Atheist vs Secular Humanist

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Secularism has nothing to do with morality...or atheism....or religion...or anything that's not related to secularism.

Secularism was a Christian invention in 1648 (well, implemented, not necessarily invented) designed to implement cuius regio eius religio and to eliminate the influence of the papacy in sovereign European states. It has since evolved through central pillars to mean the neutrality in the he public sphere towards religion. It's an epistemological political framework that seeks to ensure freedom both of and from religion and the influence of irrelevant beliefs on those that don't hold them.

[Chas]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

One does not have to be an atheist to be a secular humanist or vice versa.

These aren't even on the same spectrum.

How does a theist manage the whole "Good without god" thing if they think they have god?

Silly question. When did "Good without god" become an official statement of secular humanism?

---

Oh, for fuck's sake.

One does not have to be an atheist to be a secular humanist or vice versa.

These aren't even on the same spectrum.

Well then, would you mind explaining it to me? Because that was the point of my starting this thread. I'm trying to figure out what the term "secular humanist" means, because I just don't get it.

Secular: without regard to religions

Humanism: Ethical and moral stance that values human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

Atheism: Lack of belief in any gods.


Is that clear?

[archangle]

So I keep seeing the term "secular humanist", and I'm trying to figure out the point.

I know that "atheist" just means someone who doesn't believe in any gods, and that "secular humanist" takes it a step further and talks about morals and valuing humanity. But isn't having morals a default assumption? Aren't we supposed to assume that all humans have morals and value humanity? So does that mean "secular humanist" is just a phrase to describe any atheist who isn't a sociopath? If so, then why do we need this additional label?

same reason you need the title "atheist". All atheist means is that you don't believe in a deity. Not Much more.

Just like other religions you then have sects of atheists. We need these because some of our atheist brethren are real ass holes that do not understand science and then push (force) itoff on other people. Or be little people that don't agree with them.

These types of atheist are just like literal bible thumpers. The word "thumper" is important

[mralstoner]

So does that mean "secular humanist" is just a phrase to describe any atheist who isn't a sociopath? If so, then why do we need this additional label?

Yes, in practice, atheist and humanist are much the same.
But humanism is such a vague word, it all depends what definition you use.

Most modern people think humanism means human-centered i.e. we think with our own brains and feel with our own hearts, rather than defer to religion. In this sense, most atheists are humanists.

However, more specific definitions of humanism might include: rationality, and concern for fellow human beings. In this sense, plenty of atheists are not humanists because they believe in irrational things, or don't care for their fellow human beings.

All in all, I think the word "humanist" is useful, and I use it to describe myself, rather than "atheist" because it usually describes someone who is non-religious but without all the negative baggage that "atheist" now carries i.e. someone who hates and attacks religion. And the term is also a positive one, that begins to describe how one lives without religion, rather than "atheist" which is completely silent on that subject.

Similarly, scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson said recently he uses the label "agnostic" because "atheist" now has a bad reputation.