argued, atheists are not always humanists, and therefore not all humanists are atheists. But Humanists do agree with the opinion that government and religion should be seperate and so doesn't it stand to reason that atheists should look into joining the humanist movement? If only to get a political voice that agrees that religion should not be a prerequisite to hold office?
Personally I would love to see the "in god we trust" statements taken off of american currency. How can a country claim to have no religious bias when its currency states it trusts god?? Doesn't that bother you as atheists living in america?
Not all atheists hold a humanist philosophy. Some are nihilists, while others are objectivists or utilitarians. Humanism is a secular philosophy which many, but not all atheists hold. This is one of the problems with argueing that atheists should 'convert' to humanism.
As atheists does it not upset you that its impossible to hold office in a country that was founded with the principle of the seperation of church and state??? As others have argued, atheists are not always humanists, and therefore not all humanists are atheists. But Humanists do agree with the opinion that government and religion should be seperate and so doesn't it stand to reason that atheists should look into joining the humanist movement? If only to get a political voice that agrees that religion should not be a prerequisite to hold office?
Personally I would love to see the "in god we trust" statements taken off of american currency. How can a country claim to have no religious bias when its currency states it trusts god?? Doesn't that bother you as atheists living in america?
Holding office, it pizzes me off that people are so damn stupid that they would vote for some corrupt bastard because he wears a cross around his neck, yet would not vote for an honest hard working person that really has their communities best interests at heart.
Some people here even tried to stop a city council member from being sworn in earlier this year as the NC constitution has some nonsense about only god fearing people can hold office. Of course such nonsense has been turned over by the courts some time ago, they just haven't corrected the constitution.
If you look into the actual behavior of organized religion in this country you would see that currency is their god, the big guy in white robes is just their front man.
I only got to the bottom of the first page of posts to see that the OP is either being purposefully combative or patently argumentative, or simply does not understand either common definitions or philosophy. As others have so accurately noted:
That's looking to be the case, but that's ok. It's good to challenge and it is good to test our views to see whether they stand up. It's another argument looked at (Are atheists actually humanists, in which case, would it look better to call yourselves humaists) and found wanting. (No. atheism is not the same as humanism). And that's valuable, so long as we remember it next time someone puts the same argument.
There is nothing stopping an atheist from also being a humanist.
Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean they all are humanists and could correctly adopt humanist as a more PR - friendly designation.
There was a post recently which showed that an atheist could be a Christian (or at least lay claim to the monicker) but that certainly doesn't mean...
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.
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.
OP is purpsefully misleading, to be sure.
To the followers of any deity, take your fantasy, your book, your rules, your agenda and stay out of my life, my government, my law books, my grand-kids science textbooks, and we shall peacefully co-exist. Intrude in my life, and we shall have a problem.
