Secular Humanism

[IndigoChild5559]

The assumptions or your assertions?

I accept the definitions offered by the Cambridge Dictionary, i.e.,

• secular: not having any connection with religion
• secular humanism: a set of beliefs that emphasize the importance of reason and of people rather than religion

Secular humanism can be embraced by theist and atheist alike.

I provided my source for my remarks on the assumptions of Secular Humanism. If you watch the video, he gives his own sources, which are various manifestos of Secular Humanism.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God/gods, no more, no less.

No, that isn't atheism. That isn't anything. It's just mindless gibberish pretending to be atheism by atheists that can't explain or defend their own beliefs.

This lacks the necessary elements (ontology, epistimology, and axiology) of a world view.

Yeah, it lacks honesty and common sense, too.

l though it is quite common for Atheists to be secular humanists, especially in the West, it is not always the case. For example, in the far east, a person may not believe in God/gods, but still be a dualist rather than a naturalist because they believe that abstractions exist.

Secular humanism is not a theological worldview. So it has been and is often adopted by people that hold both theist and atheist views along with it.

 

[Polymath257]

Atheism is a worldview (a concept of reality), it's just not the same worldview as secular humanism.

As explained in the OP, atheism (the lack of belief in a God) is NOT a world view: it does not assume an ontology, an epistemology, nor an axiology. Secular humanism does.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I see you skipped over my question again:

How do you think they determine whether a species is extinct?

We can never say with certainly that any species is extinct. Indeed, it is not uncommon for species presumed to be extinct to be found.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, that isn't atheism.

All I can do is refer you back to the video on the types of atheism in that I pasted in the original post.

 

[PureX]

Actually, there is. It just means you won't ever get a proof. To be a proof means it is recognizable.

... And obtainable. Proof of God is neither.

Which means the belief is equally absurd. If it is impossible to re4ach beyond the natural world to get a proof, that simply means there is no proof.

That does not mean that the proposition is absurd. The question is logical, the proposed solution (God) can be useful to us, and there is no logical reason to ignore or deny these two conditions.

No, that is incorrect. As described in the OP, a lack of belief in God characterizes atheism.

Yeah, but that's just nonsensical BS.

Going beyond and stating the belief that there is no God is 'strong atheism'. Most atheists are NOT strong atheists in this sense.

What anyone "believes" or doesn't believe is not relevant. Atheism is a philosophical position, not anyone's "belief", and certainly not a "lack of" it.

If it is evidence, the link can be presented and tested. If those are impossible, it is simply not evidence.

Everything is "evidence" of something. You decide what. None of this matters to anyone else. Nor to the issue at hand (what is atheism).

It is trivially easy to test this. Ask a number of people what their intuition says about something and then test to see whether they are correct.

Intuition is automatically "correct". This is what you're not getting.

Yes, we engage in intuition regularly. But that doesn't mean it is accurate.

Accuracy happens in hindsight. Intuition happens in the moment. They are two different scales of value with two different purposes. Your comparison delivers no insight.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can never say with certainly that any species is extinct. Indeed, it is not uncommon for species presumed to be extinct to be found.

You can't say that the T-Rex, for instance, is extinct? Really?

You think that there's a non-negligible chance that we'll find living T-Rexes somewhere in the world?

 

[ChristineM]

Atheism is a worldview (a concept of reality), it's just not the same worldview as secular humanism.

Nope, you are wrong, this has been explained to you several times over several months, including today. And still you stomp your foot.

So one more time.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So anything you wish to add to that is nothing but ignorance.

 

[Polymath257]

... And obtainable. Proof of God is neither.

Precisely. That is why it is reasonable to not believe in such a thing.

That does not mean that the proposition is absurd. The question is logical, the proposed solution (God) can be useful to us, and there is no logical reason to ignore or deny these two conditions.

Useful emotionally? Sure. Many delusions are equally useful in that way. But that isn't the point. The question is whether God exists. And there is no good reason to believe such (although there are many bad reasons).

Yeah, but that's just nonsensical BS.

Not at all. Through much of history, theists have persecuted those who don't believe.

What anyone "believes" or doesn't believe is not relevant. Atheism is a philosophical position, not anyone's "belief", and certainly not a "lack of" it.

Yes, it is absolutely the position of lack of belief. Please try to keep up with the discussion. Maybe, look at the OP?

I am not interested in spreading gibberish as though it's supposed to be meaningful.

It isn't gibberish. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. It has historically been used by those who *do* believe in deities to justify persecution.

Everything is "evidence" of something. You decide what. None of this matters to anyone else. Nor to the issue at hand (what is atheism).

it seems that you have issues with the concept of evidence.

Intuition is automatically "correct". This is what you're not getting.

No, it is simply not. Intuition is very, very often *wrong*.

Accuracy happens in hindsight. Intuition happens in the moment. They are two different scales of value with two different purposes. Your comparison delivers no insight.

And accuracy is what is relevant for asking whether something exists or whether something is true.

 

[PureX]

Nope, you are wrong, this has been explained to you several times over several months, including today. And still you stomp your foot.

So one more time.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So anything you wish to add to that is nothing but ignorance.

You can repeat this nonsical BS until your face turns blue and I am never going to treat it as anything but what it is ... nonsensical BS. Sorry.

 

[ChristineM]

You can repeat this nonsical BS until your face turns blue and I am never going to treat it as anything but what it is ... nonsensical BS. Sorry.

All dictionaries are wrong all atheists are wring and you are right..
Wow really just wow.

Not only ignorance but deliberate ignorance.

 

[PureX]

Precisely. That is why it is reasonable to not believe in such a thing.

See the way you screwed up that wording? ... What you mean is that it is not reasonable to believe in such things. But instead you tried to sneak in that silly gibberish, again ("reasonable to not believe").

I agree that it's not reasonable to "believe in" things that we cannot prove to be so. But it is reasonable to choose to trust in things that we cannot know to be so. Because in fact we cannot know anything to be so, for certain. So some trust is always going to be necessary. It's the "believe in" nonsense that becomes problematic. Because belief requires that we ignore reasonable doubt, and even the incentive of hope, and instead just blindly presume something to be so. This is dishonest, and foolhardy.

So I agree with you up until you try to start slipping in this BS about unbelief. Leave that out and we can discuss the subject honestly and reasonably. Atheism is not about belief or unbelief. Atheism is about taking an antithetical stance regarding the theist proposition: that God/gods exist in a way that effects humanity. That antithetical stance being that they do not.

Useful emotionally? Sure. Many delusions are equally useful in that way.

Ultimately, everything is a "delusion". Try to keep this in mind. What we call "reality" is just a grand collection of ideas that we hold in or heads about existence, and that are most certainly wrong in a great many respects. To the point of their being at least somewhat "delusional". So yes, our "delusions" are useful to us. In fact, we cant live without them.

But that isn't the point. The question is whether God exists. And there is no good reason to believe such (although there are many bad reasons).

There are many good reasons to TRUST IN THE IDEA that God/gods exist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We can never say with certainly that any species is extinct. Indeed, it is not uncommon for species presumed to be extinct to be found.

I certainly hope T Rex isn't living in my garage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See the way you screwed up that wording? ... What you mean is that it is not reasonable to believe in such things. But instead you tried to sneak in that silly gibberish, again ("reasonable to not believe").

It never ceases to anaze me how you think you know what other people mean better than they do.

Those two statements are not equivalent.

"It is reasonable to not have spaghetti for dinner" does not imply "it is not reasonable to have spaghetti for dinner."

 

[Twilight Hue]

All dictionaries are wrong all atheists are wring and you are right..
Wow really just wow.

Not only ignorance but deliberate ignorance.

It's why Richard Dawkins among others cautions and warns about having a theistic style mindset when he scaled types of atheists to avoid that type of thinking.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You can repeat this nonsical BS until your face turns blue and I am never going to treat it as anything but what it is ... nonsensical BS. Sorry.

It's exactly the same as that Becky Fischer train of closed thought.

The Bible says it.

I believe it.

That settles it.

 

[ChristineM]

It's why Richard Dawkins among others cautions and warns about having a theistic style mindset when he scaled types of atheists to avoid that type of thinking.

Must be among the most sensible things he's said

 

[Twilight Hue]

Must be among the most sensible things he's said

I had that problem myself when I argued about agnostics in another forum, and now I understand the issue when it comes to agnostics not concluding ones point of view without presenting the proper evidences to settle the matter first. One can have strong presuppositions, just avoid becoming another Becky Fischer in the process!

 

[Kfox]

Yes, but it has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Both will freely admit they don't know. So the question is why do they choose their respective stance on god's existence, anyway?

I find your question to be a bit “loaded”, it assumes a consistency of what constitutes God where there is not. As an atheist I recognize there are countless things theists choose to call God, some exist, some do not. For those that do exist, the reason I am atheist towards those things is because I don’t call them God. (just because you might give “X” the label of God doesn’t mean I will give it that label) So to answer your question, the reason I choose not to call (example) Nature, the Sun, Halle Selassie, Kumari, or the countless other things/people theists have chosen to call “God” God, is because I don’t think they qualify to be called God. But to suggest my reason for not calling anything that exist God, to be some sort of a world view, I find that to be absurd.

 

[Polymath257]

See the way you screwed up that wording? ... What you mean is that it is not reasonable to believe in such things. But instead you tried to sneak in that silly gibberish, again ("reasonable to not believe").i

No, I said precisely what I meant. There is a difference between being 'not reasonable to believe' and being 'reasonable to not believe'. I meant the latter.

I agree that it's not reasonable to "believe in" things that we cannot prove to be so. But it is reasonable to choose to trust in things that we cannot know to be so. Because in fact we cannot know anything to be so, for certain.

But we can know things beyond any reasonable doubt.

So some trust is always going to be necessary. It's the "believe in" nonsense that becomes problematic. Because belief requires that we ignore reasonable doubt, and even the incentive of hope, and instead just blindly presume something to be so. This is dishonest, and foolhardy.

No, belief carries no such requirement. I can believe in dark matter even if the issue isn't 100% settled. I find the evidence convincing. That is not blind presumption.

So I agree with you up until you try to start slipping in this BS about unbelief. Leave that out and we can discuss the subject honestly and reasonably. Atheism is not about belief or unbelief. Atheism is about taking an antithetical stance regarding the theist proposition: that God/gods exist in a way that effects humanity. That antithetical stance being that they do not.

No, atheism is simply not having a belief in deities. it *is* about unbelief. Why you think such is BS is beyond me.

And no, we cannot discuss this honestly until you grasp that it really is about a lack of belief.

And no, atheism is NOT the stance that Gods do not exist in a way that affects humanity. It is the position that the existence of deities has not been substantiated in any reasonable degree and so a lack of belief is warranted.

Ultimately, everything is a "delusion". Try to keep this in mind. What we call "reality" is just a grand collection of ideas that we hold in or heads about existence, and that are most certainly wrong in a great many respects. To the point of their being at least somewhat "delusional". So yes, our "delusions" are useful to us. In fact, we cant live without them.

Well, I guess that is YOUR belief system. It is not mine. You seem to change the basic definitions in ways that make them nonsense while denying you have changed them at all.

For example, 'somewhat delusional' correctly implies that there are degrees of delusion. I agree with that. I also think the goal is to minimize such delusions and the best way to do so is to be guided by reproducable evidence.

There are many good reasons to TRUST IN THE IDEA that God/gods exist.

Such as?