You’re just trying to get us poor heathens stuffed into our own lockers and our lunch money stolen.
Huh, I could’ve sworn that materialism went beyond that (i.e. saying something about stuff that can’t be known to exist, or whatever). Does it not? Is its use in that context, then, abuse?
I like starting with the dictionary to get a common consensus on a term, and dictionary.com’s primary definition defines humanist as “a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.”
So in that sense, unless one is a really screwed up, anti-social beast who doesn’t give a fig about others, the term probably fits most people. Would the religious have a problem being called a non-secular humanists? Where is not being a humanist considered a good thing?
I don’t think so. Plenty of people ( the majority, I believe ) care only about themselves, or their family, or their religion, or their country; and care nothing for those outside their particular circle. A humanist is someone who is concerned about humans in general.
Probably. Both because it doesn’t specify their religion; and because many despise humanity. We’re all filthy masses of sin and evil to them.
I’d call him “Mass-Murdering Motherfucker”, and damn the consequences.
Why? What would it accomplish, other than getting yourself killed? I’ve never understood the anti-authoritarian mindset when it is both against your own best interests and neutral (at best) to the interests of others.
A life of subsurvience to evil is already death.
Generally, to an extent we tend to first be mostly concerned about those who are closest to us, or those that we know as members or our circle of acquaintances, ever moving outwards. This is probably true of most of us humanists as well although the humanist and some religious will sometimes sacrifice the needs of those closest to them to help others. I think there is a bit of a political boundary where the focus tends more towards considering strengthening a community to be an asset and another that considers it to be a liability, at least if it means some personal sacrifice and screw the poor. Considering what number of people I know who outright say screw the poor, while I still think a majority would take on the humanist label as I see it defined, I suppose you are right in stating that it’s a smaller number that I would give people credit for.
Still, if your point is correct, would most religious admit to it? After all, aren’t evangelists especially supposed to be concerned about everyone else who doesn’t share in their belief? And love them if they don’t? And while I’m sure there are individuals who walk the talk, how many of those who don’t would go on record as anti-humanist? Even if by their actions that is what they are.
This is an interesting tangent. I hope I get to try it out sometime should anyone ask me if I would label myself as such by asking them about their stance on humanism.
Consider that if they agree to the humanist label, even if meant as a slur, now the only common ground they’d have separating themselves from me would be non-secular as opposed to secular. This neutralizes much of the sting that they intend, or they have to admit that they themselves are a bit filthy by common standards of decency.
Whoa there, Nelly!
Please note that not all Christians, and certainly not the ones I’d call “buddies,” believe in eternal damnation and the like. I know and am quite fond of one minister who once gave a sermon entitled “When God Is Wrong”; the substance of her message was some parts of the Bible are crap and that it is incumbent on believers to use their brains when reading and interpreting the Good Book.
Many of them DO think that they are worthless and vile, due to being human. Self hate is a common feature in Christianity. And your other comment just shows up the difference in perspective; while you may consider secular-versus-nonsecular to be a small difference, to many believers it’s massive. “Better to kill for Kali and uphold faith than do good without faith and undermine it”; to many, the fact that someone or something is religious is much more important than whether it is good or bad.
As my grandma Willie Mae used to say in times like this, bullshit.
Please repeat after me. Just as not all atheists are identical, not all Christains are the same.
And I carefully avoided saying that they were.
Extreme beliefs however always provide breeding grounds for the masochistic. Though I’d guess the ones based on fervent emotion are easily the most fertile.
Absolutely. The only thing sillier than being dogmatically passionate about your beliefs is being dogmatically passionate about your lack of beliefs. 
It’s sort of like the term, “teabaggers”, it was come up with by the people it describes but is unintentionally ridiculous.
Y’know, you could’ve just used Ultraman of the antimatter Earth and been done with it, keeping only the weakness erasure. That might’ve been simpler. 
[/geek]
Or in other words, write your own morality. If only those religious people who claim that (unlike atheists) their morality comes from some higher power were honest about where their morality *really *comes from.
But it’s *not *neutral to the interests of others. I will serve as an example for them, like Gandhi, Biko or that immolated Buddhist monk. The American Founding Fathers got one thing right, at least - freedom or death.
I’ve been unfree before, in a way very few Dopers have been, and I would not let that happen again.
Yeah, it’s a great example. You speak up, you get annihilated, and then your death is an example to anybody else who wants to speak up.
Sure, but imagine the tremendous songs song in your honor for ages and ages…
– by the Klingons who conquer Earth (after somehow destroying “K/Y”) and restore order. Well, sort of.
But better those filthy bastards than anyone resembling the “Good Book” deity.
It’s funny that you think these people are being dishonest, that they know what they believe is not true but they lie about it anyway.