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

[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.