Well I’d consider myself a humanist as opposed to a follower of other ideologies as I approve of the different teachings of love and respect, but am not swayed by their theories of creation. It’s because of those teachings that I’d consider myself humanist, not just an atheist.
@Humanists
Do you think atheism or agnosticism is a necessary component of humanism?
To a certain degree, yes. Humanism is about approaching life and it’s various problems from a standpoint of humanity and reason, from their own subjective viewpoint, examining the evidence at hand. Religious dogma would often require one to adhere to it’s own practices which not only contradicts the humanist core principle of individual rights in some cases (See religion versus homosexuality) but would also prevent said person from approaching problems subjectively.
I suppose it would be possible to combine humanism and religions in theory; if one was to take both approaches (humanist and religious) and find they come to the same answer for example. But if the answers differ they would need to take the humanist option, obviously else they would not be a humanist.
However, humanism as a core ideal takes evolution and the big bang theory over creationism, therefore it is arguable that yes, atheism and/or agnoticism is a core component of humanism.
Personally I am an atheist.
I don’t really think that atheism or agnosticism are a necessary component of humanism. I think you can be theistic humanist or a gnostic humanist. I feel this question is the same as whether you can “believe in evolution” and “believe in God” at the same time. I don’t think they’re necessarily exclusive.
When I saw a documentary about Buddha’s life, I felt like all supernatural stuff were just a dramatization to make the story prettier and easier to understand. And it worked It was kind of funny, I had the impression that whoever told that story originally did not really mean that literally, although I’m probably wrong.
As a nihilist, I ask what is so wrong with Nihilism? Admittedly, I don’t fully ascribe myself to nihilism completely, but I’d like to know why that’s frowned upon from a humanistic viewpoint.
Nihilism (like anarchy, though I know they’re not the same thing) has to ignore some basic aspects of the human animal to survive. Like the fact that we are a sociable species and we interact with others. These interactions lead to, well, morals, because these morals describe how to interact with one another.
If we were solitary animals, morals generally would not exist for us and then it would be “every man for himself”. But that just doesn’t work in a species such as ours.
You are welcome to your nihilistic viewpoint but you have to remember that others aren’t nihilists themselves.
Oh I agree, I’m just curious to hear what is wrong with it is all.
I think people associate nihilism with living without morals and not having a life purpose.
I’m not saying that this association is necessarily true.
A.C. Grayling is the guest on Colbert tonight.