Humanists one assumes, otherwise that’s a rather tortured tautology to say that organisations attract people who are attracted to being organised?
What unspoken boundaries, and what tenets must humanists (who join a humanist organisation) blindly follow?
Devout in the sense they’re committed to a cause you mean? That still seems a stretch to describe them as a church. Also it would be odd to form any organisation and not be committed to its goals, so the comparison still seems an odd one to me, given that the core definition of humanism is mutually exclusive with theistic belief and most religions.
It seems unlikely a humanist organisation would be devout in the religious sense of “a belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods,” which is obviously at odds with humanism by definition?
My assumption is that the humanist movement is full of liberals and the woke.
In my experience, people who use the term woke in that context shouldn’t be taken seriously. Like someone screaming about ritual satanic abuse or sovereign citizenry. It is a strange shibboleth that marks you as a lunatic who doesn’t live in the real world.
“Woke” nowadays refers to being aware or well-informed in a political or cultural sense, especially regarding issues surrounding marginalized communities - it describes someone who has “woken up” to issues of social injustice." I think of them as the 'Social Justice Warriors. I also think most of them have their heads up their asses. But that’s my opinion. Am I starting a shit-storm? Not my intention. You are certainly allowed to have one as well. (A shit-storm or an opinion) We each have one vote and mine is in Korea right now. Nothing will be resolved in a post on an atheist form, neither one of us is that delusional. I think I used the word correctly.
This term is used derogatory by the likes of Peterson (yah …thanks Canada) and in conjunction with other extremist hyperbole. The same folks screaming to “WAKE UP” (but only to their rhetoric otherwise you’re just a sheeple )
I have no problem being aware to political/cultural injustices - the Religious/Gov’t Residential schools, our “internment” of Ukrainians & Japanese (Canadian citizens) during WWs, the limiting of expression vs the propaganda of denialism/hate, etc
This is an old old technique. When you encounter something you disagree with which has undeniable appeal and demonstrable elements of truth, don’t waste your time arguing the issues, instead, disparage the messengers and label the thing with a smarmy term easily perverted into a pejorative.
Ad hominem and a poisoning of the well fallacy. As I keep saying I find the notion the good or bad ideas are the sole domain of one end of the political spectrum utterly absurd.
When Trump decides he won’t really run in 2024 after all, I’ll happily admit it to be a great idea.
Is it not in the definition? Obviously if the definition does not fit, one would not be a part of that set. Basic Venn Diagram. People can be grouped into general categories. You know, people like … um… Atheists.
Of course this position begs the question, good or bad for whom? If you use this position every time you object to a point of view,(no accusation here) it becomes a false balance fallacy.(both sidesism) Sometimes the overwhelming majority of ideas from a particular source can be viewed by a variety of observers as “bad” or destructive. Perception is all important. (After all, Hitler was right, donuts ARE delicious)
Yes, I am a bird with excellent visual functionality. I am also an avid student of sophistic rhetorical hyperbolicistic agitation techniques…soon to graduate magna cum loudly…
Any chance of objective evidence to support this sweeping generalisation?
Perhaps you could link what you think is the definition, as I can’t find anything that reflects the pejoratives in your sweeping generalisation? Also since you started with “I think of them as” and “I also think most of them have”, maybe you can see why someone might be dubious that this was a commonly held definition you were using, as opposed to an unevidenced prejudice, hence my request for some objective evidence.
Well I think it precisely shows why I find that notion ridiculous, as it entirely subjective.
Not at all, this is the exact opposite of what I was asserting, so I must assume I have not made myself clearly understood. A false balance, or bothsidesism fallacy, is a bias in which a specific issue is presented as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports.
Whereas I am asserting that all issues should be judged on their merits, and not on which end of the political spectrum they emerge. FYI if anyone thinks I judge the merits of an idea without proper objective evidence or rational argument being presented in support, then they’re very wrong.
)
