Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:28AM, Knowsnothing wrote:

In other words, calling yourself a secular humanist is cowardly, as opposed to coming straight out as an atheist?

Why?  Why seek to so rigidly define yourself anyways?  Aren't we all unique?  Can I describe Bob_the_Lunatic with one word, atheist?

To whom is this post directed?

Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:28AM, Knowsnothing wrote:

In other words, calling yourself a secular humanist is cowardly, as opposed to coming straight out as an atheist?

Why?  Why seek to so rigidly define yourself anyways?  Aren't we all unique?  Can I describe Bob_the_Lunatic with one word, atheist?

That oversimplifies the issue.  Intent is the issue in all behavior, it is the measure of virtue.  So, it's not a firm rule, no.  Further, note the thread is posed as a question, based on an observed theme.  There is no question to me that some atheists indeed, as cowards, run with "secular humanism" to simply "fit in" better.  And in some cases, everything is compromised when they've actually pretended to be christians...  that's not "unique", that's just garbage.

I also clearly state that I believe originally in the 19th century, the concept (secular humanism) was real and true.  But that I note today that many hide behind it to avoid stigma-which again is not unique, it is rather "childish" at best.  So it's not about "rigid definitions" it's about honesty and honoring the self.  

Apr 26, 2012 -- 12:17PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 10:52AM, Marcion wrote:

What is so cowardly about secular humanism?

Do you prefer blind obedience to mythology posing as fact that is responsible for immeasurable suffering for centuries.

The question makes little sense in light of my long OP and my compacted version to Blu.  There is no indication anywhere that I make any argument of any sort that adhering to myths is superior to claiming "secular humanism".  

I never say "secular humanism" itself is cowardly but that the intent behind it is at times-that is the nature of this thread, as the title suggests; the issue is motive.  If it is true, then that is fine, and not cowardly.  At the same time however, that particuar atheist can no longer ever make the argument about "sheep/followers" as they too are following another's idea.  So as long as they are consistent, I see no problem. 

I also frequently say that this concept of "do that which causes the least harm" in secular humanism is superior to the entire bible-the usual example given by the American Atheist.  But I'm again NOT talking about the philosophy, but rather the abuse of the term, by cowardly atheists.  Like the one I describe who teaches other atheists how to pretend to be christian to avoid any speed bumps at work.  See the difference?

I am not a secular humanist. I just want to know what is cowardly about secular humanism.

Religion is just a myth that still has a following.

Some people need to go to Oz to get a brain.