hello <wave> are you Secular Humanist Atheist?

[Eudaimonist]

-Historically- some atheist governments were anti-religious + destroyed christians and churches.

-Historically- some communist governments did this.

What does any of this have to do with secular humanism? Or positive psychology, for that matter? And why mention this at all?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

-Historically- some atheist governments were anti-religious + destroyed christians and churches.

Various governments have done that over time, including Christian ones (a lot of European history is based around Catholics killing Protestants and vice versa). So far all I'm seeing is a poor attack on atheism and secular humanism, as if we were all part of those communist governments. The whole "secularism is an evil communist anti-religion autocracy" argument is a dead horse, and I can't be bothered to beat it.

So, again, where are you going with this thread?

 

[ProScribe]

-Historically- some communist governments did this.

What does any of this have to do with secular humanism? Or positive psychology, for that matter? And why mention this at all?

Because atheism is related to secular-humanism of the self rejecting God.

Its like saying, "we don't need God" or "we don't want anything to do with Him" or "we're just fine without Him."

 

[Jarofthoughts]

Because atheism is related to secular-humanism of the self rejecting God.

Its like saying, "we don't need God" or "we don't want anything to do with Him" or "we're just fine without Him."

Well, I don't need God, I want nothing to do with him and I'm doing just fine without him.
Also, I don't even think he exists.

So what?
Is that a problem somehow, and if yes, explain why.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because atheism is related to secular-humanism of the self rejecting God.

Its like saying, "we don't need God" or "we don't want anything to do with Him" or "we're just fine without Him."

We are just fine without any gods in our lives. I take it that you see positive psychology as saying that people actually can be psychologically healthy without being christians. Why, yes, we can.

Though bringing up communism looks suspiciously like an attempt to say that secular humanists are just like communists. Maybe your goal isn't a smear, but it's the same old nonsense. It's like saying that one christian has murdered abortion doctors, therefore all christians are murderers at heart. There's no reason why doing well without Christianity implies burning down churches.

Okay, so secular humanists do well without God. Are you envious about that? What would you like to discuss about the success that secular humanists have had in that area?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ProScribe]

Okay, so secular humanists do well without God. Are you envious about that? What would you like to discuss about the success that secular humanists have had in that area?

No, not really.

If you read -A History of Modern Russia- by Robert Service there there are some instances where a non-religious communist/atheist government (not a smear) wanted to destroy and eradicate the Christians of the Russian Orthdoox Church.

 

[Delphiki]

No.

-Historically- certain governments and dictatorships were anti-religion.

Theists commonly make the mistake between confusing the words "secular", "atheist", and "anti-theistic". You're not the first, so don't feel bad. It usually accompanies the misconception that Stalin's motivations were anti-religious in nature and not political. Also accompanies the idea that because Stalin and Pol Pot were bad and atheist that means atheism is bad -- this is called affirming the consequent.

 

[smaneck]

-Historically- some communist governments did this.

What does any of this have to do with secular humanism?

Mark

Communism is a subset of secular humanism.

 

[Delphiki]

Communism is a subset of secular humanism.

What? Absolutely not. I can think of one non-secular communist right off the bat. I would say that most of the people on this website have heard of him. What was his name again... Jessie? No, that's not it. Jerod? No.. Hmm. I dunno, some guy the Romans nailed to the cross a couple thousand years ago.

Oh yeah. Jesus. That was his name.

Also, Acts 2:42-45 would disagree.

42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.





If communism was a subset of anything secular or humanist then all of communism would be secular or humanist.

 

[smaneck]

Oh yeah. Jesus. That was his name.

It is true that the early church shared all things in common though I've not seen any evidence that Jesus taught this. However, Communism is a political ideology founded by a secularism humanist in the middle of the nineteenth century. It is not simply living a communal lifestyle.

 

[ProScribe]

Theists commonly make the mistake between confusing the words "secular", "atheist", and "anti-theistic". You're not the first, so don't feel bad. It usually accompanies the misconception that Stalin's motivations were anti-religious in nature and not political. Also accompanies the idea that because Stalin and Pol Pot were bad and atheist that means atheism is bad -- this is called affirming the consequent.

Speaking of evidence, are not churches evidence of Christianity? . .

 

[Delphiki]

Speaking of evidence, are not churches evidence of Christianity? . .

What's that have to do with the conversation? Regardless, yes. Churches can be evidence that there is a religion called "Christianity".

 

[SithDoughnut]

Speaking of evidence, are not churches evidence of Christianity? . .

In the same way that mosques are evidence of Islam, yes.

 

[ProScribe]

What's that have to do with the conversation? Regardless, yes. Churches can be evidence that there is a religion called "Christianity".

Just jumped off-topic. That's all

 

[SithDoughnut]

Just jumped off-topic. That's all

What is the topic, though? There hasn't been a coherent line of discussion so far.

 

[ProScribe]

What is the topic, though? There hasn't been a coherent line of discussion so far.

secular humanist atheism is relative to a non-religious communist dictatorship.

(not to say that all atheists are secular or communist - it does have something to do with human rights and society)

 

[Eudaimonist]

secular humanist atheism is relative to a non-religious communist dictatorship.

In what ways? Be specific.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Booko]

Are there actually atheists who refer to themselves as secular humanists?

I thought that was a term cooked up in certain religious quarters and not anything actual atheists used themselves.

I never was a secular humanist.

I was an atheist. And secular. And a humorist. And possibly a secular humorist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are there actually atheists who refer to themselves as secular humanists?

Yes, plenty. There are many secular humanist organizations, and I'm certain that a significant percentage of the membership refers to themselves as "secular humanists".

Just one example:

Council for Secular Humanism

I never was a secular humanist.

Neither was I, even though the Council for Secular Humanism existed in the city where I grew up.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

secular humanist atheism is relative to a non-religious communist dictatorship.

I think you don't understand either secular humanism or communism, because they're completely different. It makes no sense to even try to compare them.