[Serious] How many reasonable solutions are there to any particular social issue?

[Belacqua]

On what basis are you claiming that cavemen had no religion?

It would be very interesting to know what kind of practices people had in the time that the Venus of Willendorf was made. Maybe you can tell us?

I'm very skeptical that people in those days divided their society along the same lines that we do. The idea that there was a set of practices they called "religion" seems unlikely. The probability that they had something they called "religion" in opposition to "science" or "government" seems small to me. 

Recent anthropological work indicates that people specifying something called "religion" as a separate part of their culture is surprisingly recent. And it is possibly a modern European concept that has been projected onto different cultures in the past and in other parts of the world. What we think of as religion would just be called "how things are" or "what we do." 

This is from Wikipedia:

A number of scholars have pointed out that the terminology used in the study of religion in the west derives from Judeo-Christian tradition, and that the basic assumptions of religion as an analytical category are all Western in origin. This idea was first raised by Wilfred Cantwell Smith in his 1962 book, The Meaning and End of Religion.[39] Among the main proponents of this theory of religion are Daniel Dubuisson, Timothy Fitzgerald, Talal Asad, and Jason Ānanda Josephson. These social constructionistsargue that religion is a modern concept that developed from Christianity and was then applied inappropriately to non-Western cultures.

While few would dispute that the concept of religion does have a historical genealogy, there is some disagreement about what the Western origin of the term has meant historically. Some such as Tomoko Masuzawa have felt that the equation of religion with Christianity had the effect of diminishing other traditions, especially in the study of comparative religions as it developed during the high point of Western imperialism.[40] Others[who?] have felt that this sort of criticism overestimates the influence that Western academic thought had on the rest of the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition..._construct

I know that some of the ways Buddhists and Shintoists in Japan characterize their religions came about as the influence of Christians, and that before such influence people drew the lines differently.

[Mr Greene]

On what basis are you claiming that cavemen had no religion?

It would be very interesting to know what kind of practices people had in the time that the Venus of Willendorf was made. Maybe you can tell us?

I'm very skeptical that people in those days divided their society along the same lines that we do. The idea that there was a set of practices they called "religion" seems unlikely. The probability that they had something they called "religion" in opposition to "science" or "government" seems small to me. 

Recent anthropological work indicates that people specifying something called "religion" as a separate part of their culture is surprisingly recent. And it is possibly a modern European concept that has been projected onto different cultures in the past and in other parts of the world. What we think of as religion would just be called "how things are" or "what we do." 

Almost certainly Shamanic, similar to virtually every tribal culture across the planet.
Not really done any research into the origins of religion have you?

[The Grand Nudger]

It means the same thing that religious humanism does.  Secular humanism is secular with respect to -other- religions (but certainly not all of them - plenty of fuckin "buddhists", eh?).

Consider this.  As a secular humanist, can you imagine any reason why you wouldn't want humanist principles, values, and conclusions informing your government and society?

Yes I have a problem, if the root was religious.

Quick example: a sect of Christianity with a central belief that homosexuality is to be cured instead of accepted would maintain that the greatest humanitarian decision regarding homosexuals would be to "treat" them of their horrible affliction and their belief would be informed from their bible.

I just wholly reject your "-other- religions" idea

I'd say you've offered a demonstration of it. Religious Humanism is not a reference to christians with humanist leanings.  It is a religion...it's own religion.  

The root of humanist principle, value, and conclusions is in human being - not magic books.  It's worth giving it the time.  The secularism of secular humanism is in explicit reference to things like that, and when looking for some problem you would have, you offered a problem with christianity - not humanism.  It is a problem, ofc, when any religion turns vice into virtue.  

The point - and I think I made it well if you couldn't imagine an objection that you would have - is that you are in no way secular with respect to humanism.  

Secular Humanism is simply NOT a religion and you are muddying the waters unnecessarily.

I would also assert that you need not link religious and humanism because religion has a main thrust of being the best thing for humans without an added word whereas secularism needs the humanism part to differentiate from the negating idea of secular(which simply indicates not religious, or without a god).

Being a religious humanist has nothing to do with magic books or gods - or with afterlives -.  Humanism (of any kind) asserts that humanism is the best thing for humans.   That's the religious belief that religious humanists hold.  They feel - and I agree - that it makes religious claims and is compelling to them in the same way that equal claims from other religions are.  

While the religious humanist and you, the secular humanist, are both secular in that specific way (ala policy and norms should be set by reference to human being - rather than divine authority or holy writ) - neither of you are likely to be secular..in that way..towards each others beliefs.  Because you share them, and believe they are the best for humanity.   You can't imagine any reason that your government and society shouldn't be informed by humanist principles, values, and conclusions.  In fact you think it has potential to be a voting bloc.  There are other religions that you would be unlikely to come up with an objection to as well - specifically with their influence in government and norm setting.  Religions of nature, for example.   They are also likely candidates for that bloc.

---

It would be very interesting to know what kind of practices people had in the time that the Venus of Willendorf was made. Maybe you can tell us?

We know quite a bit about practices that people had.  The figurine is, itself, a demonstration of just such a broadly distributed practice.  

I'm very skeptical that people in those days divided their society along the same lines that we do. The idea that there was a set of practices they called "religion" seems unlikely. The probability that they had something they called "religion" in opposition to "science" or "government" seems small to me. 

I'd refer you back to durkheims anthropological definition of religion, and then ask you what you think you're being skeptical about. A set of beliefs about things set apart and forbidden, which unites all who adhere to them into a moral whole.

[Mister Agenda]

Religion-

a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, — beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them

Durkheim [1915] 1964: 37 cited in Morris 1987.

Humanism(of any kind) is an explicit claim on these goods.  Insomuch as a god or religion's interests and man's interests are in conflict, secular humanism eschews the divine, ofc.  

Secular humanism was originally described thus to distinguish it from religious humanism, like in Ethical Culture. Adding to, not arguing with.

[The Grand Nudger]

To separate it from religious humanism in the sense of humanist-leaning conclusions derived from the usual religious suspects, yes. Christianity, largely.

It cannot be stressed enough that there is no distinction between secular and religious humanism in their own rights. They assert precisely equivalent content.

[Mister Agenda]

Religious humanism involves services and other church-like/communitarian content. It's organized.

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't have to be - no more so than any other religion. I'll refer again to the anthropological definition of religion in thread. A believer can be alone and not in a position to arrange whatever services or organization would be required. In the 70's a prisoner made exactly this claim - insisting that his religious convictions deserved reasonable accommodation as per law. The american humanist association took up his case.

-but..hopefully, it can be even more organized, it would have to be - to be a credible voting bloc.

But as for organization and any distinction, there is no organization required of religious humanism that is not also required of secular humanism. To be a secular humanist you must subscribe to a minimum set of principles or ideas. They are the same set required for religious humanism. This is all the organization required...and it is required... to be a humanist of any kind. Let's consider additional organization though. What would a humanist "church service" look like? Volunteering. Donating. Any gathering where humanists reassert their principles amongst each other. This board could hold or even -be- an impromptu humanist church service. I'm reminded of magic book...lol. Any place where two or more gather.

The secular refers to other religions, not religious humanism - humanism as a religion (or any number of other religions not involved in the development of the terms because they did not yet exist). This is just a fun consequence of how successful humanism has become. A humanist simply cannot object to religious humanism on it's own ground, or theirs, because the ground is shared. They believe -exactly- the same things. The religious qualifier is one of experienced content - not ideological or propositional content. They feel the numinous in humanism. Others may not - and that's fine(but I do doubt it).

That's it, that's all there is to religious humanism - as opposed to the religious who .....sometimes, sorta.... flirt with humanism.

[Rhizomorph13]

Gae,

I was simply using Christian as an example of why I would be potentially opposed to religious humanism. Simply put I don't see any reason for religious humanism because religion already has the value of humans baked into the framework (The value of human being variable across different sects of religion but nevertheless baked into the framework), whereas secular by itself is merely a negation of religion much like atheist is merely a negation of a god belief. This necessitates the pairing of the words to actually express a direction instead of just a negation.

I've long felt that Atheism is headless and bodyless and it IS because it really is just the answer to, "Do you believe in some form of god?" answer no therefore you are an atheist.

Ok, great what did you gain? freedom I guess certainly it breaks the delusional framework of the religion that held you thrall for so long.

What was lost? In my case, I was a Nazarene from McMinnville, Or., I lost all the connections to people within the church. No more pot lucks, bible studies, ski trips, services (after which we would often go out to eat). Boiled down I would say I lost community.

Community. This is what is missing from Atheism+, Secular Humanism, Yoism(this is some wooey bullshit but is at least inclusive to atheists). I see this thread will probably never lurch past the definition stage. I've started a few threads like this myself and either I got a flat rejection of the idea of Church for Atheists or within the same thread some very good points on what should we ally around?

---

It doesn't have to be - no more so than any other religion.  I'll refer again to the anthropological definition of religion in thread.  A believer can be alone and not in a position to arrange whatever services or organization would be required.  In the 70's a prisoner made exactly this claim - insisting that his religious convictions deserved reasonable accommodation as per law.  The american humanist association took up his case.

-but..hopefully, it can be even more organized, it would have to be - to be a credible voting bloc.

But as for organization and any distinction, there is no organization required of religious humanism that is not also required of secular humanism.  To be a secular humanist you must subscribe to a minimum set of principles or ideas.  They are the same set required for religious humanism.  This is all the organization required...and it is required... to be a humanist of any kind.  Let's consider additional organization though.  What would a humanist "church service" look like?  Volunteering.  Donating.  Any gathering where humanists reassert their principles amongst each other.  This board could hold or even -be- an impromptu humanist church service.  I'm reminded of magic book...lol.  Any place where two or more gather.

The secular refers to other religions, not religious humanism - humanism as a religion (or any number of other religions not involved in the development of the terms because they did not yet exist).  This is just a fun consequence of how successful humanism has become.  A humanist simply cannot object to religious humanism on it's own ground, or theirs, because the ground is shared.  They believe -exactly- the same things.  The religious qualifier is one of experienced content - not ideological or propositional content.  They feel the numinous in humanism.  Others may not - and that's fine(but I do doubt it).  

That's it, that's all there is to religious humanism - as opposed to the religious who .....sometimes, sorta.... flirt with humanism.

Well said, classically verbose but in this one case I wouldn't change one jot nor title. Probably to be a proper voting bloc one would have to just ally under the Humanist tag or supplant that word with something even more inclusive with less anti-religious connotations to rally people to that banner.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gae,

I was simply using Christian as an example of why I would be potentially opposed to religious humanism.

The trouble is that there's nothing in religious humanism that can be analogized to christianity aside from..perhaps, negative unintended consequences.  It's possible for a humanist (of any kind) to do a bad thing for a good reason...as the christian in your analogy did, ofc.

Simply put I don't see any reason for religious humanism because religion already has the value of humans baked into the framework (The value of human being variable across different sects of religion but nevertheless baked into the framework), whereas secular by itself is merely a negation of religion much like atheist is merely a negation of a god belief. This necessitates the pairing of the words to actually express a direction instead of just a negation.

Secularism is not a negation of religion.  It's resistance to the influence of religion -for religions own sake- in government and social norm setting.  No secular humanist rejects the value of exercise because a christian might believe that our body is a temple - for example.  Atheism, likewise, is not a negation of god belief - but the fact that some people don't believe in them.  

There is no difference in direction between religious and secular humanism.  A religious humanist believes...as you believe..that christianity's magic book does not warrant a place at the value setting table.

I've long felt that Atheism is headless and bodyless and it IS because it really is just the answer to, "Do you believe in some form of god?" answer no therefore you are an atheist.

Ok, great what did you gain? freedom I guess certainly it breaks the delusional framework of the religion that held you thrall for so long.

What was lost? In my case, I was a Nazarene from McMinnville, Or., I lost all the connections to people within the church. No more pot lucks, bible studies, ski trips, services (after which we would often go out to eat). Boiled down I would say I lost community.

Community. This is what is missing from Atheism+, Secular Humanism, Yoism(this is some wooey bullshit but is at least inclusive to atheists). I see this thread will probably never lurch past the definition stage. I've started a few threads like this myself and either I got a flat rejection of the idea of Church for Atheists or within the same thread some very good points on what should we ally around?

It is headless and bodyless. People with as little in common as a 6th century bc indian guru and yourself think the same things, as far as atheism is concerned. You won't be surprised to find that you disagree on nearly everything else, I'm sure.

Religious humanism, is a thing, and it is a religion, and it doesn't say anything different from "regular humanism" or "secular humanism". It's not headless. It's a credible voting bloc that would probably snipe away voters from what we consider to be the "not-secular" camp. That's the thing that I think we need to find some agreement on, before we're talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about -and wasn't asking you about- why you would be against a christian ideology informing society or government. It's all these things because it is humanism, not because it is religious - in your parlance, though in mine and durkheims there's no difference. It makes a claim that unites all who accept the claim into a moral whole.

I was asking why you would be against your own - which just so happens to be amenable to, can be, has been, and is...a religion all of it's own. Not in some novel sense. Officially, but yes..also..very well represented in the body of literature and cogently argued (for and against) by it's opponnents and it's adherents. Can you imagine any reason why you would be against humanist principles, values, and conclusions informing your society or government, so that you can claim to be "secular" towards -them-..in the same way that you are "secular" towards christian principles, values, or conclusions?

I ask this, because humanists -are- a community, bound by a set of defined beliefs in order to be humanists. You lost your christian community. Which, through centuries of social engineering has come to dominate the social sphere, but nothing about being a secular humanist seperates you from the community of humanists - of which, there are religious humanists - a claim on reality that binds you all. I guess there isn't much of one, but anti-humanist communities (which include christians by default) have taken it upon themselves to diminish or eradicate those communities...so........

[Rhizomorph13]

I've read your whole thing there and I still don't get why don't see atheism as a simple negation of a god belief or that the word secular simply means apart from religion. For me these things are simple:

Atheism = no belief in god
Secular = apart from religion i.e. having nothing to do with dogma or deity

And then your brain pinata starts spinning and cranking out all these surprising equivocations. Clearly we won't be starting this LLC together. Or maybe you would be the best candidate because you have a novel take where I have a blind spot?

I was reading my post from back in 2009. It was before I was married with kids and had the kind of time to post a lot. Maybe you'll find it interesting?

https://atheistforums.org/thread-5822.html

It was a couple of years before you joined.

I wasn't on about voting blocks back then. I just missed my church friends.