Replies are closed for this discussion.
>t's looking like 83% ThinkAtheist users are Humanists, which I find utterly surprising
Maybe not so surprising. But it is certainly appalling.
Okay, granted, and admittedly I myself would have probably subscribed to those ideals - - - at a time before I saw the way real, organized, secular humanists operate with my own eyes. Before a time when I sat in an audience and watched the National Executive Director of the Secular Humanist Society, Roy Speckhardt, state flatly that undesirables like myself were not permitted to join the lofty ranks of the Humanists. Could a Fundamentalist Church have done any worse? Could a Neo-Nazi organization?
Not that I in the slightest lament the fact of being denied membership in any group that would permit a douchebag like Speckhardt to be their National Executive Director . . .
I consider myself a freethinker, not a humanist. (The terms apparently appear to be currently mutually exclusive). It has also become quite clear to me over the past couple of years that the organized secular humanist movement is most probably the greatest current enemy to the atheist movement, an enemy far more dangerous than any fundamentalist or church organization,
Not at all, not at all, self perception is key here! I'm sure the American Humanist Association is happy for all your interest in their organisation no matter the definition. As for the survey, we're up to 53 participants.
Thank everyone, keep them coming. Remember to only answer once.
I both agree and disagree with your assessment. I think you're missing a particularly important part of Humanism, the human replaces god... Humanism is a religion of two categories religious and secular, but in fact, both are religious in nature. What present self-identified Humanists would like to see Humanism become, does not change what Humanism has been, or is, officially. I think a great many people also conflate the official doctrine of Humanism with a general humanitarian sentiment. My principal disagreement with Humanism, though it's only one point of many, is the ethical stance, that which reveals the most about any doctrine, and the ethics of Humanism are stated thus:Ethics: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience
As a biologist, I simply cannot condone any doctrine which prioritizes human value above and beyond the intrinsic value of a balanced ecosystem, where all natural non technology modulated entities have equal systemic value.
I agree when you define Humanism "We do not need to have a belief in a divine being to lead what would be traditionally regarded as a christian life." That is also how I perceive Humanism, godless Christianity 'Abrahamism', which is why I disagree with it.
It's the reason I specified in the question 'self-identified'. When official Humanist organisations and publications list Humanist statistics, they don't distinguish people who may not be applying their own definition of it or not.
Thanks for voting :)
I don't know if I can accurately answer this question. I do subscribe to the ideal in many ways, but I was raised in a religious light and taught to be these things. I see and feel now that they are right for me and others.
Even if I was influenced--by religion-based morals--into being this way, does that mean that I can't genuinely call myself humanist? And if I recognize that it was because of that, yet I still subscribe to them without attributing it to something God would want me to do, does it negate that I've been influenced?
Also, I don't associate these ideals with any kind of organization political or religious.