Poll: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
Yes, I'm a secular humanist
I agree with what it stands for, but I don't think of myself as a secular humanist
No, I disagree with what secular humanism stands for
I don't know
Other
[Show Results]
 
Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2016, 05:35 PM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
I agree with the basic ideas.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2016, 06:49 PM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
(25-02-2016 05:30 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(25-02-2016 04:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm curious as to whose definition/description you are objecting. Consider

I am certainly a secular humanist by any reasonable definition of those words. I don't subscribe to any "official" version, if such exists.

It's just the sense I get from them. As I said, I've not really looked into it. I could be wrong but that is the impression I get, that most secular humanists are leftists. Is this impression wrong?

I don't know.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2016, 08:13 PM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
(25-02-2016 06:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-02-2016 05:30 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It's just the sense I get from them. As I said, I've not really looked into it. I could be wrong but that is the impression I get, that most secular humanists are leftists. Is this impression wrong?

I don't know.

Admittedly, a lot of my impression is from watching the Atheist Experience so maybe not a big enough sample.

My impression is: collectivist, morality of selflessness, global warming alarmism, environmentalism, egalitarianism.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2016, 08:31 PM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
(25-02-2016 08:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(25-02-2016 06:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't know.

Admittedly, a lot of my impression is from watching the Atheist Experience so maybe not a big enough sample.

My impression is: collectivist, morality of selflessness, global warming alarmism, environmentalism, egalitarianism.

I still don't get what you mean by this, I was going to post it before but because I already was doing that years ago in this loki guys threads here and in other threads I didn't.

It depends on what you think "secular humanist" means... it can mean a multitude of things.

You seem to be reflecting what you think secular humanist GROUPS or Organizations stand for and do. Many of those are of those nature yes. And the atheist experience type groups of their ACA is similar to that. Then there was the atheism+ movement which still exists but there was more hatred of it by stupidness rather than just ignoring it like it made sense to because it was obviously just a thing that didn't mean anything. That whole idea was to try to promote atheist/secular humanist groups because actual Secular Humanist organisations are still frequently full and ran by non-atheists with many New Age, liberal Christianity, or "spiritual" ideas.

But the term secular humanist has been on a shakey range of meaning from what it was in the 30s, 60s, 90s, or now. It can be taken multiple ways and not just that way to signify some social moral idea.

It in other forms literally just means you think humanity is in charge of their own morality/lack of morality and that's not something for authority/governments/theology to state.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2016, 12:12 AM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
To me secular humanist simply means I believe we as humans are capable of sorting our shit out without help from any dumb-ass deity or other woo crap of your choice. It's a faith position since the obvious evidence to date indicates that we're a bunch of incompetent morons - maybe not individually but certainly as a group Dodgy If you dispute this statement I call exhibit A: Donald Trump. Basically I think we haven't reached our potential as a species, and I do hold out hope that sooner or later some bunch of intelligent people will figure out how to make the world a better place over all - sustainable agriculture, limit pollution and population, fair society with free speech, good governance - all that good stuff.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
26-02-2016, 02:04 AM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
I answered the poll with "yes", because i was sent by my parents to a so called "humanist" high school, which focused on "classic" education, like learning latin and greek and the according philosophies (Stoa, Epicureanism) as well as history, rather than natural sciences (which i nevertheless learned).

So i took major latin classes, and we read Cicero, Caesar, Sallust, Seneca, Homers Iliad, etc.
I considered greek being too hardcore though and skipped it Gasp

It didnt keep me from becoming an electronics engineer and baffling my colleagues with latin phrases to this day Smartass

So probably i can be considered being somewhat of an "old school" humanist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
(25-02-2016 08:31 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(25-02-2016 08:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Admittedly, a lot of my impression is from watching the Atheist Experience so maybe not a big enough sample.

My impression is: collectivist, morality of selflessness, global warming alarmism, environmentalism, egalitarianism.

I still don't get what you mean by this, I was going to post it before but because I already was doing that years ago in this loki guys threads here and in other threads I didn't.

It depends on what you think "secular humanist" means... it can mean a multitude of things.

You seem to be reflecting what you think secular humanist GROUPS or Organizations stand for and do. Many of those are of those nature yes. And the atheist experience type groups of their ACA is similar to that. Then there was the atheism+ movement which still exists but there was more hatred of it by stupidness rather than just ignoring it like it made sense to because it was obviously just a thing that didn't mean anything. That whole idea was to try to promote atheist/secular humanist groups because actual Secular Humanist organisations are still frequently full and ran by non-atheists with many New Age, liberal Christianity, or "spiritual" ideas.

But the term secular humanist has been on a shakey range of meaning from what it was in the 30s, 60s, 90s, or now. It can be taken multiple ways and not just that way to signify some social moral idea.

It in other forms literally just means you think humanity is in charge of their own morality/lack of morality and that's not something for authority/governments/theology to state.

I went and read a number of papers on Secular Humanism and every one of them endorsed socialism and a deontological ethics. It is an attempt to justify the morality of altruism on secular grounds. I consider both to be unspeakably evil. One paper said that Secular Humanism promotes individualism and combines it with a socialized ethics. This is a blatant contradiction. Individualism and collectivism are incompatible. One is based on the principle that man has a right to live for his own sake and the other is based on the premise that man has a duty do live for the sake of others. It is this very mixed ethics which is destroying America and the West right now. It's destroying the world. I want no part of it.

Objectivism holds that man has the right to live for his own sake. This however is not at all incompatible with compassion or caring for others. There is no inconsistency in the Objectivist ethics unlike the Secular Human ethics. I saw other areas of incompatibility such as its endorsement of Democracy but I don't have the time to go into them. But the one glaring contradiction I've already pointed out is enough reason to reject Secular Humanism.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
26-02-2016, 11:54 AM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
I think I'm a Secular Individualist.

I try to help my fellow man (no god need apply) but I do it because I choose to, not because I'm forced to (except for taxes but I pay those cause jail ain't on my to do list).

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2016, 12:00 PM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
(26-02-2016 11:40 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I went and read a number of papers on Secular Humanism and every one of them endorsed socialism and a deontological ethics. It is an attempt to justify the morality of altruism on secular grounds. I consider both to be unspeakably evil. One paper said that Secular Humanism promotes individualism and combines it with a socialized ethics. This is a blatant contradiction. Individualism and collectivism are incompatible.

Only if you think in absolute terms. A workable society balances individual rights with societal needs.

Quote:One is based on the principle that man has a right to live for his own sake and the other is based on the premise that man has a duty do live for the sake of others.

Again, only in the simplest of terms. An individual's rights are limited by others' rights. And social ethics are simply based on empathy.

Quote:It is this very mixed ethics which is destroying America and the West right now. It's destroying the world. I want no part of it.

That seems quite a stretch. Consider

Quote:Objectivism holds that man has the right to live for his own sake. This however is not at all incompatible with compassion or caring for others.

Then Objectivism sucks.

Quote:There is no inconsistency in the Objectivist ethics unlike the Secular Human ethics. I saw other areas of incompatibility such as its endorsemente of Democracy but I don't have the time to go into them. But the one glaring contradiction I've already pointed out is enough reason to reject Secular Humanism.

No, it is an excellent reason to reject Objectivism. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
26-02-2016, 02:34 PM
RE: Do you consider yourself a secular humanist?
(26-02-2016 12:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-02-2016 11:40 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I went and read a number of papers on Secular Humanism and every one of them endorsed socialism and a deontological ethics. It is an attempt to justify the morality of altruism on secular grounds. I consider both to be unspeakably evil. One paper said that Secular Humanism promotes individualism and combines it with a socialized ethics. This is a blatant contradiction. Individualism and collectivism are incompatible.

Only if you think in absolute terms. A workable society balances individual rights with societal needs.

I'm going to respond to all of your points separately because I only have small snatches of time to post.

When it comes to principles, yes I do think in terms of absolutes. That's what a principle is, an absolute which doesn't allow any concessions to its antithesis. I'm not interested in having a workable society. I want a proper society, one that holds individual rights as an absolute. **by rights I mean principles which identify and define the proper actions of man in a social setting**. In any compromise on principle, what you end up with is a slow slide to eventually a total capitulation to its opposite. That is what we see throughout history, and it is always the good which gives ground, never the bad. In my own country, United States, for all of my life we have been moving steadily away from individualism towards collectivism. The pace has only gotten faster, especially in the last 20 years. We never move towards individualism and away from collectivism. Always toward further erosion of rights of the individual in favor of rights of some nebulous group. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. The "state" or the "people" or some other group is an abstraction. Placing the standard of the good with the collective relegates the individual to the status of a sacrificial animal. There's no way around this. A mixture of freedom and controls, individualism and socialism, can not last. It will always move in the direction of more and more controls and more and more socialism.

I don't think there can be such a thing as a conflict of interests among people who hold individual rights as an absolute and do not desire the unearned. But under any amount of socialism, such conflict is guaranteed. It divides people into two camps: the sacrificers and the acrificees, the eaters and the eaten, the producers and the takers. That's exactly what religious ethics do, divide people into the chosen and the damned, the faithful and the infidel. That's exactly what Nazism did, divide people into the Aryan and the non-Aryan. That's what communism did, divide the people into the proletariat and bourgeois. All these species of collectivism have the same basic principle in common: that man has no right to live for his own sake, that he exists to live for the sake of others, whether it be a god, some abstract notion such as "the people" or "the motherland" or the "proletariat" or the environment.

It never leads to a peaceful, workable society, only one on its way to disaster and destruction. Compromise on basic principles always does. History shows this. We've never yet had a society totally dedicated to individual rights without compromise. We've never seen a society based solely on the ethics of rational self interest. We've never seen a society which practiced full, laissez faire capitalism, but we've come close in United States and a few other places and we see the results. We've never seen a society which was fully collectivist but we've come close, in North Korea and we see the results.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: