i disagree with this though. its cause everyone is so cultured to be narcissistic; the nature of money is narcissistic. if everyone thought humanitarian then perhaps third be less problems. if i lived in a nabore hood where no one thought about jacking cars, then that problem wouldn't exist. now what if someone states "this is so nice i don't half to worry about my car getting jacked" now that problem is a variable.
to ground myself though, i could understand how it could be seen as a waste of time. if no one els is doing it then why bother, or if it doesn't effect you then who cares. i look at it like a giant game, and being humanitarian doesn't get you further in it.
however if your in a river of shit are you going to just say fuck it im already covered in shit?
Definition according to the British Humanist Association
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic) makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.
Thanks to more celebrity Humanists such as Stephen Fry and Prof Brian Cox, it seems to be slowly growing.
The objectivism movement's pretty popular right now, and they're a branch of humanism. It's a shame they're now on the Republican-buttcamp and misread the message of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged en masse.
Humanism: Any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate. A variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God. Source: Dictionary.com - [link]
Yeah. I know how dictionaries work. That "meaning" is a long winded way for someone to pretend that their ideology takes into account "human interests" as if other ones were designed to appeal to what's worst for everyone. I explained it in my first post.
Humanism has a meaning; the problem is no one can sum it up nicely enough to come to agreement on a comprehensive definition. "God" has the same problem, so if you want to argue humanism is meaningless, you're also arguing god is meaningless in my opinion.
If it were up to me, I'd define it as any of several ideologies that emphasize the most valued human achievements and abilities. There's several because what's valued differs by culture and over time, eg humanism in the 1500's was different from modern secular humanism.
The word god IS nigh-meaningless for almost exactly the reason you described. Lots of people have meaningless conversations with eachother based entirely on either lumping more ideas or less together than the person they're talking to wants to. Some people miss other's points entirely, and others assume they "should" be making more based on a mere definition.
For instance, I can;t even count the amount of times I've seen someone talking about the concept of god, and someone else going "but do youUU mean teh ZEUS?" even though that is an entirely different concept. The (pretend) confusion stems from the fact that there is two different things sharing the same word merely because the ideas vaguely overlap in some areas.
However, humanism is different since the definition in and of itself seems to be implying that it is doing something that is not hypothetically true for everything. (if it is not, said things likely fall to similar prey that the internal logic of humanist philosophies then would) An automatic begging the question. And since it makes no additional claims, then for someone to use it to describe an ideology is meaningless, since it's not describing what it's actually doing. It's only being used as a phrase meant to discredit others by saying they do not take into account enough human interest. Which is trying to use what is a hypothetically objective word to make a subjective statement, even if it were hypothetically correct that those ideologies failed to succeed at their goals.
Or in other words, what I said before, but with more words.
I agree, hell I tend to be first in line to ask "which god?" I see what you're saying, but a term being vague or too broad doesn't make the various concepts it is used to represent meaningless. The concepts just need better terms or the terms need better definition or both. The definition of humanism is too broad but the concepts it's used to represent are distinctive.