Badfish

Hmmm, interesting, I didn't even think about that......makes sense though....

Gurdur

Mind you, Virgil Tibbs, given some of the interventions on this thread, I may well change my mind.


Thanks, but possibly I should be commiserated on or remonstrated with for my masochism instead.

Gurdur

Normal decent interhuman behaviour, marked by altruism and social engagement.

No doubt on a case-by-case basis it will become more clearer.
I suggest you raise cases rather than seeking an overall quick definition.

HelenM

That's what I thought.

That makes sense.

Ok then, is a person who is against legalizing gay marriage because of their religious beliefs disqualified from being a humanist, even if they are decent, altruistic and socially engaged otherwise?

Or, would you describe such a person as a religious humanist with some beliefs that fall short of the humanism that typifies them otherwise?

If those questions are too constraining feel free not to answer them directly - I'm interested in whatever response you have, regardless of the format of it.

Helen

Gurdur

Certainly on that particular issue
(at least if that person is against legalizing gay partnerships. Marriage is an additional complex question. However, on the whole, the answer remains muchly unqualified).
Reasons upon demand, but only if you stop encouraging other disruptors.

Since when does being humanist in one area necessarily mean that that person is always humanist ?

Badfish

See livius? I knew it!!!

I knew there was an underlying motive.

HelenM

Exactly.

Yet, it seems to me that conservative Christians tend to be accused of being anti-humanist (un-humanist? not humanist) because of their position on certain issues, even if in other ways they are quite humanist.

I agree with you that it makes more sense to consider whether they are humanists, issue by issue, rather than saying they must be always humanist or never humanist - because if that were the case, who is to say which issues are to be the determining ones?

Helen

Luiseach

Gurdur, have you ever thought about planting an oak tree in your garden? Have you even got around to dedicating a flower or plant of any kind to yourself?

I was looking at a website that translates the language of flowers, and the oak leaf suits your philosophy of life perfectly...in Victorian times, the oak leaf stood for bravery and humanity.

Just a thought.

Here's one ----> http://www.tonyhowell.co.uk/OakTree,nrKilve1801.htm

NonHomogenized

I am slightly confused by this, I must admit. Yes, yes, The Answer, capital letters, emphasis, et al, but... the answer to what? I think I understand what you mean (atheism as an end-all be-all solution to the ills of society), but I would like to make sure I am clear on it.

I would agree that the 'humanism' is more important than whether it's secular or religious, but I do assign a small measure of importance to that distinction. If someone has come to the conclusion that faeries exist without good evidence for such, I'm going to be slightly concerned about their ability to make good judgement calls. Certainly this can be mitigated by demonstrations of their ability to do so, but it's still a general guideline for me, as would any other example of such a failing (for that matter, I've been known to make poor decisions on more than a couple occasions, and I endeavour to watch my own decision-making processes closely as a result, too. I may be a perfectionist jerk, but I try to be a honest and consistent perfectionist jerk. )

My experience as an American, and, at that, one who tries to change perceptions of athiests, while remaining respectful of others, insofar as is reasonable, is that there is a curious occurance in the USA. Somehow, a very secular way of life has been combined with an assumed stance on religion. Americans, in general (IME), tend to not really think much about their religious stance, and, for the most part, are somewhere between deist, and some kind of vague inclination towards christianity, and assume everyone else to be more or less similar. As such, it creates a problematic situation for me:
An example from my experience today:
I was helping a (christian) friend with his Eagle Scout project, which is the construction of an enclosure for kestrels, for some rescue or wildlife group (I'm not entirely clear on the details.) While I was working there, one of the other helpers, a friend of his father's, I think, was talking with his father (who was also helping), and I overheard him ask his father why I was helping out, with a comment about "Does he have embarrassing photos of him, or is he just trying to get his ticket to heaven?". Now, in this situation, there was no need for me to reply, but I have been in other situations where people made a comment with an assumption about my religious stance.
Now, here is the dilemma, and I am sorry for taking so long to come to it:
If I say nothing to correct it, they will not realize that I am an atheist, and I will not influence their view of atheists.
If I say "I'm sorry, but I am an atheist.", I will, often, be seen as standoffish, or condescending - not because of anything I do, other than express that I am an atheist, and that is what many people think of atheists.
If I attempt to explain, I will be seen as confrontational and abrasive, no matter how courteous and polite I am - again, not because I am, but because that is what many people expect of atheists.
There is a passive-aggressive attitude that is common here. It can be seen most blatantly in instances like the 10 commandments statue in Alabama. By trying to keep them from being offensive and oppressive towards others, we are "oppressing" them. Even many people who do not subscribe to it on that level, though, harbor it to some extent. Many people I have encountered will, if they say something pertaining to my presumed religious beliefs, and I say that I am an atheist, will
construe it as an attack on their beliefs.
How do you feel I should positively affect such people's attitudes about atheists?
Also, all that I necessarily have in common with atheists is that I don't believe in god. There is an immense variety of people who fall under this category; some are liberal, some are progressive, some are conservative, others are libertarian, anarchist, or so forth. Often, we have conflicting, or radically divergent, aims, goals, and ideals. Do you (or does anyone else) have any suggestions for how such a diverse group can work together?
I'm inclined to agree with you on this. However, I can see both sides: technically, agnostics ARE atheists, as is anyone who does not specifically believe in god. At the same time, I respect that they feel that they should not be grouped with "nonbelievers", as they are undecided on the subject (or have no opinion, etc).

I have to disagree with the first part of that statement. While there is a preponderance of USA-related stuff, a great deal of the members here live in the US, and as such, it should not be a suprise if they act and talk as such. However, I have also seen quite a bit from the UK, Australia, and a fair bit from parts of Europe (offhand, the Netherlands comes to mind). I certainly would enjoy learning more about these cultures, but, admittedly, I live in the USA, and have never been to those places. I have no frame of reference to understand much of it, and my attitudes are, in truth, derived solely from experiences in the USA, Canada, and Mexico. I can't participate in discussions about things in other countries, save from the perspective of someone who has only lived in the US. Someday, I hope to remedy that, but, until then, c'est la vie.

I cannot disagree, however, with the last part of your statement, and I have been guilty of such on multiple occasions, in thought if not in speech. I know it's not true. However, members of this board, certainly myself, often come here to vent (or post drunk, which amounts to much the same thing ). Often, I, for one, am really just expressing frustration with certain attitudes and behaviors. Could I better express this? Surely, but when I say it, I'm looking to vent frustration, not express myself completely coherently


In spite of the fact that I consider luddites to be a bit... off (my personal opinion, and nothing is meant against such people. I simply find it illogical to oppose technology/technological change. It is, of course, their choice, however, and I would not deny them that, nor would I hold it against any of them), I'd have to agree with your point. Theism itself is not the cause of the ills of society. It is my personal opinion that theism is a bad thing in and of itself, due to the attitudes promoted by believing in a god who gives a flying rat's ass about humans, but, again, I do not hold it against individuals, nor would I wish to forcibly change them. I am happy to settle for an exchange of ideas, and the optimistic belief that, in the end, people will no longer feel the need to belief in the fairy tales of our ancestors (and that's my arrogant and self-righteous opinion ).
When I encounter people who insist on forcing their TRVTH on everyone else (or people who are only interested in their discussion of their ideas, IYKWIM), I get a bit ill-tempered, but, whatever I might say when tempers run short, I have no real problem with anyone who isn't trying to force me to conform to their beliefs, and, it is my humble opinion that many of the other people here take a similar view.

And the one "major" group of Atheists, American Atheists, is often seen as smug, arrogant, and suffering a superiority complex - a reputation which I feel isn't entirely undeserved. I think that AA has their place, I just wish it wasn't as the "representative" group of atheists.
However, due to their efforts, any other group of atheists who emerges and tries to help people will, most likely, either be ignored, shunned due to the "atheist" title, or seen as opportunists looking out mainly for their own interests - no matter the evidence to the contrary. Not that that would deter me from joining, and doing my best to change those perceptions. If I knew more atheists, personally, I would look to starting, at least, a local group to do some of this. And, of course, everyone has their own rationalization for not taking action, and mine does no more good than the rest, ne?

I agree completely. A philosophy can be atheistic, but atheism qua atheism does not a philosophy make.

This depends on the fundy. Some fundies acknowledge our existence: most of those seem to simply assume we're seduced by satan, devils, or "lost souls".

This is a fair criticism. I think a great deal of this comes from the fact that many different atheists have many, very different things to say on the subject, and often disagree. To be fair, nonreligious people make up between 10 and 15% of the population, in the USA for example, being the country I'm most familiar with. These people do not necessarily have anything in common other than this. They, most likely, make up a rough cross-section of society, in most aspects. That means that, for example, the number of progressives who are atheists is likely to be somewhere around 12% of the number of progressives who are theists. Simply, although the number of nontheists is not inconsiderable, they are too factionalized to have much of an effect, even if they do group. And if one expects them to join an atheist party simply to support atheists, one is expecting the kind of dogmatism that so many of us despise.
So long as atheists come from all walks of life, and in relatively small numbers, atheists will not have a party, nor will they have many organizations, as there will be too many disagreements on too many subjects, or they will have to become dogmatic, which in my opinion would be an inexcusable crime.

I admit, I am neither as socially involved as I might be, nor am I consistent in my speech- to an extent. I do try to be at least somewhat socially involved (if not a social person, which I'm admittedly not), but I often fail on this, and I will not try to excuse or rationalize such. When I say that I am not consistant, what I mean is that I often come to this board to vent frustration. This is an atheist board, and I generally treat it as such. Those ventings are simply to release tension and frustration, and often do not accurately represent my personal views. However, I have not often thought about my postings when I did this, and I must admit that your post got me thinking a lot more about my opinions than I often do when posting here, much to my chagrin. While I have disagreed with many of your points, it has been nearly always with consideration for the fact that they are often good points, with at least an element of truth.
I, for one, thank you for reminding me to examine my own views, and to not make such sweeping generalizations, or say things I don't really mean. I will, in the future, try to do better.

[I will endeavor to take this lesson to heart, sensei ]

Gurdur

Ah, sweet rationality, thy name is Luiseach.

A sight for sore eyes in this muddle.
Yes. Depend on me to cover all basic Celtic tree mythology.
Oak, elm, ash and whatever it was. Hawthorn, ivy, holly.
um, no.

What would be the point ?
Since I have muchly complete control over what gets planted, what would an exercise in rank egotism accomplish ?


um.
*blush*
Many thanks !