Right... The more you say that in the context of the other observations you've made in this thread, the less likely it is that you're being intellectually honest. Let's make a list of the things you've said about them:

* Consider that just over 450 people attended their annual conference last year and that the AHA has a total staff of 19...
* They are a small and relatively unsuccessful, unneeded organization.
* I'd add that most humanists couldn't find anything attractive with a magazine intended for general humanist readership.
* And they are wrong [that Humanism is like a religion where we sit down and discuss how "we humanists" should proceed]
* They are a very small subset of secular humanists who are obsessed with obtaining things we already have, such as separation of church and state, science and western enlightenment
* They are strange.
* the website sucks ass full time and blows hobos part-time to make rent.
* They are the atheists whose pussies are sore because the theists are mean to them.
* You should expect silly ridiculous people to be failures.

And you're still trying to hedge?

Edit:

You should probably stay out of public relations and anything related to publicity. You're doing a terrible job.

Et tu?

Yes. Here's a better analogy:

^^^^^ Because that's what I actually did in my first post.

Maybe I'm a Scotsman.

I was more looking for you defending the crappy Christianity Today magazine in terms of the mission statement of American Evangelical Christianity.

As an aside, I'm quite comfortable writing apologetics for the AHA. Part of my prior job (back when I was a psychologist) was explaining the seemingly strange behavior of others. This is a horrific job that involves explaining people to others despite their protestations. I wouldn't expect the AHA to hire me to do so. Most people don't want to have themselves described rationally.

lol.

^^^^^ Because that's what I actually did in my first post.



You are a true Scotsman if I've ever met one.

LOL -- You must enjoy making yourself look like an idiot. Because the further you go in this direction, the more you exemplify exactly that which I'm accusing you of doing.

Your level of comfort and your level of competence are unrelated.

Edit (because the reason for editing bar is too small): If you're interested in civil conversation, stop making false portrayals of my position and my statements.

Well, that was easy.

I'd rather talk about humanism and Christianity and how they intersect.

Slamming your idiots and my idiots is uninteresting.

Enjoyed reading the comments section of the Noah review. Posssibly more entertaining than the film itself.

Oooh. Very fun.

I had almost completely forgotten how enjoyable it is to listen to Christians who haven't read the bible talk about what the bible says.

This one is my favorite:

" At the end of credits, there is a disclaimer "The characters in this film are fictitious, any similarity to real persons are unintentional."

This movie is not produced to teach new theology or religious doctrine."

ZOMG!!! They are all my favorites!!!

"The reason for the flood was that people had become impossibly evil, one can only imagine what they did, b/c we have examples today: ... people eating people, child sacrifice, and all types of ugliness. "

That is what Christians today are concerned with?!? Child sacrifice and cannibalism?!?

From what I saw the articles were well written, not very controversial and mostly reasonable.

Which easily puts this in the 99th percentile of websites.

As for not fostering debate, I think that is a moot point as humanism IS a debate. There is nothing uniform about it.

For the record: I'm not a humanist. Atheist yes, humanist no.

Am watching an old series of documentaries at the moment and find it strange hearing Popes referred to as humanist popes

Can you elaborate on this? Is there some baggage associated with humanism that you don't want to carry?

Yes, I'm no fan of making "being human" a central tenet of moral/ethical doctrine. Humanism to me smacks quite abit of religion in the sense that it elevates "being us" (which is a clever way of writing "being me") to a position where decisions are somehow more profound simply because they are made by "ourselves" (which is a clever way of saying "myself").

Humanism will also, I fear, tend to adopt a traditionalist stance whereby moral and ethical choices are defended simply because they exist as opposed to defended because of why they exist.

I tend to hold humanism and liberal versions of religion that eschew "fluffy" standards ("we are all worth something", "we are all capable moral agents", "we all hold rights") in a fairly similar view: They're fairly harmless in the sense that they are nice and relatively polite, and admittedly the world would probably in the short term be a fairly nice place to live if a lot of people held those values.

As a humanist, I think of it more as fandom in the "I like humans in general and like when they are happy" sense along with a general belief that rationality/science is the best way to go.

It is picking your goal (go, humans go!), along with a technique for aiding in the good fight.

Being poked in the eye hurts and we don't like that sort of thing.

Enlightened self-interest could use a bit more work, I guess, but we haven't really done much to improve on the idea.

The only part in which humanists are nice are in the human rights/pain/pleasure sense. We generally are not egalitarian. For instance, stupid people need to know their place and be silent as they impinge on the rights of others to not be annoyed by their nonsense when they use their outside voice.

Obviously, YMMV based on which humanists you come across. It is a fairly loose description.

Intelligent people need to know their place and be silent as they impinge on the rights of others to indulge in nonsense without being judged and looked down on

Your version doesn't strike me as very representative of humanism in general, regardless of how loosely defined it might sometimes be. I have certainly never heard humanism come with doctrinal ideas of "knowing your place" or cognitive requirements for being allowed to speak.

In truth what you are describing seems closer to the political ideal of the meritocracy, and a somewhat fascist version thereof.

I was being facetious by describing the viewpoint some of the more vocal humanists. It is turning into a club for angry atheists.

It is not doctrinal.

Describing the views of others by writing "We generally are not A. For instance B." is a good way to create a lot of confusion.

Regardless, it is irrelevant to my post who holds the views you describe. I can't really say that freedom of expression (regardless if normative or legislative) based on intellectual merit sound like any form of humanism I have seen described anywhere.

Well, the doctrine is generally, "don't believe in the supernatural guiding our decisions," "we don't believe in absolutist morality," "we believe that science and rationality can and ought to guide our emotional and practical decisions," "we like humans (in the same way that vegetarians like vegetables), and tentatively believe that freedom, democracy, cooperative effort, rule of law, and basic human rights are some of the ingredients necessary for humans to prosper."

The last bit is just a general post-enlightenment statement. It is relatively vacuous simply because believing in science and rational thought along with not believing in any sort of absolute morality kind of requires not saying much what is best in a definitive manner. Most of us are consequentialists, but there are a few duty-oriented people who could be described as humanists.

There is a reason I used the word "facetious" in my follow-up. I was complaining about the groups named "humanist" having turned fairly rude and screamy recently, not making a statement about the underlying philosophy of "humanism."