Are all Humanists, humanists?

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 12 of12
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

When someone describes themselves as a humanist my instant reaction might be 'how do they know?'

It seems to me that the letter's case (high or low) is significant. For instance, a person might be unconsciously superstitious and widely regarded as irrational, but he may be a member of a Humanist organisation and therefore, in that sense, a Humanist. Similarly, a non-believer (in the usual gods) might vehemently insist they aren’t a humanist.(Some do this because they don’t favor Humanist groups, for whatever reason). However, in the dictionary sense of the word, a humanist is...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism
simply someone who “rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth”. This suggests to me that if they’re not religious, widely regarded as rational, living a good life and with sound moral values, it might be reasonable for others to view them as a humanist even if they dislike or reject the term.

It seems to me that one can choose for oneself to be a Humanist, but whether one is humanist or not must be determined by the collective opinion of others.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

EdSed wrote:
When someone describes themselves as a humanist my instant reaction might be 'how do they know?'
It seems to me that the letter's case (high or low) is significant. For instance, a person might be unconsciously superstitious and widely regarded as irrational, but he may be a member of a Humanist organisation and therefore, in that sense, a Humanist. Similarly, a non-believer (in the usual gods) might vehemently insist they aren’t a humanist.(Some do this because they don’t favor Humanist groups, for whatever reason). However, in the dictionary sense of the word, a humanist is...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism
simply someone who “rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth”. This suggests to me that if they’re not religious, widely regarded as rational, living a good life and with sound moral values, it might be reasonable for others to view them as a humanist even if they dislike or reject the term.
It seems to me that one can choose for oneself to be a Humanist, but whether one is humanist or not must be determined by the collective opinion of others.
Your attempt to cherry pick a dictionary definition and make some point from that is feeble at best.

Who really cares what “the dictionary sense of the word” says?
What should concern us is what the leaders of such groups say.

It seems to me that first and foremost a collective group gets to decide the parameters of its philosophy.
Outsiders can quibble about whatever they want, but the group itself defines what it believes.

Your attempt to base some sort of argument based on a cherry picked dictionary definition fails the basic test of rationality – since it disagrees with what recognized groups of Humanists say about themselves.

“Leaders of the religious right often say that humanism starts with the belief that there is no god; that evolution is the cornerstone of the humanist philosophy; that all humanists believe in situation ethics, euthanasia, and the right to suicide; and that the primary goal of humanism is the establishment of a one-world government.
And, indeed, most humanists are nontheistic, have a non-absolutist approach to ethics, support death with dignity, and value global thinking. But such views aren’t central to the philosophy.”
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/The_...

We also have this:
We seek insight from all cultures and from many sources--scientific, secular, and religious--recognizing that there are many truths and many ways to learn about how to live.
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/what.html

~~
So for your attempt to make any point on this, you first have to argue that the groups themselves do NOT get to decide the parameters of its philosophy or members.
Instead we should depend on a particular dictionary definition.

I will offer a rebuttal to such claims, as I find it irrational.
Formal groups of humanists recognize that some members do not reject religion as a path to knowledge and understanding, although others might.
So your argument is junk.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

EdSed wrote:
When someone describes themselves as a humanist my instant reaction might be 'how do they know?'
It seems to me that the letter's case (high or low) is significant. For instance, a person might be unconsciously superstitious and widely regarded as irrational, but he may be a member of a Humanist organisation and therefore, in that sense, a Humanist. Similarly, a non-believer (in the usual gods) might vehemently insist they aren’t a humanist.(Some do this because they don’t favor Humanist groups, for whatever reason). However, in the dictionary sense of the word, a humanist is...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism
simply someone who “rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth”. This suggests to me that if they’re not religious, widely regarded as rational, living a good life and with sound moral values, it might be reasonable for others to view them as a humanist even if they dislike or reject the term.
It seems to me that one can choose for oneself to be a Humanist, but whether one is humanist or not must be determined by the collective opinion of others.
Interesting. I cannot fault your reasoning here.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>
Your attempt to cherry pick
Your attempt to cherry pick an actual working brain did not work.

Your brain, clearly, is still not working as it could.

Perhaps you checked it (your brain) at the door one too many times, when you visited your church?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your attempt to cherry pick an actual working brain did not work.
Your brain, clearly, is still not working as it could.
Perhaps you checked it (your brain) at the door one too many times, when you visited your church?
What a rebuttal.
Let me see if I can parapharase.
"Your are wrong because I say so."
Yes, that sums it up.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>What a rebuttal.
Let me see if I can parapharase.
Nope. You cannot do that, either....
BeHereNow wrote:
"Your are wrong because I say so."
You seem quite incapable of ... reading.

Pitiful.
BeHereNow wrote:
Yes, that sums it up.
Nope. But it does sum up YOUR idiotic "reply"...

.... good!
Thinking

Staines, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I see what you're saying.

Since morality is consensus driven, and Evolving [e.g. christians burn far less witches today] then what should constitute a humanist is also Evolving.
EdSed wrote:
When someone describes themselves as a humanist my instant reaction might be 'how do they know?'
It seems to me that the letter's case (high or low) is significant. For instance, a person might be unconsciously superstitious and widely regarded as irrational, but he may be a member of a Humanist organisation and therefore, in that sense, a Humanist. Similarly, a non-believer (in the usual gods) might vehemently insist they aren’t a humanist.(Some do this because they don’t favor Humanist groups, for whatever reason). However, in the dictionary sense of the word, a humanist is...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism
simply someone who “rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth”. This suggests to me that if they’re not religious, widely regarded as rational, living a good life and with sound moral values, it might be reasonable for others to view them as a humanist even if they dislike or reject the term.
It seems to me that one can choose for oneself to be a Humanist, but whether one is humanist or not must be determined by the collective opinion of others.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 10, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
I see what you're saying.
Since morality is consensus driven, and Evolving [e.g. christians burn far less witches today] then what should constitute a humanist is also Evolving.
<quoted text>
Okay.

What I was saying was even simpler - that one cannot decide for oneself that one is a humanist any more than one can call oneself good-natured or clever. We only know from the reaction and consensus of opinion.

'What it means to be humanist is evolving'- that's one implication. The implication I had in mind is that it doesn't matter if one thinks oneself humanist or not, that is determined by others.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Okay.
What I was saying was even simpler - that one cannot decide for oneself that one is a humanist any more than one can call oneself good-natured or clever. We only know from the reaction and consensus of opinion.
'What it means to be humanist is evolving'- that's one implication. The implication I had in mind is that it doesn't matter if one thinks oneself humanist or not, that is determined by others.
Who are these 'others'?
Are them member of the humanist group?, Outsiders? both?

Are you saying for example, that Christians get to decide if you are an atheist? Or only other Atheists (who got to decide on them?)
Do Christians get to decide if you are a demon?

Okay, so I’m going to assume that I missed something.

Here is what I understand you to say, tell me where I got it wrong.

A theist calls himself a humanist, and the president of his humanist organization agrees.

You advise them, and any rationally minded persons, that person is not a humanist, because of his beliefs as a theist.
You do this based on the authority of a special book you use to reveal Truth (your dictionary).
You are correct by right of reason and rationality,(and of course your sacred book) so your position is really not disputable.

Where do I miss your train of thought?

During segregation a man did not get to decide if he was black/negro, his blood did.
Yeah, but it was the white men who made the rules, so they decided who was black.
I take it you favor this type of thing, agree to it as being 'natural'.
Thinking

Iver, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 10, 2013
 
What you think is 100% correct is also to be judged by others.

:D

Inverse Matthew 7:1
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Okay.
What I was saying was even simpler - that one cannot decide for oneself that one is a humanist any more than one can call oneself good-natured or clever. We only know from the reaction and consensus of opinion.
'What it means to be humanist is evolving'- that's one implication. The implication I had in mind is that it doesn't matter if one thinks oneself humanist or not, that is determined by others.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 10, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
I see what you're saying.
Since morality is consensus driven, and Evolving [e.g. christians burn far less witches today] then what should constitute a humanist is also Evolving.
<quoted text>
Indeed it is-- as Humans mature in their thinking?

So, too, should their system of Ethics mature.

One day?

We humans will likely include, as Beings-With-Rights, machines who demonstrate free will.

At least, I certainly hope so-- we do have a horrid record of buying and selling slaves, after all...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Okay.
What I was saying was even simpler - that one cannot decide for oneself that one is a humanist any more than one can call oneself good-natured or clever. We only know from the reaction and consensus of opinion.
'What it means to be humanist is evolving'- that's one implication. The implication I had in mind is that it doesn't matter if one thinks oneself humanist or not, that is determined by others.
I agree, using the more widespread (common) definition of the word: you either are human-centric in your thoughts/actions, or you aren't.

:)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 12 of12
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••