Why I, as an Atheist, Am No Longer a Humanist

Just a random question: In arctic and sub-arctic cultures, how would any version of "ethical veganism" have even the slightest bit of appeal?

Humanism to me just sounds like "live, laugh, love" as a philosophy

An atheists motto should be: think long, think wrong. Trapped in their own thinking, atheists suffer from akedia, or an addiction to the noonday devil of despondency. Akedia is a lack of concern for salvation. So, to distract themselves atheist's get busy extremely, with observations of natural things, as an escape from their despair. This escapist attitude, fueled by fear and anger, sees objective values merely as colors, believes evolution refutes God's Creation, turns God into Santa Claus, doesn't realize that degrees of Truth exist, are ontologically insane by feeling awe for the wrong things, absolutize relative fomulations, relish going against religion just to follow someone else for shock value alone, fear radical change, don't understand what will happen to them after death, are unable to make a definite decision, suffer from intellectual pride, misuse their reason by ambiguous terms, false premises, and logical fallacies, are ripe for the post-modern cabal to step in and tell them what to do, deny free will, don't have the faintest idea what is meant by apophatic and kataphatic Knowledge, refuse to believe in Christ by denying what He did for us, he along with the pomos have no sense of hierarchy, no deference to authority, have mired common sense in the effects instead of the Cause, and finally, they and the pomos undertake a heresy of language, calling black white and white black. Just look at the clickbait this sapsucker is using to pull you atheists in: I'm a former humanist gone atheist! Really, looks like to this Christian he's just flat out, LOST. And, please, if someone responds to this post, don't unload a bunch of atheist cliches. Respond to what I say, point for point . . .

Excellent video, one of the most enlightening and well put together videos I have come across in some time. It matches my own evolution from considering myself a humanist to being more of a sentientist, at least as far as labels go, which I try to avoid like the plaque. Not that the two terms need be mutually exclusive, they aren't, though it is fascinating that so many think so.
What fascinated me even more was the reaction of Matt Dillahunty to your video. His irrational response to consider veganism, (Eat meat, don't eat meat, fine, just don't debase yourself attempting the mental gymnastics required to rationalize your choice to continue consuming animal products), along with his increasing issues with anger, vitriol, bullying, being easily triggered, and being a poor representative for atheism writ large, contributed to my avoiding anything he is connected with. Such a waste.

This was surprisingly interesting! I would describe myself as a Humanist; I don't think that my understanding of Humanism requires human exceptionalism, but on the topic of animals, although. I'm not currently vegan, I certainly agree with your conclusions. If you have gone on to make another video on the practical way forward I would be very interested, as I think that's (for me at least) the stumbling block - it's difficult to stop using animals in a culture that relies so heavily on animal agriculture. (Not to mention some additional health challenges).

I would love to know if you've ever made a pit stop along the Deist route? Or if you've ever considered non theistic spirituality/ do you consider yourself spiritual at all? Love your content and the calm tone in which you present your ideas.

I'm skeptical. Being a skeptic lead me to question religion, gender ideology, the humanist manifesto.
I question anyone who leaves religion and becomes humanist as someone too weak to stand on their own 2 feet.

in a world without gods, doesn't any form of ethics necessarily start with the elephant, rather than the rider? how do you deduce moral reasoning if not starting from some form of hardwired preference, i e. basic instinct?

Humans are natural storytellers... stories diffuse anxiety.
Mythic religious stories, dream interpretation, meditation,
exultations on drug use and love, etc. Are all methods to escape,
the blunt rawness, the ultimate meaninglessness of reality,
and therefore ourselves.

They infuse the flow of your existence with purpose.
They're all trips to the candy store... and when you've gorged,
yourself stupid. You sing to yourself your favourite lullaby.

Humans are gods, complex, spiritual beings, near infinite in depth.
Because we believe in the stories we form... that tell us we are.
It takes a brave person to not rely on other peoples stories,
as antidotes for their innate anxiety... for being only mortal.

I am me and try not to become a self important dick.

Religion has failed, technology has failed in a way as to create a situation of extinction, at the end of the day what we do now matters, we are not the center we are the victors and the victims but as humans we now hold in our hands the fate of all around us. We were never meant to last forever but our length of existence as a species is now becoming more finite the more our knowledge or lack of in our existence on earth. As humans we have a choice of what future we have on earth for ourselves and what is around us. We live in a violent world, from microscopic animals to the highest life forms, we have learned from the nature of our environment, we have conquered, but we have won nothing and are about to lose everything. God will not help us, we must help ourselves for good and bad. We are what we are, but the future belongs to our efforts now.

so what you better than the loins and vultures now?

My views are similar. I can't completely label myself as a humanist, though I share many of the values associated with humanism. I'm glad I chose to watch your video, I definitely relate. Thank you 🙏🏽💞

I am so glad that i came back to your channel. It takes a great mentality to come back from that angry dissonant state of mind. I thoroughly enjoy your eloquent way of speaking

I was already a vegan of a few years when i read animal liberation but it still maneged to shock my word views
At the time i thought it was okay to explore animals if we absolutely had to, like for medication testing, but after i read this book i couldnt agree it was logically ethical anymore.
However, after 6 years and some personal problems i stopped being a vegan and regressed back to being a vegetarian. While i still consider it unethical and wish to be vegan again the future
I am choosing my own self preservation right now

So, Atheist, humanist, satanist, what ever you are, if God didn't create the universe. Who did, what did? I Want an answer. No more BlackMatics. Some Energy, Some Phyics, Some Thingy we cant explain. Because that IS God. Its just another way to say its God that lets you off the hook atheist.

Huh. I used similar logic of “beliefs should follow reasoning, not the other way around” but reached a different conclusion. Essentially, we are all posed with a problem: some animals have comparable, or even greater ‘intelligence’ than babies and toddlers. Still we simultaneously want to keep the beliefs that babies are more valuable, ethically speaking, than something like a pig, yet many say that the distinction between the values of humans and pigs is mental capacity and sentience. I know that it’s impossible to prove any person or thing is actually sentient, but for the sake of argument lets say that things at or greater than the intelligence of a 3 year old likely are at least partially sentient. We can’t say that a baby is worth more than a fully grown pig when it kind of seems like pigs might be ‘more sentient’ than babies.

You took this, and ‘chose’ to disregard your emotional ‘default’ that pigs aren’t worth saving, in favor of maintaining the belief that babies are worth saving. As heartless as it seems, I did the opposite. My conclusion is that our natural inclination towards valuing small children more (think how the punishment of child murder is significantly worse than normal murder) is analogous towards our disinclination towards incest. There really isn’t anything morally wrong about it, if it’s all consensual and safe, but the evolutionary pressure of not having children who are less likely to survive in the wild was powerful enough that we naturally don’t find those who look like us attractive, and even animals will steer away from it.

Of course, seeing fully sentient life as extremely valuable, I still ‘need’ a reason to value babies, as to not be a total creep. My reasoning is that babies are the potential of a human, and also represent a small portion of humanity’s future as a whole. That sheer potential is really valuable... which also has weird implications. One of such is the implication that the act of... ahem... fertilization, when in the context of two people who intend to have and raise a child, is just about as valuable as the future baby themself. This is because both represent the potential of a sentient being, while not being sentient in of itself.

I recognize that it’s far, far from a perfect representation of how things ‘should be done’, and that my interpretation is in no way superior to Drew’s. In fact it’s probably worse, but it’s the best I can reason with myself, and I don’t see any major flaws in it other than it’s a bit uncomfortable. There’s a decent chance no one’s going to read this, but if you’re reading this, then hi! I am totally down for a debate on this topic (I’ve kinda thought about it too long) and if you reply to this, I’d be glad to talk with you. Either way, have a great day!

Cheese dude, you think too much if you understand human history, humans have always respected other animals, but still ate them. Because when they did kill them, they also honored them and thanked them. People think that animals live forever they get killed by other animals and they also diethat tell that to a bear that you’re humanly basically equal to him and he will eat your face off

Does humanity belong to humanity? Secular humanism needs a full unpacking, or a refutation

Clickbaity

Humans are at the center of the cosmos in the same way a spider is to it. Of course we put a lot of importance on ourselves. But just as as a spider is of no signifcance to the entier planet humans are also just another collection of atomic processess in the cosmos. To that I say, so what. Does a spiders insignificance make it's web any less facinating?

To me all I can say to this is “so what?” I don’t care if we are central or not I just only care about humans and the suffering of animals is barely an issue to me. All moral come from us not some cosmic law so an animal or some weird metaphysical idea doesn’t matter only the human and my biological species matters to me.

So, you must consider chicken farms kind of equal to the holocaust? Or why not?

What are you doing, if other people choose to eat animals. Is human freedom less important than animal lifes? Are you really considering animal life and human life as kind of equal? Then? Do your new morals force you, to take away other human's freedom? Why not?

Is a fox killing a chicken ok, because it's in his nature and he doesn't really have a choice? Do we as humans have fewer rights than a fox, so to speak? Does it pain you less, when a fox kills a chicken, compared to a human killing a chicken? Why should it, if you consider life as somewhat equal across species? What if there was a carnivorous-only species with human like intelligence? Would them killing chickens be ok? We have a choice, but eating/using animals kind of is in part of our nature just as well.

I went down that rabbit hole too. In the end I realized, as an atheist, I simply believe human life is special. No matter what morals, rules, guidelines or considerations I came up with, that's just what it came down to. The simple truth that I will never be able to either rationalize away, nor justify rationally: I BELIEVE human life is special. And I will never be able to change that.

I refused humanism on a broader account of why humans are not the canter of the universe, which was mostly due to a refutation of some ideas about language and what logic is. However, it is possible to stop being a humanist, stay reasonable and use animal products. I do not think that the capacity to suffer is the essential limit, when it comes to questions of morality.

This is why, despite religious practice/belief being at all time lows, many are reluctant to embrace the Atheist label. Any philosophy which espouses treating your species with no greater concern than others is as biological ignorant as creationism.

Interesting to hear you speak about this. It shows to me that you are more compassionate than I am. I value human life over animals but I still respect animal life and would not want to cause suffering. I’m not ready to give up meat tho.

One can look up at the stars and be crushed into humility and inspired by our existence at the same time. Yes we are not even a blip on the cosmic timeline. But we are life and life is preciously rare in this cold dark universe. I guess I was naive to think this understanding was taken for granted. My friends group came to this when we were 16. I just kind of assumed it was part of growing up. I hope believers can find comfort in this one day.

So, I read the title as "Humanitarian" instead of "humanist", so i got a lil confused

correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that humanism, in the context of human vs. animal suffering, consists of encouraging our capacity as humans to view the issue objectively. Objectivism allows us to accept that we do have a problem with our food industry, and as humanists, rationally deduct a solution that is not shaped by superstition or religion-based morality. I don't believe the practice of humanism presupposes anthropocentrism, but the practice of humanism is accepting problems and limitations and seeking rational solutions. There are rational, humanist solutions to the problem of animal suffering.

One thought I kept having while watching this was it explains flat earth nonsense too

Funny how the reasons he says about being vegan align with the idea of "we first feel than we find reasons".

He just felt infants, mentaly "handcaped" and animals should not suffer because of what he feels with empathy and then he found reasons not to harm then... and then he stopped being a meat eater so he could be logic consistent as eating meat could make an argument against the group he wanted to protect.
Not saying he's wrong on anything, just making this observation.

When you get this video recommended to you while you are eating a burger...

I got into anti-humanism through psychoanalysis (my major), where people are treated as "talkinbeing" or whatever you might translate the neologism parletre, formerly talking being, and the structuralism approach brought forth by Jacobson's Linguistics and levi-strauss previously. the point here was to hold human, and their differences from animals (that of language) at the same level of the bicentenial man or star trek's data. these are all talkinbeings. btw i dont know Haidt to be revelant since his not only humanistic but inherently central role of individuals/social psychology cannot but rely on the mixture of a biological model for social sciences and the liberal humanistic values of 3 centuries ago. You may not like sentience/self-consciousness/rationality or even language as an indicator/criteria that ends up excluding fetuses, babies, feral children, braindead and severely impaired schizophrenics, to which I have no problem with, just as I don't have a problem with slaughtering animals in the least painful way (and unfortunately that means factory farms, although going to the end I'd prefer the world to overhaul it's economy based on vegeterian, sustainable consumption (and fish and chicken to some extent) for Climate Change, being able to reduce fossil fuel use to fringe geographies/cases (less than 1% of that of today)

I'll only give consideration to beings who if healthy and whole could play a round of CSGO

Except Humans are not Animals

This tension between our fundamental perception of human importance and the belief that humans are fundamentally no different from animals is only one of atheism's logical inconsistencies.

Not sure I get the point of this, since humanism isn't against animal welfare.

I see (evolutionary) humanism as a special case of sentientism. Humans are animals, so humanism is when you concentrate on humans when asking about the nature of beings and how to organise life in a shared reality. It's still about considering every entities interests in a fair way, which is called ethics.
Like scepticism is a special case of epistemic rationality where you concentrate on edge case hypotheses about reality.

One would be hard pressed to find any humanist who conflates that with human supremacist. Humans are animals, a part of nature, and very much dependent on nature. We can't survive without other living beings and we can't exist separate from them. I've always seen compassion and empathy towards all living things as an integral part of humanism, and my belief in reducing the suffering or unnecessary harm towards other living beings is very much informed by humanism.

When I learned I'm not really that special, that's when I became so free to explore the world, unburden by the need to keep up with my illusion of self-grandeur

As a Christian, I have always rejected humanism calling it hubris. The center and the measure of all things is God, not His creation.

Whether secular or religious veganism is a best way forward for a variety of reasons.

Now I remember what I wanted to add. Be careful that you don't get caught in the trap of securing perfect philosophical positions so that it becomes your religion. Check to see if you may be prone to that. Paul Tillich... ultimate concern. If you aren't familiar, look into it. Otherwise, breathe.

Though out of context, Tennyson's line, "... nature red tooth and claw..." fits here. Creatures cause suffering to creatures. The difference is in degree. We kill and eat to survive, like many omnivores, yet we are also acquisitive. We hoard and are gluttonous. We kill for greed and social status, whereas other carnivores and omnivores kill to survive and not much more. Suffering is part of the order of things. That's why Jainism seems excessive.
Your intellectual skills are good, though are you able to get outside yourself? Perfection is a tough taskmaster. You know... it doesn't have to be the enemy of the good.

My comment has essentially a purely semantic basis. I have loved watching your videos, close to never disagree with anything you say, and have an immense admiration and respect for your erudition, eloquence, and capacity to put things into words. FWIW I call myself a Humanist because I promote ideas that (hopefully would) foster us humans getting along with each other. This includes having fewer of us (to the extent that ecological considerations wouldn't be at all difficult, to the benefit of all living things). But consider a variation on the railroad switch dilemma. You're at the switch with two runaway train approaching. You can't send the two in the same direction. There are three tracks. One leads to dozens of plants, the other has a mother cat and her 4 kittens on it (such that the train can't go over them), and the other has a baby carriage with a single human baby in it.

I completely agree, and I believe the things you are saying should be shared the world over...I'm still having my ribeye...

Missing from the issue as discussed in the video, is the point that yes, we ARE exactly like all other species, which ALL feed on the death of each other, the result of evolutionary processes, often as the result of violence, and frequently, while the organism bring consumed is still alive and probably aware. There is no "demotion" for humans in this revelation, in fact, it is an elevation to superiority to think that somehow animals have equal rights that humans should recognize. The lion doesn't consider the gazelle's "feelings" over being eaten, nor does it consider that the gazelle should be given the same "rights" that the lion has as it goes about living. There is no ethical issue involved for simply following the dictates of Nature. Becoming vegetarian, or vegan, ignores the obvious biological point that plants are also living beings. From MPOV, as a biologist, it is sophistry to say that eating plants is ok- they don't feel pain, or have brains like animals do- while condemning the consumption of animals.