Please note that I did not say that ALL Christians believe God to be a sadistic narcissist.
I also like it; but I also think that it IS intended to be derogatory by some people. Thing is, the people who think like that are the sort of people that the last thing I want is for them to approve of me.
But how do “humanists” so defined differ from “secular humanists” (the distinction Fuzzy Dunlop was trying to draw in post #7)?
. . . Let me get this straight . . . They believe that, and still worship Him?! 
N.B.: It was apparently invented as a term of abuse; see post #5.
Imagine, for a moment, that you lived in the DC Comics universe.
Imagine that Superman got exposed to a particularly long-lasting piece of red kryptonite that not only turned him evil but also erased his vulnerabilities to other forms of kryptonite, magic, and red sun radiation.
Imagine that he then killed the rest of the Justice League, all the other heroes & villains, and set himself up as God-King of Earth, after exterminating everyone in, oh, Wales, just so that people knew he wasn’t kidding around.
Imagine that he then required that everyone call him “Kal-El the Merciful” on pains of an immediate heat-vision zapping if they refuse.
Would you call him “Kal-El the Merciful” if you had an audience with him, or “Mass-Murdering Motherfucker”?
Why not? They believe that, by worshiping him, they give him what he wants, so he’ll be more likely to give them what they want. You don’t worship, you get eternally punished. If you believed in such a god, which would you pick?
Well, sure it was. But for a lot of people it fails as a term of abuse, because the traits describes are not ones they find offensive.
Here’s a parallel. I have a pair of cousins who are involved in a venomous feud over a family inheritance. One of them is a fundamantalist Christian* and an extreme homophobe; the other is not. The FC cousin, a woman, recently was trying to insult the other, and so called him a “pussy-sucker,” by which she meant that he was a homosexual. The intended insultee was…bemused, as he (a) is not in fact homosexual, (b) thinks nothing wrong with being homosexual anyway, (c) finds that particular term for a homosexual man so ridiculously off the mark as to be risible rather than infuriating, and (d) finds that women generally LIKE guys who are pussy suckers and thus does not intend to stop.
Same difference. 
They believed in God and that there were spiritual things that couldn’t be understood by science. Secular humanists don’t believe in God or spirituality.
I believe this is also very much how the mind of a battered spouse works, too. He/she hits me, I must have done something wrong, as long as I do everything I know doesn’t make him/her hit me, he/she is a loving companion.
IOW, Skald’s Christian buddies have Stockholm Syndrome 
The term “materialist” irritates me more. It’s meaningless. It characterizes a simple truism (only stuff that can be known to exist can be known to exist) and tries to frame it as an opinion or an ideological position. It’s stupid.
Yeeah, intending secular humanist to be derogatory kind of requires that the audience has the basic assumption that secularism is a bad thing.
Hmph. At least with heathen and infidel you knew you had a proper insult on your hands.
Because, “Humanism”, is a specifically Christian philosophy. So it differentiates the religious Humanism as propounded by people like Thomas More from the non-Christian Humanism. Of course, I’ve heard a lot of ‘scientific materialists’ refer to themselves as Secular Humanists and use it as evidence that even atheists are capable of moral reasoning.
Some theories:
– I think a paranoia/insinuation about atheists/SH level of organization might be part of it. After all, there are many more organizations that could be fairly described as SH than atheistic. So if you insinuate that all sceptics/atheists are actually SH, then it implies that they are part of one big conspiracy.
– The term SH does not imply firm atheism or even agnosticism and is more an opinion, so if they get called on it (for instance by pointing out members of sceptic societies that are also religious) they can fall back on it being a difference of opinion.
– Secular humanism more closely resembles a religion than scepticism or atheism does, in that it is a philosophical approach to constructing a universal morality. So if you paint someone as a SH you can then more easily say “hey, you have your religious beliefs too, you can’t shut ours out and keep yours or you’re a hypocrite!”
Not really, because there are dualists and idealists out there.
Christians can be members of Secular Humanist organizations, and in fact, many are.
It doesn’t actually imply anything about one’s religious beliefs.
I think it’s more just a short-hand catch-all term for nitwits. Regardless of which side is doing the oversimplifying.
This is the key to it for me.
I suppose I am someone who might get described as a “secular humanist”. But my position is just one of not seeing any evidence of any deities. That’s it.
I don’t belong to a particular group, or ascribe to any particular positive philosophy. Subtlely, “secular humanist” is a form of words that implies the contrary, because we associate the “[adjective] somethingist” form as one used to allocate people to a particular philosophical or social or religious movement.
The advantage to the religous of being able to attribute my position in this way is that it gives them a strawman to attack. “I don’t have a view other than that yours is unconvincing” is an irritatingly small target for them to attack.
Well, the Council for Secular Humanism would probably take their money. And I don’t recall being asked to swear (or affirm) my belief in any creeds or declarations when I joined up. Nonetheless, the Council’s self definition and “affirmations” (statement of principles), while containing many things that most Christians no doubt could heartily agree with (e.g., “the cultivation of moral excellence”, “the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility”, and even “the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems”) also includes things that are kind of hard to square with any meaningfully Christian world-view (like “We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.”) Christianity is all about explaining the world in supernatural terms and looking outside nature (that is, to God) for salvation.
There is also the lamest of all identifiers “Brights.”
http://www.the-brights.net/vision/
The Council for Secular Humanism didn’t like it (though this article was printed a while ago so they might have changed their mind).
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=flynn_24_3§ion=library
I think we should make every effort to bring that appellation into vogue. 