Atheism v Humanism

tessat

Can somebody explain the differences and if anybody is a member of either body explain what draws you to it over the other?

magicbastarder

fairly simple - atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, and is not a 'body' as such.

humanism is an attempt to create a moral framework which is not underpinned by religion. based along the lines of 'do unto others' style thinking.

tessat

Atheist Ireland is very much a body, they have represented Irish Atheists at the UN and are involved in lobbying the government for change to a more secular republic. They host meeting and are offer a much support to their members.

In a similar vein, Humanist Ireland also a recognised body. They have celebrants and can perform ceremonies such as weddings etc.

I was looking to know more like are they mutually exclusive or could a person be a member of both? Is it necessary to be a member? If anybody is a member of either could you explain this a bit more? Does being a member of humanist Ireland come with a set guidance relating to morals etc?

Thanks

lazygal

We joined the Humanist Association after we had a Humanist wedding. We like the outlook and philosophy of humanism and plan on using some of its materials with our children, especially if we need to deal with indoctrination in schools. I also support the recent campaign showing that there is a serious problem with schools requiring baptism certs to allow children to avail of state funded essential services.

Although not a member of Atheist Ireland I have contacted it about a religious matter and got some very helpful advice. I have also been in touch with Teach Don't Preach about school related matters, and it has some very good resources on the rights of parents and children in terms of dealing with religious indoctrination.

wp_rathead

Kinda off topic, but I gotta say the fact that Atheist Ireland was against the Presidential Age Referendum was laughable imo

Peregrinus

There's no "versus" about it; these are intersecting sets.

Atheists can be humanists - some are, and some are not. To be an atheist, the only qualification is to lack any belief in God- there's no positive, affirmative belief that you have to have. You can hold to any nontheistic philosophy, or to none.

And humanists can be atheists, but don't have to be. Humanists stress the inherent value and potential of human life, welfare, interests and culture. You can be a theist humanist or an atheist (or secular) humanist.

magicbastarder

tessat wrote: »

Atheist Ireland is very much a body

this is true, but if you are atheist (or a 'follower of atheism') it does not mean in any way that you have any affiliation with AI; no more so than you being someone who enjoys a kickabout with some mates makes you a member or fan of FIFA.

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is true, but if you are atheist (or a 'follower of atheism') it does not mean in any way that you have any affiliation with AI; no more so than you being someone who enjoys a kickabout with some mates makes you a member or fan of FIFA.

. . . as soccer enthusiasts would be keen to stress today!

Hotblack Desiato

tessat wrote: »

I was looking to know more like are they mutually exclusive or could a person be a member of both?

Michael Nugent the founder of AI is also a member of HAI.

Is it necessary to be a member?

Well if it's mass time on a Sunday and the cops catch you walking down the street without your Atheist Ireland get out of jail free card, you'll be in big trouble.

volchitsa

wp_rathead wrote: »

Kinda off topic, but I gotta say the fact that Atheist Ireland was against the Presidential Age Referendum was laughable imo

Why? Am I missing something obvious here?

Hotblack Desiato

The presidential age thing wasn't just a poor pseudo-reform measure, it blocked the opportunity for something actually worthwhile like removing blasphemy.

It's fairly obvious though that the presidential age referendum was set up to fail, and catch any protest votes going.

magicbastarder

did you want the country to go into complete meltdown? concurrent blasphemy *and* gay marriage campaigns?

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's fairly obvious though that the presidential age referendum was set up to fail, and catch any protest votes going.

Can't say I disagree. Unlike in previous referendums, I don't recall a single person this time round saying that they were going to vote against marriage equality because a vote against it was a vote against the government.

It's a pity people can't take their democracy a bit more seriously.

wp_rathead

volchitsa wrote: »

Why? Am I missing something obvious here?

They were against Presidential Age Referendum because of the oath to god you have to make, saying that at the moment an Atheist can't become president

To me that is like using Surrogacy as an argument against Marriage Equality - a complete red herring

ScumLord

I started calling myself a humanist because I didn't like theists saying I believed in nothing.

tessat

ScumLord wrote: »

I started calling myself a humanist because I didn't like theists saying I believed in nothing.

This is a very interesting POV.
I believe that as humans we have the ability to follow any moral path we choose and by choosing a path of good we are doing so without need for reward in "another life" which gives me a massive superiority complex over those who only do good to get rewarded (and of course instantly makes me feel bad for feeling superior, can't win!!)

But I get what you are saying.

Thanks everyone for the info and comments, I think I need to read up more about humanism before I make any decisions.

Fleawuss

I'm in both. I think humanism has been a great help to me to try to find a way out of the intellectual ruins of religion. I hope we see the secular society HAI and AI want. It will be more compassionate and real than what I grew up with. Good thread.

Hotblack Desiato

ScumLord wrote: »

I started calling myself a humanist because I didn't like theists saying I believed in nothing.

Why should they be allowed to define the discussion? That's like their common tactic of equating religion with morality, and equally worthless.

If they can't get their heads around the idea that people can be perfectly fine with no supernatural beliefs whatsoever, that's their problem tbh. I've as little time for spiritualist guff as I do for theistic guff.

Peregrinus

I'm with Hotblack, I think. You shouldn't feel the need to call yourself a humanist (or anything else) in order to gratify the insecurities of your critics. You should call yourself that if you think it's an honest and useful way to express your beliefs.

If there are theists who are uncomfortable with your atheism, that's rheir problem, not yours. Their discomfort with your atheism shouldn't bother you any more than Hotblack's discomfort with your humanism.

Hotblack Desiato

No discomfort with humanism, just querying the perceived need for a label to satisfy others' need to label things.

Michael OBrien

tessat wrote: »

Can somebody explain the differences and if anybody is a member of either body explain what draws you to it over the other?

If you mean the organisations in Ireland not the stances then here are some points to consider. I am a member of both.
HI deals primarily with raising awareness of Humanism, with Magazines, and also provides humanist ceremonies and helps train celebrants. Since the recent rule allowing for celebrants to solemnize marriage, they are sorta blocked from political lobbying (because of a crappy clause added for no real reason).

AI is more a political group that seek to raise awareness of discrimination for non religious people, including getting rid of that awful blasphemy law.

There is ZERO requirement for any atheist or humanist to join ANY group. But if you are one, it does you no harm to learn about them, and if you like their goals, help them by joining up. Numbers matter when a group seeks to do anything, political or social.

The biggest pain in the neck for atheists is that we are really not great at organising ourselves, as we pride ourselves on being free thinkers. There is a bit of a logical disconnect between these two stances but I suppose you have a mix of apathy and aversion to joining anything that seems in any way like a religious group, even one that has the NON- part in its description.

I have met Michael Nugent multiple times, along with others, they are all very polite passionate people. You do not have to agree with ANY of them and as long as you can rationally discuss your issues, I am sure they would be happy to listen.

Oh, I was an atheist long before I knew what the term was, and accepted the humanist label as it seemed logical in its general philosophy. I hold no dogma to it and if a better, more reasonable philosophy appeared that seemed to be an improvement over secular humanism, I would go for that. Currently I know of none. I also have no problems with questioning any idea accepted by humanists, if the reasoning is sound.

tessat

Cheers Michael, that's a great run down. Just to pick up on something you said, I've said for years that the only reason the RCC has the power it does is because people keep baptising their children to increase the "membership" and until they stop doing that the RCC will most likely continue to say they represent 80/90% of the population. In the same vein, if AI or HI can increase their membership numbers then they can show they represent a larger portion of the population. That's why I'm interested in learning more about both organisations.
I'm slightly in awe of Jane Donnelly and the work she does, she is a modern day hero fighting for the rights of children who are having a basic human right denied in our public schools.

Hotblack Desiato

It will be deeply ironic if this country abolishes discrimination in schools against gay teachers, but maintains discrimination against atheist teachers (and pupils)

The non-belief that dare not speak its name

Brian Shanahan

ScumLord wrote: »

I didn't like theists saying I believed in nothing.

I'm the exact opposite, I hate it when theists try to drag me down to their level and say that my atheism is as much a belief position as their belief in sky faries (of various breeds).

I'm of the position that belief is nearly always a bad thing, in that it gets you to take for true ideas or concepts that have no evidence for them. Hence, as much as is humanly possible (unfortunately, we are belief machines) I try to steer myself away from taking things as true when I cannot see evidence either for or against them (now the evidence doesn't have to be mine, it just has to be there and explainable to me).

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The biggest pain in the neck for atheists is that we are really not great at organising ourselves, as we pride ourselves on being free thinkers.

The above statement implies that atheists have something in common other than their lack of belief in the supernatural, which I'd dispute. A lack of a belief in the supernatural is too tenuous a link to categorise a bunch of people into a group and then make broader statements about that group. While I'm an atheist, that fact in and of itself is not enough to state what I do or don't take pride in. So while I'm an atheist, I've no interest in joining Atheist Ireland, nor do I have any great interest in humanism. It concerns me that Atheist Ireland and its members feel that they have the right to speak on behalf of atheists in general when they have no mandate to do so.

Hotblack Desiato

Secularism is important though and that's a big plank of what AI do. I'm not a member but I'm considering it, school patronage is a major concern of mine.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Secularism is important though and that's a big plank of what AI do. I'm not a member but I'm considering it, school patronage is a major concern of mine.

I'm also an ardent secularist, and more often than not agree with AI's goals, but find the name off putting to the extent I wouldn't join them. I find it bad enough that God botherers try to label atheism as some kind of godless equivalent to their own religions without others doing the same.

School patronage is actually the other thing that also puts me off AI. I've long been enthused by Educate Together, having gone to the first one myself as a sprog, and would have concerns about AI's stance that ET is undermining the ability of non-denominational schools getting off the ground. While ET has been on the go for four decades now, it is still struggling to get new schools built to meet the increasing demand for this style of education, only starting to get the first few secondary schools built at present. IMHO, AI having a go at ET is the last thing this countries education system needs.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

AI having a go at ET is the last thing this countries education system needs.

While I think the PR could have been handled better, AI did make a valid point. And regardless of either, last week, ET announced that they'd be replacing the "multi-denominational" bit with "equality-based":

http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/important-step-educate-together

Educate Together wrote:

Educate Together will no longer describe itself as a ‘multi-denominational’ organisation but will use the term ‘Equality-based’.
At different points in the history of Educate Together, the term ‘multi-denominational’ has been opposed by families, teachers and pupils who do not identify themselves in religious terms. A working group established by the organisation found that its use implicitly suggests a religious focus that has become confusing to parents, teachers and general public. The decision to discontinue the use of ‘multi-denominational’ does not change the standing commitment of the organisation to “equality of access and esteem to children irrespective of their social, culture or religious background”.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

While I think the PR could have been handled better, AI did make a valid point. And regardless of either, last week, ET announced that they'd be replacing the "multi-denominational" bit with "equality-based"

Perhaps, but AI's move was still about as inspired as The People's front of Judea attacking The Popular Judean people's front while under Roman occupation.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps, but AI's move was still about as inspired as The People's front of Judea attacking The Popular Judean people's front while under Roman occupation.

Can't disagree

recedite

smacl wrote: »

It concerns me that Atheist Ireland and its members feel that they have the right to speak on behalf of atheists in general when they have no mandate to do so.

AI only speaks for its own membership.

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps, but AI's move was still about as inspired as The People's front of Judea attacking The Popular Judean people's front while under Roman occupation.

Just a coincidence then, that ET has since changed its label from "Multi-denominational" to "Equality based"?
IMO by having several overlapping interest groups sparking off each other, such as ET, HAI, and AI, it prevents them from becoming too complacent and ineffective.