@fulhamish,
Mostly that more than any other species that has existed, we have demonstrated the ability to change our surroundings and the intelligence to understand the impact of that on others. Thus we have the greatest ability and responsibility to do so mindfully.

But as a Secular Humanist, you believe in good works, and working towards a better world, perhaps a even a possible utopia, or as the christians might call it heaven on earth... so you have far more in common with them than you do with an Atheist who doesn't believe in good works or doesn't trust other humans.

Hence the political label is rather less than useful for identifying similar groupings.

@Ora,
If you're suggesting that my world view has more in common with that of a humanitarian Christian than with that of a nihilist, you're absolutely right.

@ Yellow, I agree that by and large atheists are as moral as theists. We are, after all,made in God's image. My take on that is that we are all endowed with free will. That is what sets humanity apart. I afraid that you are stuck with this quality, whether you believe or not. :-)

The thing is YJ, it's not accounting for the fact that I exist in a middle ground between belief and non-belief.

I think no one has ever shown a good reason to believe in God, but I still sort of think God might be real. I just feel that this is an unjustified position.

So in the meantime I pray because why not? And when someone tells me about a religious belief they have that strikes me as nuts at first, my reaction is to say "well, you might be right after all. Interesting belief."

fulhamish, please do not conflate "belief" with "having faith." Though there is some overlap in meaning, in a religious discussion "faith" has a very distinct meaning vis a vis a higher power.

Actually, I was looking for polytheism to say I was apolytheism. In reality, I can't claim perfect Christianity either as I have some doubts to the veracity of the divinity of Christ. My views are more of his dedication to his fellow human but I question the veracity of the witnesses of his ressurection or even of his death as they were his believers anyhow and we have historical evidence that just a few centuries ago, people were buried alive because they were thought to be dead.

I know I am about to get called a heretic, but my view is there is a higher power. I don't believe he necessarily gives a fuck about our daily lives any more than we give a fuck about the ants in our ant farms individually. But we do care about the ant farm as a whole and this higher power cares about humanity as a whole.

so this leaves big questions about Christ's role in this caring God's plans. I also don't necessarily believe int he omniscience *across* time or the perfection/absolute good of this power. If he is the same God as the Hebrew God, then he deceived humanity for a long time (legitimately as mankind could not have grasped the idea of the big bang and evolution and billions of years of the existence of the universe) and he got angry and took it out on those who angered him. Anger is not the emotional trait of a perfect deity.

But I believe that possibly something changed his view from that of use being ants in an ant farm to us being beloved pets (billions of beloved pets as it were). I do believe he will care for our needs and desires just as we do our pets and our children.

Think of God as a drunk in the OT who got sober in the NT and has stayed that way. Or if you like as a teen in the OT who matured and developed a higher set of morals that applied to him, not just us in the NT.

And while I believe it is possible that Christ may well have died and been ressurected, I do believe it was a requirement of God nor that it makes Christ one with this God.

OK, so now you all have my view and can see that I'm just fucked up in the head.

Sorry for the mini-obi post there.

Yes, there is a big difference between faith and belief. Belief involves the mere existence. Faith involves more than just believing in God, but trusting in Him to have your best interests at heart and to be there for you when the shit hits the fan.

But considering the min-obi post, take my ideas with a grain of salt or just call me a whack job if you like.

@fulhamish yes, I am happily "stuck" with a morality. Does that have a greater significance that I'm not aware of?

@thucy I don't know if you haven't been following, but I feel I've beaten this idea of a middle ground to death already. If you don't like my position, then you are welcome to tell me why, but I'm not going to respond to your assertion that this "middle ground called agnosticism" exists between atheism and theism if you won't address the response I've already given (namely, that non-belief IS the middle ground, the default position, the stance that requires no claim).

At Hecks you have hit the nail on the head. Humanists and reasonable (I use that word advisedly) theists have more in common with one another than the nut-cases they are often respectively partnered with. Be those nutcases the 'new atheists' or 'religious' fundamentalists of various stripes.

@Draug not at all a whack job. I definitely made some assumptions about your stance that might not be entirely true (most Christians, by definition, reject all other Gods, so I felt it was safe).

what's a "new atheist?"

Actually, I support YJ in the default being that there is not enough evidence to declare a god exists with certainty or that one doesn't exist with certainty. when we come out of the womb, our concept of a god is the mommy who gives us food from the bags on her chest.

The question Humanists might address is why do they believe as they do. Why, for example, does Jamie believe in love? Why does Hecks believe in humanity and why is Yellow a 'moral' person? These are toughies for them, for the theists amongst us the answer is that much easier. Occam anyone?

Well, what I am saying to that claim, YJ, is that this middle ground which you call "non-belief" is in fact not atheism.

As I have said, no one understands atheism to mean this, other than people on Reddit.

The best way I know of putting is this:

An atheist debates with a religious person about why they should doubt their religion's teachings.

An agnostic debates with them both about why their debate is futile.

bollox, theists base all their answers on a simple idea which doesn't add any substance.

Sure you can take a short-cut to the answer but that doesn't gain you the value of working it out.

A Humanist has to address these questions, a Theist can lazily assume they are answered without thinking. (not that being a theist requires this, but it is a possibility)

Just because belief gives you an "easier" answer doesn't mean it's the correct one. If that's what you think Occam's razor means you don't understand the argument.

Love, humanity, morality: all of these concepts can be explained in the absence of a God. Adding the concept of a God to these explanations adds nothing of empirical use.

On the other hand, if you accept as a premise that God exists, and that he is responsible for these concepts, you can still add further explanation for each that is practical and also outside the realm of the divine. After doing that, you can drop God and lose nothing empirical.

THAT is Occam's Razor.

Again, pedantry. In reality, if YJ is middle ground with a leanign towards God not existing (and by God, I just mean *any* higher power, not Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah or one of the other "named" gods) then he could say he is atheist just as I call myself a republican or a conservative because I am really a moderate with fiscal conservative leanings.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

The idea of removing God from the equation, as ti were, is really Newton's enhancement of the friar's statement.

@Thucy and I've showed through the 1) statements of those that ascribe to it, 2) common usage, 3) dictionary definitions, and even 4) by observing the latin roots why atheism is exactly non-belief in God, nothing more and nothing less. You're going to have to do better than just saying, "no it isn't," if you're going to continue to press the point.

@Draugnar great link. I hadn't heard it put that way before, but yes, this appears to be exactly what I've been trying to say.

I fundamentally disagree that you can 'explain' love, morality and, particularly, humanity in the absence of God. Presumably you rely on the tenets of evolutionary psychology/behaviourism? Or have you some other mechanism in mind?

As to the New Atheists I am pleased to give you the example of Peter Singer. A guy who believes in, albeit selective, infanticide.

@ fulhamish:

"So Jamie you believe/have faith in 'love'. WHY?"

I don't "have faith" in love. I don't even know what you mean by that.

I know that people feel and express love for each other because I have felt and observed it. That people have emotions is not disputed. The physiological basis for this is quite well understood.

Love is biochemical combined with psychological. Write it off to evolution.
Morality is a contruct of the superego/society so we could learn to live together.
Humanity needs to be defined. Do you mean humane treatment or humanity as in mankind?

@fullhamish:

OK, allow me to retract a bit and merely say that any explanation one could offer that is testable and of predictive use is not enhanced by the addition of a God, and that the reliance on a God to explain these things is not testable nor is it of any predictive use.

At Yellow, have you no hypothesise to offer?

So "new atheists" are atheists who are pro-choice? How boring. I elect to not go down that path. Let's stay focused on more important issues.