Hows everyone feel about it? Personally, I don't care for the concept. I feel its apologetic for being an atheist, which I feel as unnesecary. I also don't like the fact of seperation from the concept of atheism in the sense that it is atheistic but they make the point that they're deeply intrested in the welfare of people. But I'm an atheist who's a humanist, but I don't like that label to try and protect myself from criticisms of atheists. We athesits need to come outta the closet. Is there something else I don't see? It's ok to be an atheist boys and girls.
Loudi Firstly..occam defines Athiest as one who does not believe in a supernatural diety. A god. Agnostic as one who does not believe in the stories of religion. Or their desriptions of such a god. And can make no statement on god. Insufficient data. Secular humanists occam thinks, distance them selves from athiesm because a lot of them were once religious. Through there own thought, they came to a position that religion could no longer be accepted. But humanism could. Also, many are agnostic which is what 'secular' sort of means, rather than athiest. Occam is a humanist that came to it without any religious connection. His agnosticism has no connection to his humanism. Nor should it No more than his empirical rationalism. Secular humanist is technically a non-sequitar label. Word one has no relation to word two. So let us be just HUMANISTS. There is no need to attach any metaphysical prefix to the term. Occam
Why do you refer to yourself in third person occam? Trying to stay objective from yourself? Anyway, I agree with you... I don't think humanism or secularism are invalid at all, and even though I'm a very firm atheist, I'll admit I don't know for sure. God could be a giant chicken... and all of us chicken eaters are going to burn in hell for all I know. But I do think a lotta people use the phrase when they want to be thought of as more then athesits, because of stereotypes that are placed on we atheists. I just don't wanna see my atheist or agnostic friends conforming to a bad stereotype.
Loudi Well the easiest explanation is that occam got so tired of hearing the word 'i' from his own mouth and the mouths of others. That it was easy on a forum to not hear it from his own. Does occam call himself occam in the real life interaction? No. But you would be truely amazed how easy it is to to actually say something without saying 'i'. A more difficult explanation might be described as a cross between buddhism and speculative structural psychodynamics. ----------------------------- As to god. Occam does not believe that anything is omnipotent. And the only eternal thing is the totality of everything that exists. [ in duration, not extension] Thus there is no omnipotent, eternal god. But there certainly may be a being or race with what we call godlike powers. In fact we are so gullable that some people actually believed other humans were gods... Using current technology and a bit of theater, occam, backed by a main effort in social experiment. Could easily convince a small village in the back end of a 3rd world country, one that just got it's first TV, that HE was a god. Occam could make a 'godsuit' that could fly, talk with a voice of thunder. And look like a chimera. [but 1st an 'eery' fogbank that rolls in from nowhere, plus some distant rumblings and weirdshit noises] Sonically manipulate the emotions. [ VLF directional manipulators] Bring down lighting bolts to obliterate helpless examples of trees and minor rock outcroppings. [airborn rail guns] Create a midnight sun to create awe and wonder. [10MT det suborbital] Make earthquakes that bring down local huts. [1MT det subcrustal @5k meters] Make it rain frogs, spagetti or lemonade or televisions [stratosheric deliverery by B2] If occam could have pulled off this technological trickery in israel in 30ad HE would be god..not the one in the bible. And jesus would have been just another wandering teacher Forgotten despite his wise light of reason. Occam [AKA i]
I'm atheist. I'm a humanist, too. Secular humanism? I don't see it as an excuse to hide that fact that I'm atheist since 'secular' says it all, really. But if asked what I am religiously, I won't hesitate to say "Atheist!". I will add after that that I am a humanist too, so there'd be no need to add 'secular' to it. Really I think it's up to the person being asked who they are. If a total stranger asked me that question I'd just say 'Humanist' because it's a personal question. But for other people (those who were once religious, perhaps) maybe Secular Humanism is what makes them feel most comfortable. If they use it as an excuse to hide from other atheists, then so be it. I just really hope that the 'humanist' part is true, and not just some pretend thing because someone's in denial or whatever. I hope that made sense, and no offense meant to anyone reading this!
I would never sign the Humanist Manifesto. First, I try to stay away from any kind of atheist organization. Atheism has always been an individualist thing for me. It's about sitting down and thinking while other people have dogma shoved their throats at church. To make a platform out of it for other atheists to sign seems like a weak church-substitute, as well as dogmatic. Second, Secular Humanists are too left-wing and like to rally behind political causes. I hate politics, and I'm not on the left side of the political spectrum.
