Replies are closed for this discussion.
I am thinking in terms of someone who actually "self describes as a Humanist", in open and free conversation. In another example... I "self describe" as a separatist, in my regional politics, even tho there are plenty of aspects of the representing political party's ideology I disagree with. I do agree with the fundamental core rational, if separation were to happen, then we'd fight to iron out the details.
So I guess you can ponder 2 aspects: a) do you self describe as a Humanist and b) is your disagreement on a fundamental or a peripheral detail?
Still collecting votes, thanks for your 60 seconds :)
Although I may have once identified with the movement. my experiences over the past two years have opened my eyes to the fact that the Secular Humanist movement is a leftist political movement masquerading as a freethought movement; and, as such, is as bad as any church.
Besides, I CAN'T be a humanist. The current executive director of the ASHA has publicly said so. And that's just fine with me.
I have to disagree. I would categorize myself as a secular humanist. I do what I believe to be best for my fellow man. i buy food for the homeless now and again, and I do my best (although, I'll admit I do fail from time to time) to not pass judgement upon others and act accordingly as one person should to another, ethically. the old lesson, treat others as you want to be treated. I do believe it is possible, and I also believe it is possible to do so and have a spine to boot.
Might I ask how someone unaffiliated with a movement is contributing to political action? In my opinion (and this is all I can say that it is I suppose) Humanism isn't political at its root if you're genuinely understanding the ideal. It's about doing what is ethically right to others devoid of words from a higher authority, e.g., the moralistic rhetoric of a religious institution, whatever it may happen to be.
More over, I would venture to say that it could only become political should their be individuals desiring to extort this philosophy the way others have with religion. Again, I will state that I am simply an individual following this philosophy of my own accord with no ties to any sort of organization. Frankly stated, I can not agree and must firmly suggest you research for yourself and not follow what one person in a position of power claims to be factual. Doing so places you directly in suit with those blindly filling collection plates, fighting wars, or even praising an all powerful being.
Come now, I did not create this thread to discuss humanism, most people don't know the definition anyway, or everyone disagrees with it. So many people associate it with humanitarianism... anyway...
I posted this discussion simply to assess the percentage of humanists within the atheist movement, did you vote?
thank you :)
I notice that one voter answered both questions. :(
Please only answer one question.
We still have a long way to go before reaching critical mass...
I disagree with that definition. It's akin to me to stating I'm a vegetarian but I still eat meat. For me, agnosticism is a shade of theism, not a shade of atheism.
There is a logical fault among trendy atheists, in that our "leaders" are trying to be all inclusive in order to skew statistics as much in our favour as possible. I see trends in some interpretations to inflate our ranks, to include everyone and anyone who is not affiliated with a given church, anyone with doubt, anyone with sympathies, anyone who's religion does not include a single god. That's fine for political speak, but when it comes to real solid definitions, I prefer to distance myself from cheery all inclusives.