"Lawrence Hyde" <revolutionarian@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f925918f.0403252028.738403d4@posting.google.com...
The biggest problem that non-religious people face is the lack of a
unifying self image that would empower us to support each other the
way theists can. For example, "christian" is an independant label that
soley ficilitates the positive image that "christians" can unite in
support of.
In order to bring nonreligious people together under a similar
umbrella, we need to dump the subjective "atheist" label. "Atheist"
is
strictly dependant on an initially theistic point of view and is
specificaly negative towards that view. Nobody can be expected to
unite under such a negative label.
You can dump the label if you like; it's entirely your choice. But as
long as dumping the label doesn't change the fact that you don't believe
in gods (which is precisely the criterion that defines "atheist"),
what's the point? And what's subjective about it? "Atheist" is a
straightforward descriptor of people who reject superstition. There's
nothing "negative" about that, just as there's nothing negative about
quitting (or refusing to start) smoking. Moreover, "atheism" and
"atheist" are the only generally recognizable terms that unite and
distinguish non-superstitious people from everyone else. And they
establish a common ground for comparing notes on all those other fun
things we atheists love to disagree about, like morals and purpose, life
and death, and how to survive and cope in a mostly (and often
intolerantly) religious society.
"Humanist" seems to be a good independant label for nonreligious
people.
The problem is that humanism doesn't distinguish all people who don't
believe in gods from all those who do. Some atheists are humanists, and
some aren't. Some religious people are humanists (even if they don't
realize it), and some aren't. Humanism just distinguishes people who
accept that human beings have dignity and worth from people who do not
accept that idea. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone
believes in gods, except perhaps the question of the assumed source
(divine or inherent) of human dignity and worth.
If you're a humanist, and want to wear that "label," fine. It needn't
be the only label you wear, though. Most of us wear lots of labels.
For example, in my case (and in no particular order), atheist, humanist,
husband, father, social liberal, fiscal conservative, bicyclist,
music-lover, railfan, retiree, lifetime learner, and American all fit.
For any given topic, I choose the label that fits. If we're talking
weather and traffic, "bicyclist" works; if it's responsibility and
ethics, "humanist" is appropriate; if it's gods, "atheist" applies.
Each is germane to a particular theme, and they are not mutually
exclusive.
--
=SAJ=
To reply, delete NOSPAM from address.
http://tangents.home.att.net/
My lack of faith in a God is not my central purpose in life
and there is no implication of it in the label "humanist". Humanity is
my cause and, as a humanist, I can feel good about supporting humanity
with my fellow humanists without specifying my regaurds to theology. I
can be labeled as an "atheist" by theists who want to vilify me for my
lack of faith but, it won't compromise my general self image as a
humanist. Likewise, I can effectively vilify theists with the use of
labels like "inhumanists" which fits nicely with all the religiously
justified brutality we see happening today and throughout human
history.
.
|
