Should Atheists change to Humanists? (believe, rejecting, scientific, Jesus)

[ulnevrwalkalone]

I used to say I was atheist but now I consider myself a humanist.

Humanism - Philosophy. a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in god.

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
(definitions from dictionary.com)

Atheism appears to be an anti-religion whereas humanism allows a person to argue what they stand for instead of what they are against. If atheists became humanists I think it would be much easier for them to become a politically viable entity and help with getting religion out of politics.

About Humanism

From what I have read so far, Humanists sound almost identical to atheists. But atheists have a negative connotation in our society similar to anarchists. When someone asks me what religion I am and I say humanist, the discussion gets to progress to what I actually believe in, instead of what I don't beleive.

So should athiests "convert" to humanism??

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no god

Atheism appears to be an anti-religion

Wrong, the bolded statement above is short, sweet, and clear.

Granted, the appearance of being anti-religion is exhibited when the followers of any religion choose to impose their false belief system on me, through wars, passing laws, teaching fantasy's as fact in our schools, and so on.

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.

Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone

So should athiests "convert" to humanism??

NO!

[scarmig]

Hey, what's wrong with anarchists?

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone

I used to say I was atheist but now I consider myself a humanist.

Humanism - Philosophy. a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in god.

Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
(definitions from dictionary.com)

Atheism appears to be an anti-religion whereas humanism allows a person to argue what they stand for instead of what they are against. If atheists became humanists I think it would be much easier for them to become a politically viable entity and help with getting religion out of politics.

About Humanism

From what I have read so far, Humanists sound almost identical to atheists. But atheists have a negative connotation in our society similar to anarchists. When someone asks me what religion I am and I say humanist, the discussion gets to progress to what I actually believe in, instead of what I don't beleive.

So should athiests "convert" to humanism??

The question of what additional views should be added to no god - belief in defining atheism has often been discussed. The upshot usually is that it is better to just say No God - belief and leave it as that.

It does not neccessarily imply a devotion to logic and reason, a rejection of all things 'supernatural', a left - wing tendency, an espoual of tolerance, gender equality or green issues. It does not require an espousal of evolution.

It is simply no belief in any god. It does not imply rejection of the possibility of a god or a claim to have sufficient information to say that natural causes were the cause of everything. It doesn't need to be someone who denies a historical Jesus. It does not neccessarily imply someone who ihas antipathy towards religion. Not because that is not what atheists often have, but because that is not always, by definition, what they have. What they exclusively, by definition, do not have is a god - belief.

One can be an atheist that cares about those matters or just doesn't care. It can be someone who rather likes religion or hates it. It can be someone who doesn't believe in any god because they've reasoned their way to it, never believed it, never heard of it, don't have the brains for it or are only one year old and can't have it explained to them. It technically includes even lifeforms that cannot reason and also inanimate objects. Here, it is not a dichotomy to say that a person or thing has a god - belief or not. If it don't believe in a god, it's 'A - Theist'.

I am willing to accept that some are on the 'not sure' fence. I expect them to fall one way or the other, eventually.

So atheists can come in all shapes and sizes, some may be rather surprising like babies, South American tribes who have never imagined gods and people who call themselves Christians (1) - because they admire the teachings of the man Jesus.

If they don't believe he was a god and don't believe in any god. A- theist is what they are.

That said, non -belief in a god, does tend to lead to a common view as regards society, morality and sexual issues. It is very likely to lead one to espouse Humanism because, without a god - belief, there's just us to decide. But no. I don't see that renaming us 'humanist' would be helpful. I don't even think it would be correct.

If Atheist has a bad connotation, we have to live with that. And do something about it. And I do not call myself a 'Bright'.

(1) strictly speaking, they are not, unless they accept that Jesus was the Messiah (christ) in either the prophetic or divine sense.

[Chango]

I would think "atheist" is more of a general blanket statement with no real allegiances, but "humanist" is far more focused and has an agenda.

A humanist would be far more likely to be anti-religion than an atheist, because a humanist claims to know the "correct" philosophy and would tend to "convert" others to his/her belief system and/or feel pity or disdain for those who don't believe as they do.

[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/fil...he%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.

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).

[scarmig]

To pull out one of our Believer friends common cards: Was Stalin a Humanist? He was an atheist. Still think they are both synonymous?

While that might appear to be an argument that atheists should "convert" to humanists, it's not. It's just pointing out that atheism is *not* a code, a morality, a political philosophy, or a creed. Any kind of person, from monster to saint, can be an atheist. Humanism *is* a specific philosophy, and while there may be great areas of commonality or overlap, the two are not synonymous.

As an example, I find many humanists use that philosophy to support "soft" socialism. I am atheist, so if they are the same, by extension that would mean I also support such measures. But I don't. But I'm still an atheist.

I've known atheists that are outright communistic, and atheists that are Randian objectivists, and atheists that are exploitative capitalists and anarchists and everything in between.

[ulnevrwalkalone]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

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.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a political party that shared your opinion?

Originally Posted by scarmig

To pull out one of our Believer friends common cards: Was Stalin a Humanist? He was an atheist. Still think they are both synonymous?

Well we made it 7 posts before Stalin arrived, whose taking bets on how long it takes for Hitler to join him?

While that might appear to be an argument that atheists should "convert" to humanists, it's not. It's just pointing out that atheism is *not* a code, a morality, a political philosophy, or a creed. .

So do atheists deserve any sort of political representation?

[Parti Rhinocéros]

OP seems a little confused as to what 'Atheist' really means, for many humanists are usually atheists as well. These are overlapping terms, OP - one can easily be both.

All 'atheist' means is literally, that one is 'without' THEISM.

Any sources you find that say that Atheists believe there is "NO" God are in error. It's sad to me, actually, because that's been the connotation really since the term 'agnostic' was coined in the mid-19th century. In truth, all the word 'atheist' means is that one is without a belief in God, or is, literally, without theism.

[scarmig]

Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a political party that shared your opinion?


Well we made it 7 posts before Stalin arrived, whose taking bets on how long it takes for Hitler to join him?

And it was an atheist that brought him into it. The point stands though. The OP suggests that atheism is synonymous to humanism. Historically and philosophically, that is inaccurate.

So do atheists deserve any sort of political representation?

The question misses the reality.

Atheism is not a political philosophy. The only political commonality among atheists in general is to keep government non-religious. That's it. That's not enough to rally a party behind. And once you start adding more planks, atheists get divided among other political lines. When you start addressing things like gun control, abortion, welfare, immigration.... the unifying factor of "there isn't a god" quickly falls by the wayside.