Secular humanism
Secular humanism is a philosophy, belief system or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.
Wikipedia

I have some reading to do.

At least that's how I identify myself if someone asks, "what religion are you"? Then I have to explain what Secular Humanism is, but that's alright.

I came to Secular Humanism through the Center for Inquiry. https://centerforinquiry.org/
which is a fantastic depository of information for Atheists, Secular Humanists etc. I saw Richard Dawkins give a talk there in a very intimate and quiet setting. I'm lucky to live so near the center.

...but then I decided that worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster was more fun! Nevertheless, I think we probably agree on a whole lot! Peace!

less messy than dealing with the FSM though. At least that was my experience. All that sauce mess and spaghetti noodles on the wall (which is still the best way to test if the noodles are ready, or not) was just too time consuming for me.

Secular Humanism's only drawback (as far as I'm concerned, anyway) is how long it takes to write out "Secular Humanism" every time you want to send someone an email about the definition of Secular Humanism. 😉

conception of god. When I ask why should I find any kind of god at all, they go into mute mode.
I'm not sure I ever believed in god, even tho' I attended church, Sunday school, prayer meetings, tent revivals, etc. ad nauseum.
The fundamental idea of god is anathema to me.

but my whole belief system is centered around the fact that most of the others are koo koo and those that run them are in it for the money.

Throughout history religion has been used as a means of control by those who seek worldly wealth and power. How much injustice, cruelty, and death has been dealt in the name of God?

My parents were not religious, and they never tried to influence me one way or another. From a young age I reasoned that all these competing religions purporting to be the one true path to God and salvation can't be right, so I decided none of them were.

My big existential question has always been Why and How is there Anything? If Everything can be traced to all the matter and energy released from the Big Bang, that still doesn't answer my question. I freely admit I lack the perception and intelligence to honestly answer that question with anything approching certainty.

Of course, the easy and comforting answer is God. Ever since human beings were able to contemplate their own mortality, fear of death drove the need to believe in an afterlife -- so Man created God, in his own image, of course. The certainty of that belief still prevails.

In a unverse with billions of galaxies, the conceit of mankind has been that it's all for and about us. With all our science and "genius" we have barely scratched the surface. We keep pushing the envelope of observing and testing physical reality, but how much closer are we to The Answer?

And is the How and Why as important as What we should do with the Life that we have?

To answer that question we need to turn inwards, and also to each other.

And, in my opinion, belief in God and religion is more of a roadblock than an avenue to the kind of enlightened evolution humanity so desperately needs on this beautiful planet for which we have been such terrible shepherds.

Doubt is the very basis of reason.

Faith rejects faith, thus rejecting reason, and embracing delusion.

Doubt is my "savior", reason, my "god".

May reason rule.

I've gone from good little Catholic girl, to generically spiritual, to a kind of Buddhist, to it's gotta be the Universe, to we humans can't be the top of the pyramid, we're too flawed, to there's something out there...

Atheists may deny the existence of a creator or intelligent design but can never PROVE their belief.

Consider a random number generator the results of which are sufficiently unpredictable to convince us that they are truly random. The algorithm that creates the numbers may simply be beyond our finite comprehension.

I accept evolution and the lack of a guiding hand, but without knowing these as absolute facts, I'll hedge in being agnostic.

First atheism asserts a lack of belief in a god not a denial of a god. The onus is on the hoper and believer to proof their assertion of the existence of a god.
Second agnosticism equates theism (lacking in proof) with atheism (lacking in belief) which is not equitable. Just as Republican Party hypocrisy is not equivalent to Democratic Party ideals and intentions. To equate the two is not an honest and fair comparison.

atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
deny = state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of

If atheism inherently places the onus on the believer as you say, then isn't the atheist always expressing implicit or explicit denial of god's existence by demanding evidence? "I don't believe god exists, so prove me wrong" condoned by semantic interpretation?

Furthermore it feels presumptuous to place the onus on believers when in fact albeit unlikely, they may be correct. This isn't criminal law where only one prosecutorial side deserves the burden.

In sum, to me it seems that admitting human limitations, I'd rather call myself agnostic than atheist.

Thanks for the input

I considered myself an agnostic for twenty plus years but after considerable consideration now disavow such a stance. My epiphany was the inability to square the legitimacy of a claim to faith as the basis of belief in an unproven god with the logic of true skepticism of such. They just didn’t balance and for me to continue an equivocating stance in the middle granting credence to both views was untenable.
But then we are talking personal belief/disbelief philosophies here so there is room for us to coexist.
Carry on and thanks for the Sunday morning chat.

There are nuances but agnosticism is basically the belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

For me there's no attached claim of faith whatsoever and skepticism is my middle name, so just like physicists said there's a God Particle, I'm saying it is not impossible that there actually is a god and we'll never know.

I think it is also kinder to say to believers that I just don't know rather than I believe that they are wrong.

Of course, we can coexist fellow democrat! Cheers!

Have you ever heard of a Christian proving their belief?

I have never seen any evidence from any Christian to prove that there is a god.

To me atheism means waiting for evidence and proof of gods. Not claiming there are no gods. It's just that there isn't enough evidence for any god's existence. So, I don't believe until the religious can prove it. Like I don't believe in Bigfoot, ghosts or demons until there is evidence for them.

When I was young I had to be taught about gods. As a baby, I was born atheist. All the animals I have observed don't worship gods either. It is the natural state of humankind to not believe in gods. Gods must be carefully taught.

If a god shows up tomorrow and proves himself, I'll believe in him. But somehow I doubt that if there were definitive proof that NO gods existed, the religious would stop believing in whatever god they buy into.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Atheists do not believe that god exists.

"I don't believe Bigfoot exists" is naturally different from "I just don't have any evidence and probably never will." I accept that proof for god is forever unattainable. You just say you're waiting for the unattainable to show up one day.

Thanks for the input

I'm fine with, most religion, for others depending on the outcome for them. They just have a different Locus of Control.

What Is Locus of Control?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/locus-control

Locus of control refers to the degree to which an individual feels a sense of agency in regard to his or her life. Someone with an internal locus of control will believe that the things that happen to them are greatly influenced by their own abilities, actions, or mistakes. A person with an external locus of control will tend to feel that other forces—such as random chance, environmental factors, or the actions of others—are more responsible for the events that occur in the individual's life.

Like other constructs in personality psychology, locus of control falls on a spectrum. Genetic factors may influence one’s locus of control, as well as an individual’s childhood experiences—particularly the behaviors and attitudes modeled by their early caregivers.

Researchers have identified several areas in which one’s sense of control appears to affect outcomes, including education, health, and civic engagement. Overall, such research has generally suggested that those with a more internal locus of control are more successful, healthier, and happier than those with a more external locus.

I love the study of religions, I just don't think I fit. I'm less judgmental and look for the good as well as bad to them. Lots of wars fought and evil has been a result of religion. Also it may have saved others from addictions and harm to others. I can find lots of good from St. Frances and St. Claire and their concern for animals and the poor. But, they too were a little to much into authoritarianism for my taste. I use to watch the Madalyn Murray O'Hair Show late at night on tv. She had some great ideas, but her life was a bigger mess than most and didn't end well for her and her family. She seemed to be full of hate.Like I said, it's all terribly interesting. I subscribe to much of Eastern Philosophy. Those that don't rely on gods.

Perhaps it is all a form of tribalism, like love or hate the other team in todays Super Bowl. Depends on which tribe you're born into.

What ever you think is ok with me, as long as it's for you and not forced on me.