• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Humanist and Personal Consciousness

"A true humanist does not believe in a particular religion, and he does not believe that there is a God out there to protect human beings." Difference Between Humanism and Atheism | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

Can I be a card carrying full fledged Humanist and still believe in a personal consciousness after death?

I don't believe in any current religion, yet I still believe our personal consciousness continues after death.

(For the purpose of maintaining topic I'll refuse to answer the who and whys of my belief in personal consciousness.)
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Well from reading the definitions there is no real contradiction in following Humanism and believing in continuation of consciousness at death.

Most atheist and humanists are materialists which would preclude consciousness after death of the physical brain.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
All themes consciousness is only stated by a living human being making all claims.

No one really knows, and most humans make the claim of consciousness existing after death, based on their owned human baby life to adult life inheritance, with babies still being born today as life continuance.

If there is a spiritual consciousness without owning any human expression, then only it knows of its own existence in its own body expressing its own consciousness which no human self would own. If we claim we are aware of it, would mean that we were removed from it, to be in a lower state, to be aware of it existing in a higher condition, than our life.

Which would place it not in any created form.....for we prove by science that knowing our own destruction, which science causes, death before we are meant to die, means that they reason what we never were....being what death imposes, an inability to be conscious. We understand that concept due to early age death.

Therefore we can argue against science claiming that creation owns a higher form of consciousness, for science proves that it never believed it itself.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
"A true humanist does not believe in a particular religion, and he does not believe that there is a God out there to protect human beings." Difference Between Humanism and Atheism | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

Can I be a card carrying full fledged Humanist and still believe in a personal consciousness after death?

I don't believe in any current religion, yet I still believe our personal consciousness continues after death.

(For the purpose of maintaining topic I'll refuse to answer the who and whys of my belief in personal consciousness.)
There is no such thing as a 'true humanist' any more than there is a 'true Scotsman.'
 
Last edited:

ajarntham

Member
"A true humanist does not believe in a particular religion, and he does not believe that there is a God out there to protect human beings." Difference Between Humanism and Atheism | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

Can I be a card carrying full fledged Humanist and still believe in a personal consciousness after death?

I don't believe in any current religion, yet I still believe our personal consciousness continues after death.

(For the purpose of maintaining topic I'll refuse to answer the who and whys of my belief in personal consciousness.)

Yes, you can. The earliest known arguments for personal immortality -- those by Plato's Socrates, in Phaedo -- don't invoke gods. So the arguments were "atheistic," even if Plato wasn't an atheist, and there would be nothing contradictory in an atheist finding them convincing. A more modern atheist who also believed in the survival of personal consciousness after death was J.M.E. McTaggart.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
"A true humanist does not believe in a particular religion, and he does not believe that there is a God out there to protect human beings." Difference Between Humanism and Atheism | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms

Can I be a card carrying full fledged Humanist and still believe in a personal consciousness after death?

I don't believe in any current religion, yet I still believe our personal consciousness continues after death.

(For the purpose of maintaining topic I'll refuse to answer the who and whys of my belief in personal consciousness.)

Even as religious I meet that one. But I have a problem with "true".
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Can I be a card carrying full fledged Humanist and still believe in a personal consciousness after death?

You could define yourself as a humanist or you could make up your own category of belief.
Personal consciousness after death imo would mean the existence of a spirit in you.
I guess that would eliminate you as a purely materialist humanist.
There is evidence of spirit in us with such things as Near Death Experiences where people have had provable out of body experiences.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You could define yourself as a humanist or you could make up your own category of belief.
Personal consciousness after death imo would mean the existence of a spirit in you.
I guess that would eliminate you as a purely materialist humanist.

You don't have to be a materialist to be a humanist.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"A true humanist does not believe in a particular religion, and he does not believe that there is a God out there to protect human beings." Difference Between Humanism and Atheism | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms
This is incorrect. Humanism can also be religious and theistic. The error in the article that this person wrote is that they are conflating Secular Humanism, with humanism in general.

Christian Humanism: Definition & Role in the Renaissance - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com.

Can I be a card carrying full fledged Humanist and still believe in a personal consciousness after death?
Yes. Of course. That article is wrong.
 
This is incorrect. Humanism can also be religious and theistic. The error in the article that this person wrote is that they are conflating Secular Humanism, with humanism in general.

Christian Humanism: Definition & Role in the Renaissance - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com.


Yes. Of course. That article is wrong.

I've looked at Humanist International and American, would I fail their membership requirements, or, another way, would I be not accepting their required beliefs by believing in a continuing personal consciousness? Lets say it this way too, As a person who doesn't care to accept any historical religion, but feels there is a natural/scientific cause for possible continued consciousness after mortal death?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I've looked at Humanist International and American, would I fail their membership requirements,
That is one humanist organization made up of five or so other, mainly secular and atheist versions of humanism. It does not define what humanism is, which can and does include religious thought.

Humanists International - Wikipedia

Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, it is an umbrella organisation made up of more than 160 humanist, atheist, rationalist, secular, skeptic, freethought and Ethical Culture organisations from over 80 countries.[2][3]
Contrast this with Religious Humansim: Religious humanism - Wikipedia.

Self-described religious humanists differ from secular humanists mainly in that they regard the humanist life stance as their religion and organise using a congregational model. Religious humanism is a classic example of a nontheistic religion.​

or, another way, would I be not accepting their required beliefs by believing in a continuing personal consciousness? Lets say it this way too, As a person who doesn't care to accept any historical religion, but feels there is a natural/scientific cause for possible continued consciousness after mortal death?
I think you wouldn't find a good fit in the secular and atheist variety of humanism. They don't define what humanism is.
 
That is one humanist organization made up of five or so other, mainly secular and atheist versions of humanism. It does not define what humanism is, which can and does include religious thought.

Humanists International - Wikipedia

Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, it is an umbrella organisation made up of more than 160 humanist, atheist, rationalist, secular, skeptic, freethought and Ethical Culture organisations from over 80 countries.[2][3]
Contrast this with Religious Humansim: Religious humanism - Wikipedia.

Self-described religious humanists differ from secular humanists mainly in that they regard the humanist life stance as their religion and organise using a congregational model. Religious humanism is a classic example of a nontheistic religion.​


I think you wouldn't find a good fit in the secular and atheist variety of humanism. They don't define what humanism is.

As I perused those home pages I felt uncomfortable with the over whelming negative posts about religion. I feel it is human to want to feel a need or comfort in considering some type of continued consciousness. Although I do myself feel strongly against faith organization, or most all organization as the tend to fall into a money and power with control system. I like the principals of humanism but feel atheism as a requirement self defeating.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As I perused those home pages I felt uncomfortable with the over whelming negative posts about religion. I feel it is human to want to feel a need or comfort in considering some type of continued consciousness. Although I do myself feel strongly against faith organization, or most all organization as the tend to fall into a money and power with control system. I like the principals of humanism but feel atheism as a requirement self defeating.
Yes, exactly. Humanism is about trying to help humanity, rather than focusing on beliefs. That should be inclusive of everyone, regardless of their religious/spiritual views. To make atheism a requirement, is equally as religious as saying faith in Jesus is required. The only thing I see as a prerequisite, is love.
 
Yes, exactly. Humanism is about trying to help humanity, rather than focusing on beliefs. That should be inclusive of everyone, regardless of their religious/spiritual views. To make atheism a requirement, is equally as religious as saying faith in Jesus is required. The only thing I see as a prerequisite, is love.

As we discuss this my thoughts coalesce. Why not take the next step? Why does there even need to be a Group? All groups only seem to be the cause of infinite division. Do we really require a group, for what, to remind us we are Human? As proof that many groups are more harm than good? I agree with you about inclusion. We are by default already in a group. That of mankind. The fault seems the lay at the feet of all those who spin endless categories which declare some are not as perfect as those in the Group. I prefer a secular, agenda. Let each figure out their own personal understanding of life and death. Groups /Organizations are sorta of like Saul/Paul making the statement that the Gospel must be freely given, or it becomes suspect as to the motives of the speaker. I can easily see that all groups/organizations that accept money are highly suspect, in that those at the top are simply Multi Level Marketeers and in it for money, which leads to power?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As we discuss this my thoughts coalesce. Why not take the next step? Why does there even need to be a Group? All groups only seem to be the cause of infinite division. Do we really require a group, for what, to remind us we are Human? As proof that many groups are more harm than good?
I think it has to do with a deeper need of acceptance and inclusion. People will rationalize their beliefs with enough degree of plausibility in order to fit in, even if it means a bit of a sacrifice of integrity along with it. Individuality is something hard-pressed to pursue for many. Safety in numbers is easier than self-actualization. Fear of individual freedom drives a conservative approach to life. Identity is found outside themselves.

I agree with you about inclusion. We are by default already in a group. That of mankind. The fault seems the lay at the feet of all those who spin endless categories which declare some are not as perfect as those in the Group.
The fault lies in fear, and those who are controlled through it. Others control them through their fear. They hide from reality in their fear. Fear keeps them from life.

I prefer a secular, agenda. Let each figure out their own personal understanding of life and death.
I wouldn't call that as much a secular agenda, as a postmodernist one. Postmodernism is at its better end, more inclusive of a spiritual perspective than a strictly modernist, rationalist, atheistic perspective.

Groups /Organizations are sorta of like Saul/Paul making the statement that the Gospel must be freely given, or it becomes suspect as to the motives of the speaker.
That's an interesting interpretation of that. Do you take that statement to mean free for individual interpretation, beyond what the speaker is telling you what you should understand from it?

I can easily see that all groups/organizations that accept money are highly suspect, in that those at the top are simply Multi Level Marketeers and in it for money, which leads to power?
When capitalists meet Jesus, you get a religion. :)
 
I think it has to do with a deeper need of acceptance and inclusion. People will rationalize their beliefs with enough degree of plausibility in order to fit in, even if it means a bit of a sacrifice of integrity along with it. Individuality is something hard-pressed to pursue for many. Safety in numbers is easier than self-actualization. Fear of individual freedom drives a conservative approach to life. Identity is found outside themselves.

Clicks, is what comes to my mind. Maybe I'm slightly autistic, but never understood, nor knew that clicks existed in school. Although my mind quickly felt drawn to the saying, Don't walk in front of my, nor walk behind me, rather walk by my side. I always preferred group decisions rather than allow a 'leader' call all the shots. I worked with a fellow who one time said, "I went to a church and observed from the rear. All it is is a social group, no real attachment to the religion." I feel it might be the Nuclear family, we've lost so much, at least in my family. Lost the extended family. These group allow a Camaraderie without deep personal connections. Like a TV on in an empty house helps dissolve the chill of being isolated. But yes, I was in a group which most obviously over looked blatant dependencies of rules. I've never met any religious person who wouldn't wash over an insane belief but still say they were a follower. I was always of the frame of mind that if you didn't completely all that the faith professed. You ought not stay.


Q;The fault lies in fear, and those who are controlled through it. Others control them through their fear. They hide from reality in their fear. Fear keeps them from life.

Fear is a factor with forced groups, N. Korea comes to mind. Or Control in USA of fear of losing jobs and sorely needed benefits. But in self chosen groups, perhaps the need to be needed. Everyone has their specific emotional needs, but humans mostly seem to mostly want to extend the infant / parent model for their entire life. I often simplify human behavior as similar to dog pack hierarchy.


Q;I wouldn't call that as much a secular agenda, as a postmodernist one. Postmodernism is at its better end, more inclusive of a spiritual perspective than a strictly modernist, rationalist, atheistic perspective.

'I prefer a secular agenda'; I prefer a community based upon secular and not spiritual guidance. Community by full group choices. Keep personal concepts of life and death to the individual to mull over, and never as a group of robot believers.


Q; That's an interesting interpretation of that. Do you take that statement to mean free for individual interpretation, beyond what the speaker is telling you what you should understand from it?

Simply that all groups/organizations seem purely to exist to obtain wealth, power and control at the top. All of the, secular, business, religious. I used Saul/Paul just for example of a religion gone wild. Many professional teachers, in it for the money. The purity is gone as they all evolve into MLM. For example I'm mulling over what a political third party would work best and stay free of the sociopaths who will always seek out the top post where money is control and handled. It must be able to accept donations, but strictly anonymous. None of that money can go to any person to provide a personal living. All must be volunteers, leaving the monies for practical party actions. Which primarily are advertising. Just a rough idea and mind experiment on how to prevent the inevitable corruption all groups and organization eventually devolve to.


When capitalists meet Jesus, you get a religion. :)

Saul/Paul again, a direct order by The leader of the faithful. Don't take money for what is freely given from 'God". Ignored by all it's self professed, professional preachers. Actually it's the same as the 1% who feed off everyone else, from slave like labor, to sexual abuse of children, and misuse of the poor youth to be fodder for the cannons in War Economy. Also another law of God ignored in Abrahamic faiths of do not make money off money, do not charge interest of loans, no stock market.
 
Top