Humanists Values

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

if belief in a creator is irrelevant, then why is it listed on the list of humanist values, as something to avoid?

for instance from the article in the opening post link

"Usually, an array of principles is provided as a list of what’s key to humanists—affirming human worth and dignity, reason, compassion, morality, ethics, democracy, scientific inquiry, naturalism, and critical thinking with no adherence or affirmation of a divine creator or other supernatural force. None of the definitions are entirely conclusive, and all are correct in outlining the fundamentals of humanism."

Its not required. A secular humanist wouldn't make non belief a requirement to have worth. A Religious humanist would not required belief to have worth.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

i very much understand the wisdom of telling someone "Don't tell other people what they were born with."
my posts are not about you. i discuss ideas not individuals posting.
my post is about the view put forth, which i wholeheartedly agree with.


as the saying goes, "principles before personalities"
and any post on this public forum, can be responded to by anyone on CD.


Don't tell other people not to respond to a post.

Tzap, when you respond to posts do you really think we don't know which poster(s) you are criticizing?

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Tzap, when you respond to posts do you really think we don't know which poster(s) you are criticizing?

Pretty much everybody.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

Its not required. A secular humanist wouldn't make non belief a requirement to have worth. A Religious humanist would not required belief to have worth.

This is all about me As otherwise it would be one of those threads I would not need to add to as you bods did all that was needed.

But I'll comment here after a bit of humanist values to stay on topic - humanists are essentially practical irreligionists; they live in a world and society where they do not turn to a god, religion or Holy Book for Laws, Ethics of guidance. Even though some might be theists and even religious.

Which is why I have to observe that the anti -atheists do not Get it. And they do not get that they exhibit the hostility, never mind they apparently do not understand atheism or atheists. Nor do they want to as they never listen to or accept plain explanations. It is hard to avoid the suspicions that they prefer their prejudices to the true situation.

The "Then why does it say this..?" line shows that they think we are lying. Maybe just utterly mistaken, but more probably (as we ought to know) we are lying. But it is the fact that atheists can do business with agnostics, Deists and irreligious Theists and even humanist Christians ,as we share the same values and even objectives - to have a secular run society even if it has religion and protects religion.

All religion, which is not always what we get in religious societies, and never mind what happens to atheists. They see this and see that atheists are not the enemies even of religion. Only religions thinking they are the True religion and should have authority in a society. I'm not even looking at Holy Wars yet, though we don't have to look too far.

Thus, while I suppose the accusations and well -poisoning has given atheism and atheists a bad rap (and I have to say we didn't need the current Woke cult being an atheist one) it is the Theist or anti atheist 'agnostic' side that take the atheist case for irreligion personally and go for the jugular, and then play the victim and portray we as the aggressors, when they find we push back.

Cue: "What about the war on Christmas?" No more real than the war against trick or treat, Harry Potter or separation of church and state.