Dear Examinator,

I agree that atheism is different from SH. That is why I posted the 6 statements at the beginning of this string. An atheist may only subscribe to the first one.

I ask you again. There is in my mind, no difference between not believing in a supernatural God and A'ism. Atheism is not believing in a God. I know of no other kind of God than a supernatural God. Please explain the difference in your mind.

I just read an interesting book. "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality" by Andre Comte-Sponville. He makes the case that an atheist can have experiences similar to those of a religious mystic. I think he makes a good try at putting an ineffable experience into words.

I am sure I miss many nuances due to being somewhat autistic. In addition I am at odds with the understanding of most of the people on this list. Even if one is an atheist one thinks of religion in terms of the religion one is most familiar with. I am much more familiar with Judaism than with Christianity. It seems odd to refer to a human as God.

I couldn't find my semantical question on "other type" of God. Please refresh me. Perish forbid I should be antisemantic.

I think OlO is an excellent place for a philosophic debate, and you seem like an excellent person to have such a debate with. If this doesn't seem the place for it please start a new string.

Davidf

perhaps I spelled it wrong semantic....an argument over the meaning of words. Not SemEtic which is commonly misinterpreted as being anti jew.
I was as I said refering to the fact that understanding of god (s) means very different things to different cultures.
e.g.In Judaism and Christianity. God is a personage who looks down on men and hands out morals (father figure) etc.
In Sharmanism....there is no such god rather a concept of 'spirits' that are in nature. Unlike the western concept people of this type ARE
part of the nature i.e. they ARE the animals, trees,wind, rain etc.

What I was referring to is that in Both Judaism and Christianity people are separate and the God is above all i.e. SUPERnatural.
Clearly then in shamanism the people the animals etc are all PART of nature and can not be separated into God...nature...morals...people. In that context Supernatural is inappropriate.
Keep in mind Shaman spirits are different to ghosts and western spiritualism really doesn't apply either.
Perhaps you should read some Anthropology or structure of religions it may help
In the context of the differences between SECULAR HUMANISM and Atheism the latter does not acknowledge the subtle difference in what is meant by SUPERnatural as in not of normal natural state.

The some other qualifying differences are that Atheism on dogma can't accept the differences as set out above.
This unfortunately leads to the same alienation from their place in their understanding of their creation/cosmos as does both Judaism and Christianity.

It is all too clear that in most Shaman cultures the separation into discrete areas creates cultural and human catastrophes.

I hope this helps

David.F. I would just like to thank you and all the contributors that agreed with your' thoughts on secular humanism.

At last I have two words that describe how I feel in a world of varying fairytales about so-called Gods.
I am a secular humanist!

I would especially like to thank Runner and Phillo for reminding me why I didn't pursue a religious way of thinking!

david f, would a Secular humanist consider
humans created mythology which creates humans
mostly before the arrival of print?

Dear David f,
I came too late to the interesting thread you started.
>> I consider the above positions more reasonable than any supernatural mumbo-jumbo.<<
Did you want to discuss possible definitions of “secular humanism” (a necessary task to clarify terms before one makes statements about them) or attack alternative positions? Judging from the reactions you received, most people here - whether they agree with you or not - think (for whatever emotional reasons) you wanted the latter.

Returning to your original definition, I think points 4.,5., and 6. are shared by many, also e.g. Christians (including myself) who normally do not call themselves “secular“ humanists. Erasmus is a good example, but there is also a Catholic version of it (Jacques Martian’s Humanisme Intégral).

I think “secular humanist” is the more appropriate name for the non-religious counterparts of those in our society whose world-view contains some religion, than “secularist“ that not only better rhymes with “islamist“ or (Christian) “fundamentalist“ but also should perhaps be retained for the non-tolerant variety of atheists.

>>I can state what I believe without attacking those who believe something different. ... Holocaust which was applied Christianity, etc<<
I certainly share the sentiments of your first sentence, so I would never write ...... well, I am sure you do not need quotes from sources that blame Jews for Communism and most every other calamity in our recent history.

I describe myself as a "de facto" atheist, as I agree with Einstein's famous qualification of a 'personal' God. That is, I find the idea of a God that can (or even needs to) change the 'natural' order of events on behalf of a single petitioner not only illogical, but quite unsubstantiated.
Bad things happen to good people every day.
The other logical problem is, believers start by telling us God is omniscient, omnipotent and all powerful. Such a being would require a mind with computational power greater than (say) the number of stars in the Universe.
These same believers then go on to explain to us just exactly what this supreme mind wants, and how we should please it.
The vast majority of these believers would have trouble understanding the mind of Stephan Hawking, much less God.
Having said all that, I still believe in a God. Perhaps I just can't shake the paradigms I was raised within, but after vacillating for 40 odd years, I have come to think the evidence before us tends to indicate a fractal universe. Everything appears to form a small part of something greater.
In such a universe, an Ultimate being, or conscienceness seems to me, statistically inevitable.
But whether or not such a being exists or not really doesn't matter, as it is far, far more removed from me, than a single atom in the body of someone on the other side of the planet is.
So, thanks to David f''s definitions, I can say I am essentially a secular humanist, while not necessarily an atheist.
Examinator, perhaps you should borrow Oliver's term “supermundane” to differentiate between an elevated God, and Shamanistic spirits, which are still technically supernatural.