Can an atheist defend his belief... in Secular Humanism?

[Devil'sAdvocate]

I'd be interested in hearing an atheist attempt to defend his belief in the Secular Humanist philosophy, which primarily originated after the French Revolution with the philosopher Auguste Comte, who wanted to create a 'secular' replacement to the Catholic Church.

Background for those interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Humanity

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...azil-1.2051387

Because the way I see it - minus the mythology and supernatural references - the philosophy of Secular Humanism is really just another trendy 'belief' system which claims to be the "only way to truth", and really has not much to do with pure "science". It has its own statement of faith... er principles which can be read here.

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/12


Not to mention, many of its core affirmations are not "science" as atheists seem to love to believe, but just blind speculation and quasi sci-fi mythology with unverifiable references to "science, technology, and progress", meaning they're really just blind faith - meaning that Secular Humanism is really just like trading believing in the tooth fairy for believing that Mr. Spock really exists, and that Star Trek is a documentary.

So would any Secular Humanist Atheist care to attempt to "prove" that the affirmations of Humanism are the only "true" philosophy out of the thousands in existence (religious or secular)?

[leekohler2]

Because the way I see it - minus the mythology and supernatural references - the philosophy of Secular Humanism is really just another trendy 'belief' system which claims to be the "only way to truth", and really has not much to do with pure "science". It has its own statement of faith... er principles which can be read here.

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/12

What do you disagree with from this link? The goals stated are very humane and decent. These should be things we all aspire to, whether we are religious or not. But none of then are based on any belief, rather they are based on just plain decency.

So tell me which of these you disagree with, and why.

IMO, we live for the time we're given then we die. That's OK and in no way scary. Living forever would be awful. To me, this makes life far more precious.

One thing that never made sense to me was a person living forever and being forgiven for everything, no matter what they had done to others. To me, that is the supreme injustice.

Just ask for forgiveness and poof!- eternal life.

No, I'm sorry. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, and none of that ever made sense to me. It never will, no matter how people like you try.

Because we have a limited time in this life, we should be doing our best to make sure it is good for us and others around us, because this is most likely all we get. We have absolutely no idea what happens when we die, no idea at all. So we'd better get down to treating others as we would like to be treated.

I fail to see what fault you could find with the link I quoted. Everything listed is a very noble pursuit.

[leekohler2]

Well, I guess I have to list the things that the OP would not:

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/12

Tell me what you disagree with and why. I don't see a belief system here. What I see is a way of living based on rational thought. Not much of it is that different from the second testament of the Bible. And yes, being a child of fundamentalist Christians, I read it several times. I wish more Christians believed it.

Because quite honestly, this kind of thinking was what I was sold when I was being taught Christianity.

I left when I realized that was not the case.

[Chris]

I'm an atheist, agnostic atheist to be precise, who is not a secular humanist.

For example, lee above cites "We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems." Reason and science are great but not all there is, I mean reason and science did not create society, and the idea you can re-engineer society by reason and science is mistaken.

[midcan5]

Can a religious person defend their belief in religion given its history of persecution and intolerance to this very day?


https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/com...n_the_name_of/


"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg


"When one thinks of all the people who support or have supported Fascism, one stands amazed at their diversity. What a crew! Think of a programme which at any rate for a while could bring Hitler, Petain, Montagu Norman, Pavelitch, William Randolph Hearst, Streicher, Buchman, Ezra Pound, Juan March, Cocteau, Thyssen, Father Coughlin, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Arnold Lunn, Antonescu, Spengler, Beverley Nichols, Lady Houston, and Marinetti all into the same boat! But the clue is really very simple. They are all people with something to lose, or people who long for a hierarchical society and dread the prospect of a world of free and equal human beings. Behind all the ballyhoo that is talked about 'godless' Russia and the 'materialism' of the working class lies the simple intention of those with money or privileges to cling to them." George Orwell (http://www.george-orwell.org/Looking...ish_War/0.html)

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Can a religious person defend their belief in religion given its history of persecution and intolerance to this very day?

Well yes, I'd posit that most violence committed by "religion" was actually secular or atheistic in nature, the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church for the most part were likely motivated by money and political power (secular; atheistic) under the popular guise of "religion".

As a devout follower of Christ, Buddha, etc could not justify violence in the name of their creed, but an atheist certainly could.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg

“The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.” - Schopenhaur

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Well, I guess I have to list the things that the OP would not:



https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/12

Tell me what you disagree with and why. I don't see a belief system here. What I see is a way of living based on rational thought. Not much of it is that different from the second testament of the Bible. And yes, being a child of fundamentalist Christians, I read it several times. I wish more Christians believed it.

Because quite honestly, this kind of thinking was what I was sold when I was being taught Christianity.

I left when I realized that was not the case.

That list is not just "common sense or decency", it's full of political ideological jargon, such as:

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

^---I think we know what this means...

[leekohler2]

That list is not just "common sense or decency", it's full of political ideological jargon, such as:

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

^---I think we know what this means...

Do tell. Does it mean something other than what it says?

[Crepitus]

That list is not just "common sense or decency", it's full of political ideological jargon, such as:

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

^---I think we know what this means...

So what do you think it means?

[kilgram]

I'm an atheist, agnostic atheist to be precise, who is not a secular humanist.

For example, lee above cites "We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems." Reason and science are great but not all there is, I mean reason and science did not create society, and the idea you can re-engineer society by reason and science is mistaken.

You are a weirdo.

You say that you are agnostic or atheist, but no one would tell that as you blindly believe in many things that have its origins in the existence of a god and based in creationist principles. That is absolutely contradictory.