What is a humanist, to you? And other questions

[trevor]

I'd like to keep the Introduction thread solely for introductions, so I've copied the questions that Heather (wordwan) posed in her introduction here.

Question: What is your definition, each one of you, above, of a humanist?

And is this group to be nothing more than an opposite reaction to the fact that you AREN'T religious? Curious.

I believe in something bigger than myself. I am part of a larger essence. God? I am not too sure. I merely know we all connect in some way and I'd like to explore that aspect of the world. Been doing so for a long time. I'm not sure about altruism, but I do seem to enjoy finding the things that people need.

What do you need?

Negativity? No. I have no plan to mock the Christers. That makes me little more than they. Though to you previously employed Christers, I can appreciate your frustration. I'm willing to listen to your stories. I'm sure it was never easy.

But I will not fight the Christers. They do their thing; I shall do mine. In fact, I deal with a lot of Christers; as they seem to travel in the same circles I do. But am I one of them? No, only by my actions, not by any of their beliefs.

Unless you consider 'being kind' an exclusive belief of any one faction.

Understand them? Realize there are important ideas being parlayed from a book we call the bible; but understanding that it is sometimes the INTERPRETATIONS of said bible that are causing us grief. The rules and rituals that have come along to unnerve us in many ways?

Jesus was a man. I am rather sure of that. He had some humanist ideas, to my view. Whether his needing to be a son of a god matters, I don't know.

All I know is we spend too much coin on hate; all of us. Why is that?

Thanks.

Heather
wordwan
http://www.youtube.com/wordwan

[trevor]

I'll give you my answers one by one:

What is your definition of a humanist?
To me, a humanist is someone who recognizes how interesting humans are, and rejects any attempt to trivialize humanity with the supernatural.  Language, science, math, culture, philosophy -- hell, even imagination, these are all such interesting byproducts of how our brains evolved; it boggles my mind that people want to give credit for how special we are to some supernatural being.

Is this group to be nothing more than an opposite reaction to the fact that you AREN'T religious?
It would disingenuous to say that this group is not a reaction to what we see going on around us.  But guess what, reaction is indistinguishable from action: every action has a motive.  While this group may be at first glance a denouncer of religion, it is more fully a promoter of science, rationality, and critical thinking.

What do you need?
Honestly?  I need the same thing that Christians need, the same thing that Muslims need, the same thing Nazis need: meaningful social interactions with like-minded individuals.  That's just how humans evolved; we are social creatures, and regardless of how science seems to undermine the emotional aspect of humanity, we cannot escape it.

But I will not fight the Christers. They do their thing; I shall do mine.
I don't think any of us have a problem with people practicing their religion privately.  The problem is evangelism and breaches of the wall separating church and state.  In Canada, we theoretically have the right to live a secular life; sadly, in practice, elected public representatives are telling us to pray for rain, our courts would have us swear an oath on the bible by default, and our sick are being consoled by ministers instead of counselors.

Realize there are important ideas being parlayed from a book we call the bible.
But why has this one book been chosen to be interpreted and used as a moral compass for so many?  Grimm's Fairy Tales can be similarly interpreted to give moral guidance.  No, the bible is just a piece of fiction.  Thinking it is anything more is just a delusion shared by the majority of the population.

All I know is we spend too much coin on hate; all of us. Why is that?
I can't agree with you more.  I would love to have an answer for why, but it's not something that can be summed up in a few tidy little sentences.  I think it has something to do with relativism.  We are not good at objectively judging anything; we always have to compare it to something.  Of course we will have things that we like, and things that we dislike.  For some reason, we have far fewer things that we like than those that we dislike, so it becomes a hatred of things that is more likely to bring people together.

I hope that you do not get the impression that we are, on the whole, a hateful group.  If you do, please let me know what has given you this impression so that we can learn and change.

[Katie]

What is your definition of a humanist?
I believe that a humanist is someone who looks out for the best interest of humans, and believes that only humans can solve human problems. The main goal is increased standard of life for humans everywhere.

Is this group to be nothing more than an opposite reaction to the fact that you AREN'T religious?
If people are in an environment where nearly everyone seems to believe a certain way, and they can't seem to find a sense of community, then they might just try and form one. To me, I see it as no different then communities of other people getting together. Sure, it might be based on a reaction, but everything is based on a reaction, to a degree.

What do you need?
I need a sense of community, and I need to be able to be myself without the risk of offending anybody.

Again, I don't have a problem with religions existing. If they want to go to church/mosque/synagouge/temple, by all means, go ahead. They can even try and preach to me if they want, it's within legal bounds. It doesn't stop me from refuting their claims though, because that is also protected under the law. It's when government bodies hold prayer sessions every day, and tout lines in the Constitution like 'Supremacy of God' that we disagree with.

[brian]

What is your definition, each one of you, above, of a humanist?
To me, there are two parts to being a humanist.  First, the "rational" part.  You have to be rational in the methods you choose to gain knowledge.  For example, the scientific method is a rational method.  Basing all scientific knowledge on a couple books written long before we understood a lot of things and has the ability to experiment on them isn't.  Second, the "nice guy" part.  You basically have to believe that people aren't naturally evil or corrupted by some guy eating an apple and that it is good to do good things for people to help them improve their lives, especially the less fortunate (this we share with a lot of the organized religions).

And is this group to be nothing more than an opposite reaction to the fact that you AREN'T religious?
Well, a reaction to current events in a time where the religious right is basically taking over in North America might be part of why we are being successful at getting organized now and why the nonbeliever movement is getting stronger and more people are coming out.  But people of all sorts of religious views get to hang out with like minded people in their community on a regular basis, so why not atheists/skeptics/humanists at the U of M?  We have plenty of other religious and cultural groups here, why not one for us?

What do you need?
Something to do, people to hang out with, etc.  I think most of us also enjoy talking about philisophical issues in a casual setting with nice, reasonable, mostly like minded people.  And I hope most of us will enjoy the movies on Thursday 

Negativity?
No more negativity than we are shown ourselves.  But I think some issues come up that we can't resist laughing at, like the antics of a certain governor.  And some issues that we are simply disgusted with, like certain people trying to use religion to push sexism, homophobia, prayer in schools, "intelligent" design, etc.

But I will not fight the Christers. They do their thing; I shall do mine. In fact, I deal with a lot of Christers; as they seem to travel in the same circles I do. But am I one of them? No, only by my actions, not by any of their beliefs.
We don't want to fight them either, but we do reject some of their (well, not all of them.  One of my best friends in high school who had similar beliefs as me is now studying to be a minister) values, and we really don't like it when they are being pushed on people.

Unless you consider 'being kind' an exclusive belief of any one faction.
No, but the ones that piss me off aren't the kind ones.

Understand them? Realize there are important ideas being parlayed from a book we call the bible; but understanding that it is sometimes the INTERPRETATIONS of said bible that are causing us grief. The rules and rituals that have come along to unnerve us in many ways?
I've never read the bible, and to be honest it's pretty far down on my reading list.  I'm sure there are some good ideas, some good rules to live your life by in there, and some good stories that have a moral, but there are in a lot of books.  And a lot of the good ideas are probably shared with humanism.

Jesus was a man. I am rather sure of that. He had some humanist ideas, to my view. Whether his needing to be a son of a god matters, I don't know.
Yes, it is possible that Jesus existed, but there are also a lot of other guys with some good ideas.  Socrates, Buddha, Mohammed, Marx, Bakunin, etc.

All I know is we spend too much coin on hate; all of us. Why is that?
I don't know

[redpen]

And is this group to be nothing more than an opposite reaction to the fact that you AREN'T religious? Curious.

Though it might seem on the surface that such a group atheists would be bunch of unfun nay sayers.  I do see atheism as stemming from a negative origin, that is that there is no evidence to prove the existance of god.  But from that starting point, a whole series of ideas, values, cosmologies etc., follow and it tends to look relatively similar from one non-believer to another.  For me, these idea and values are expressed in Secular Humanism.  Secular Humanism, to me, is very much a positive (that is its active) life stance (I'm having trouble defining what Secular Humanism actually is...).  That is, human centred, based on compassion and justice and everything else Brian, Katie and Trevor have already mentioned.  For some, the term atheist may serve the same function.


Negativity? No. I have no plan to mock the Christers. That makes me little more than they.

For the most part, I would agree.  Most of the people closest to me are Christians.  A small handfull are even what I'd call fanatic.  If their good character is motivated by god, it makes little difference to me.  Though I have my doubts that an evangelical friend of mine treats me with love an respect because he has a fear of eternal damnation if he didn't. 

But not all Christians, as Brian pointed out, have a positive influence on the world when some ideas are put into practice.  To take one example, the religious right pushing abstinence as a means to combat AIDS is no less than murderous on a massive scale.  Mockery of such claims based on teachings from an old book should only be the beginning.  THese ideas are deadly and causing suffering beyond our wildest imagination.  SUch examples could be extended to any number fundamentalisms.  Faith and the interpretation of a book is not necessarily benign.

Jesus was a man. I am rather sure of that. He had some humanist ideas, to my view. Whether his needing to be a son of a god matters, I don't know.

Yes, it is possible that Jesus existed, but there are also a lot of other guys with some good ideas.  Socrates, Buddha, Mohammed, Marx, Bakunin, etc.

Spot on - especially on the Marx part.  As atheists, Secular humanits, etc., I suppose we find the teachings of the bible irrelevant to our conception of the universe and to our motivations for conducting ourselves in daily life.  And to many, that is a radical and heretical position worthy of contempt (as an aside, I was listening to Alex Jones [he's a fanatic that believes that 'the globalists' want to cull 80% of the worlds population] today.  He had a guy on that was saying Karl Marx was a Satanist [because he wrote atheistic poetry when he was a teenager] who 'undressed in the evening and danced around naked flailing swords in cult ritualistic form'.  To me these type of political claims [fabrications] and even the much (much) less fringe are not properly covered under the current banner of skeptic.  That is, I wonder how skepticism functions in the social sciences and in the humanities [like history for example]) or at least it seems strange.  Perhaps in part because god or the supernatural is generally an underlying assumption, but the degree may vary, non-belief then becomes a sufficient starting point for a group to form.  MOre relevant and current writers then can fill that 'god(esque) shaped hole'.

Shaun Dyck

[X]

What is your definitionof a humanist?

Simply:  Someone who values humanity.
A little more explanative:  Somebody who realizes that everybody is human, and all humans are the same creature.  Laws are based on society, and can aafect some morals.  But most mores are more universal, and all that is needed to be a good person is to respect your fellow persons.  Do not knowingly act to wrong them, and be aware of the consequences of your actions.
Alternately, perhaps you might wish to refer to this website.* 


And is this group to be nothing more than an opposite reaction to the fact that you AREN'T religious? Curious.

I must admit that your phrasing of this question throws me a little bit.
Do you mean "do we intend to oppose religious groups", or merely that "we are nothing more than a we're not like you group"?
I view this group as an opportunity for those who are athiest (like myself), agnostic, diest (like yourself, wordwan) to know that they are not alone.  You will likely have noticed that I missed one.  Theists.  Would we exclude a theist?  I rather doubt it.  but they have several of their own student groups already.  Until now, there really hasn't been anything to let the rest of us feel accepted.


I believe in something bigger than myself. I am part of a larger essence. God? I am not too sure. I merely know we all connect in some way and I'd like to explore that aspect of the world. Been doing so for a long time. I'm not sure about altruism, but I do seem to enjoy finding the things that people need.

This, to me, is what marks you as a deist, or perhaps an agnostic theist.  Nothing wrong with that.  I was there myself for a number of years.  Letting go of the last vestiges of faith can be hard. **
I don't belive that anymore.  The "connection" you refer to is what we refer to as "humanism"


What do you need?

Community.


Negativity? No. I have no plan to mock the Christers. That makes me little more than they. Though to you previously employed Christers, I can appreciate your frustration. I'm willing to listen to your stories. I'm sure it was never easy.
But I will not fight the Christers. They do their thing; I shall do mine. In fact, I deal with a lot of Christers; as they seem to travel in the same circles I do. But am I one of them? No, only by my actions, not by any of their beliefs.

I, too, am willing to live and let live. 
In truth, I agree with most of the anti-theist viewpoints but generally I'm too easy-going a person to be anti-theist. 
Some people are strongly anti-theist.  Richard Dawkins comes to mind, for an example.
In fact, I do not believe we have any staunch anti-thists here.  Yet.
I am willing, however, to call out irrationality and sutpidity.  And to laugh at it, because sometimes that's the only response available.


Unless you consider 'being kind' an exclusive belief of any one faction.

"Being kind" does not require anything more than respect towards fellows.  It does not require religion.


Understand them? Realize there are important ideas being parlayed from a book we call the bible; but understanding that it is sometimes the INTERPRETATIONS of said bible that are causing us grief. The rules and rituals that have come along to unnerve us in many ways?

Sure, the Bible touches on some general moral truths.  It also contains lots of really ugly stuff.  As a moral guide, it accomplishes nothing that can't be determined without it.  In that respect, it is a failure.  Interpretation is often little more than finding passages that support your views.  And it supports some extremely vicious viewpoints.
From your name, I presume you to be female.  Is this correct?  Do you support womens rights?  I would assume so.  Read this "book of good ideas", and pay attention to what it says the role of women is.
This is just one example of the "ideas" this book you support contains.
I have read/am critically re-reading the Bible.  Actually, I am reading the Bible and referencing The Skeptics Annotated Bible. ***
However, the Bible should not be set aside.  It represents a very important influence on our culture.  Much of our literature and a good many common phrases have their roots in the Bible.  As a cultural and literary influence, it is an important book.  As a moral guide?  No.
And no, Jesus did not set everything right in the New Testament, as some might claim.


Jesus was a man. I am rather sure of that. He had some humanist ideas, to my view. Whether his needing to be a son of a god matters, I don't know.

I'm inclined to believe that Yeshua bar-Yusuf existed, too.  But the more I look into the history of him, and historical evidence of his existence, the more I realize it just isn't there.  Aside from acocunts in the New testament, which consist of much plagiarism and myth-making, there really isn't much evidence of the man at all.  Inlcined as I am to believe his existence, I find myself inexorably leaning towards viewing Jesus as nothing more than another made-up character in a book full of made-up characters.


All I know is we spend too much coin on hate; all of us. Why is that?

If you figure it out, be sure to let me know. 



* click on "this"

** (I do not intend to put you down with that statement, nor do I intend to imply you will become atheist.  Your choice is your own to choose.  I was merely relating it to my own journey, to use an oddly apt word.)

*** click on "The Skeptics Annotated Bible".  Actually, I think all who proefess to be atheist would be wise to read the Bible.  All of it.  If for no other reason than to arm yourself against those who would quote it at you.

[wordwan]

This one was a beaut. Trevor said:

>it boggles my mind that people want to give credit for how special we are to some supernatural being.

DAMN STRAIGHT. Good thought.

Thank you.

Heather, wondering why god rhymes with dog

[wordwan]

Trevor, duo, said:

>I hope that you do not get the impression that we are, on the whole, a hateful group.  If you do, please let me know what has given you this impression so that we can learn and change.

Well meeting you guys in person gives me GREAT relief. I have truly enjoyed my recent exchanges with you. Hell, you guys even make jokes. THIS is a new thing for me. Been encountering a few too many all or nothing situations, of late, of groups; you're either intellectual and nitpicking a piece of thought pie to pieces, or you're a redneck and a book is something you use to prop open a frig door to free up your hands while you graze.

Thanks for much relief, so far.

Heather

[wordwan]

X, as for women's lib, nah, I was a person first, and I seem to remain so.

The feminists, as a group anyway, unsettled me. I understand their need to create new ritual in some ways and I can defer to that.

But Clive Barker, least at some point in his on-going development, voiced much the same about his tail feathers: Yeah, I'm gay. And your point is?

No, I realize I am in a woman's body. But I look at your name and DON'T see a sex chromosome; I see a moniker from the alphabet. Yano?

Thank you all very much for your replies.

Heather

[Gerry]

I don't think the definition of humanism is a personal opinion. I think it is already pretty well-defined.
Here's the wikipedia definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
If you want to use a different definition, perhaps use a different word?

As a critical thinker, I'd have to question how you "know" that there is something bigger than yourself that you are a part of. I've seen no evidence of it, and personal experience is not evidence to anyone but the person who experienced it.

What do I need?
I think I need a bit more focused question in order to give a proper answer.

I think the philosophy of "live and let live" is all nice and everything, until you start to try to promote a more positive way of thinking.
Accepting a religious mindset encourages people to think uncritically and the more moderate religious folks lend credence to the more extreme religious folks by association.
This doesn't mean that I'm always on the offensive. In fact, most people I know probably don't know I'm an atheist. But if questioned, I will make it clear that I think a religious mindset is a bad thing.
I usually oppose religious mindset by encouraging skeptical thinking rather than attacking the viewpoint, as that usually shuts people off pretty quickly.

I'd propose that there are far better books than the bible to pick and choose inspiration from.
If you accept the bible, then you shouldn't be cherry picking the parts you like.
There's lots of terrible stuff in that book, and the words of Jesus are not exempt.

There is no evidence, outside of the bible, that Jesus ever existed. I'm not saying he didn't exist, but whether he did or not, I don't really care. There are better philosophers than he to read about and none of them are tied to a dogma.

As for hate, I think a lot of people confuse extreme frustration over unfounded belief systems with hatred.
And I have to admit to being quite frustrated, but without any hatred.
I wouldn't quite say the same about other side, however.

[january]

As a critical thinker, I'd have to question how you "know" that there is something bigger than yourself that you are a part of. I've seen no evidence of it, and personal experience is not evidence to anyone but the person who experienced it.

Wait, really? You only believe in what you've personally experienced?

If my friend says to me "Hey Jan, there's a huge pile-up on the Queensway. I was stuck in traffic for three hours. You better take the back roads"-- Then I would tend to believe her. And take the back roads.

It reminds me of what Kant said about honesty. We should never lie because then language would be meaningless. How can you communicate anything if there is always the caveat that your words might be untrue? I guess it's always a gamble, but to take everything as false would be impossible. We need to believe at least some of what we're told. We can't really go about finding out everything first hand.

But maybe we're equivocating 'experience'. If my friend said "Woah, Jan...I just had this feeling that there's been a terrible car accident...you better not take the Queensway"-- Then I'd be less likely to take her advice.

[Gerry]

Wait, really? You only believe in what you've personally experienced?

What you've said here is a logical fallacy called the Strawman Argument.
Check it out:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Strawman

I said, I've seen no evidence for "something bigger than myself" Someone else's experience isn't going to convince me because it's entirely subjective. People are easily fooled.
http://www.randi.org/

Isn't that why we're here? Do we really accept that there's a god because some guy with a funny hat says so? No, I won't take his word for it despite any testimony that they've spoken to a magic man in the sky.

To quote Carl Sagan:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Belief sits on a sliding scale. It's not either "I Believe" or "I Do Not Believe"
It is perfectly reasonable to take a friend's word for it that there's a traffic jam. Especially if they've never lied to you before.
However, if a pathological liar said the same thing, It's unlikely I'd take their word for it.

But maybe we're equivocating 'experience'. If my friend said "Woah, Jan...I just had this feeling that there's been a terrible car accident...you better not take the Queensway"-

Exactly. If it's sounds reasonable, then there's a good chance I'll believe it. The less reasonable it sounds, the more evidence I'll require.
And for something which is not falsifiable, and purely subjective, why should I believe it?

[january]

I agree with you for the most part...I think we just misunderstood each other. I'm familiar with strawman-ing arguments. I didn't intentionally distort what you were saying, I just didn't quite understand.

I still can't deny that I occasionally allow for a 'leap of faith'. Only insofar as I do believe there is a lot going on in the universe/ existence that we'll never grasp. So in that way, I think there's something 'bigger' than us out there. But of course I wouldn't argue for that. Even smart people can be mystified (I think Einstein said something along those lines, when asked if he 'believed in god'...they chose to reinterpret his answer as a resounding yes, but he was saying something more subtle than 'i believe in a Christian God'.) That shouldn't over rule common sense, though. That'd be why I'm an atheist.

[wordwan]

Do you understand being 'in the zone' when you play a sport? Having the ability to place the ball exactly where you want it to go, whenEVER you want it to go?

I think someone, sometime, may be either DRIVING that 'in the zone' ness, or I've simply tapped into it, like being in a race car and finding the slipstream to drive behind.

All I know is, I am continuing to remove the labels from the processes I am involved in. One reason why I am dealing with some Christers, it would appear--I am focusing on their PROCESSES and not the color of their minds nor skin.

And I am, more and more, being amazed, how the world seems to be creating a slipstream for me to engage, leading me exactly where I need to go. And yet there ARE no coincidences, as far as I am concerned. Am I tapping into every form of communication/television, media, times of a bus, money dropped on the street, that is out there? Can this possibly be?

Am I the god here? Or is it something else? I dunno. But what I DO know is there IS a channel we can all get on, to live more creatively.

And I seem to be tapping into it.

Godness? Hardly. But something that is DEFINITELY, not STRICTLY, ONLY me...

controlling the experience. Does any of that make sense?

Cos if I'M the controlling the experience, that makes ALL of you figments of my imagination. Do you partly see where this 'there cannot be anyone beyond me' concept bothers me a mite?

Heather

[Gerry]

Do you understand being 'in the zone' when you play a sport? Having the ability to place the ball exactly where you want it to go, whenEVER you want it to go?

I think someone, sometime, may be either DRIVING that 'in the zone' ness, or I've simply tapped into it, like being in a race car and finding the slipstream to drive behind.

That's a well-known phenomenon called "Muscle Memory" (and if you like also including single-minded concentration). It's the same reason I can touch-type without having to think about the individual key presses.
Ever wonder why it's always people who are experienced in a sport who get into "the zone".
Novices don't get into the zone, because they haven't built up the muscle memory.

(NOTE: In spite of the name, the memory is actually in your brain, not your muscles)

There's nothing supernatural involved.

A bunch of new-age gobbledygook snipped

Sorry. Not convinced.

Coincidences do occur. People are often amazed when they are thinking of someone, and the same moment, that person calls you on the phone. It's things like this that people use as evidence for some psychic connection... or whatever.
Before you come to that conclusion, you have to remember all the times you were thinking of that person and they DIDN'T call...  When you consider that, you can see that it IS a coincidence.
The human mind tends to make people remember the "hits" and forget the "misses," which makes the "hits" seem like something supernatural was involved.

People also seem to believe that psychics exist, but whenever they are put to proper objective testing, they fail miserably.

Sorry. I've seen no evidence of the supernatural. What I have seen are people who have been fooled (by themselves, or by other people).

James Randi has a million-dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event:
http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/

The rules and what would constitute a positive result are agreed to by both parties before the test begins.
There have been thousands of applicants, not one prize has ever been awarded.
I'd invite you to apply.