This is the thread to which I am referring. The most upvoted comments are all about circlejerking over 'Catholic priests, lolchildmolesters.' I tried to point out that disrespect for any person, regardless of creed is pretty rude, and was chewed out for not 'lightening up' or other comments about how Catholicism basically justifies mocking of priests and disrespecting them. I really, really hate this kind of attitude, because if it's viewed as silly to show respect for people whose ideology I disagree with, then what good is humanism? At times, the sentiment that atheism is just another religion seems quite justified.

this place seems more like an atheist circle-jerk than humanism ngl. i know the doing good and bad without reward thing kinda wants no deities or karma but geez people here seem much more interested in atheism and religion than the whole part that includes idk, humans???

We are all the same.

We seek love. We honor life. We desire safety. You and I may have different ideas about what love is; but we all seek it- consciously, or subconsciously. I may honor life one way, and you another. Different things may make us feel safe. Maybe sky-diving makes you feel safe, because you find safety in freedom and excitement. If your neighbor Joe Blow is a sex addict, that may be how he is subconsciously seeking love. Your niece may honor life by being a vegetarian, someone else may honor life by attending anti-abortion rallies. You may disagree with many people; but they are likely trying to achieve the same things you are: finding love, honoring life, and feeling safe.

No matter how different we are from someone else, we are really never so different. We spend far to much time exploring our differences, and not nearly enough time exploring our similarities.

"Embrace a diversity of ideas. Embrace the fact that you can disagree with people and not be disagreeable. Embrace the fact that you can find common ground - if you disagree on nine out of 10 things, but can find common ground on that 10th, maybe you can make progress. If you can find common ground, you can accomplish great things." -David Boies

Embracing diversity comes more naturally to some than it does for others; and although this is a bit nature and nurture, I believe this quality lies mostly in nature. I wasn't particularly nurtured to embrace diversity; but it was always something which came very naturally to me. This, by no means, makes me special. There are plenty of things that did not come naturally to me, like the ability focus on one thing, or grace, or remembering to get toilet paper on the way home. Although being naturally tolerant doesn’t make one more special, it does make them more capable of inspiring others to be tolerant as well.

People often pick and choose what diversity they will embrace:

I will embrace different ethnicities...except immigrants, Middle-Easterns, or the Dutch....

I will embrace people with disabilities...unless they cost me money...and from a distance...

I will embrace people of differing religions...as long as they stay the HELL away from me...

I embrace diversity; but not actually, because I don't like people who aren't like me.

Discrimination comes from a place of fear: the fear that one's idea of love will be compromised, the fear that one's way of life will be compromised, and the fear that one's safety will be compromised. The human sense of self is prolifically weak. Many people's personal fortitude is brittle, and cannot withstand the presence of others' who do not believe like them, think like them, or live like them. Many people cannot, or will not understand why other people are different; and have been raised to believe that one way of living is right, and that others are wrong. Right and wrong are subjective- they exist on a quickly sliding scale, sometimes violently colliding with things in it's path.

It is difficult for those who embrace diversity to understand why others do not. Our bleeding hearts grow tired and weary of hatred and discrimination; but therein lies prejudice in the bleeding hearts of the tolerant as well:

I practice tolerance for humanity...but I have no tolerance for the intolerant...

...then you are not practicing tolerance for humanity, because intolerant people are still people, they are part of humanity.

Racists, rapists, killers, pedophiles, zealots, crooked politicians, your co-worker who steals your lunch and hates transgenders...they are all people. They are all part of humanity. The definition of tolerance "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with" doesn't have an "except for" or "but" at the end of it. Of course, tolerance and allowance are different actions. You can very well practice tolerance towards a racist, but not allow them to do you or others harm. Being tolerant doesn't mean you regularly throw house parties, and invite delusional religious groups to them. If the bleeding hearts (myself included) are asking, and trying to inspire discriminatory people to be tolerant- we owe it to them to offer them the same tolerance.

And. It's. Fucking. Hard. However, bleeding hearts share blood, we cannot bleed out; and if anyone can raise the bar for tolerance, it is us. It is only us.

Before I was alive, Martin Luther King Jr. marched for Black's rights, Susan B. Anthony was arrested for fighting for women's rights, and Helen Keller tirelessly campaigned for people with disabilities. In modern times, celebrities, politicians, and spiritual figures have crusaded for human rights, LGBTQ rights, tolerance, and love. We have reached a point in social history when it is time to take tolerance to a new level, and we aren't. The bleeding hearts now face our own prejudices, and must overcome them to make progress.

The tolerant have reached a stand still, and we have begun back-sliding into ridiculing people who are not like us. We have started to become...ugly. You may have noticed that society has reached a stand still also: government shut downs, cats games in politics, and even an ever so slight backwards movement into times less humane than we were living in just a few years ago. With all the protests and noise, one would assume we would be making progress; but the noise is not a vibration of love anymore, it is of fear: the fear that love will be compromised, the fear that people's way of life will be compromised, and the fear that people's safety will be compromised.

The bleeding hearts are afraid, and it’s creating a butterfly effect within society.

A lot of people could not see the reason for freeing slaves, fathom women's rights, understand equal rights for all races, conceive of same-sex marriage, or think about rights for people with disabilities until bleeding hearts paved the way. If the bleeding hearts weren't bleeding, we'd all be stuck in a George Orwell novel. Bleeding hearts are social pioneers, and there is a new frontier to be discovered. Coexistence. Yup, just like those lovely bumper stickers.

To attempt to inspire discriminatory, closed-minded people to reach a level of tolerance which surpasses the current level of people who have, are, and will continue to fight for tolerance, would be asinine. I'm not going to try to talk a gator shooting redneck who hates everyone but other gator shooting rednecks into raising the bar for tolerance; but I will ask you to.

It's not the time to be angry or fearful for our future, it is the time to start pioneering the way for a better future. Not everyone is a bleeding heart, not everyone can see all humans as humans; but we can...almost. We must accept those who do not think, believe, or live like us; and we must tolerate their points of view to move on to the next level of humanity. Within our hearts, we must find compassion for the discompassionate; and we must be willing to authentically listen to their points of view. Coexistance is the next step in humanity- we must learn to live, compromise, and delegate together in order to advance as a society.

I petition the bleeding hearts to start this movement. No one else would've fought to free the slaves. No one else would've fought to give women the vote. No one else would've fought to end segregation, for same-sex marriage, for the Dreamers, for mental health, for people with disabilities... No one else will fight for Coexistence. It is time for us to fight for everyone, for unity. I do not petition the bleeding hearts because we are special, or better than, or even responsible for the advancement of humankind; but because we are the only ones who can.

It is us. It is only us.

https://www.choosehappinessbefree.com/single-post/2018/02/17/PWe-Are-The-Samep

Shaving your legs a personal choice, just like anything else. The reason I went out in a skirt without saving my legs, is because It's over 100 degrees where I live and America is one of the few places where women feel obligated to save their legs. Honestly, I would have felt sad any other way. When I shave my legs, I don't feel good and I don't like it. I feel like I'm doing it, just to not be stigmatized. In fact, I read a few places that most women do it, just because they don't want to be made fun of(mainly by other insecure women) or are trying to impress a man. Most women don't enjoy shaving their legs frequently.

I also did this, because I have a sexist father, whom I love. I have been made fun of, just for being a woman in the past. I showed up in front of a customer at work who said, "you're a woman, go get us some cake and tea." I work in retail. There were two of my male coworkers beside him, one who defended him saying It's a joke. I walked off before he finished talking.

If we're already stigmatized for many aspects of us we can't change, then why try to impress people who will accept us, only on conditional terms? They're not worth our time anyways. I've also seen that many men think that women should be obligated to shave their legs.

Obligated to whom? Why do we owe a complete stranger the privilege to deciding what we do with our legs? This stranger didn't rescue us from a burning building and he's not a god. Of course, I got a rude comment and people looking away or staring. I was expecting it and I hope it had them thinking. One girl walked behind me and went, "eew, what's up with that?"

I wished she asked me directly, I would have told her, but she shamefully walked off, unsure of what she just asked. I feel bad for her and every girl told to look a certain way, as I felt she was just saying it, because society told her It's a stigma and she's young and insecure. I sensed that from her. Women naturally have body hair. As a brainwashed society, we are told that women have to be hairless. Have any of you ladies gone around with hairy legs, without covering them up? Why or why not? If not, would you gibe it a try? What do you think of what I did?

I wonder why women don't do it all the time? We should put the razors to rest and stop subjecting ourselves to doing what we feel society makes us feel obligated to do, especially out of insecurity, fear or discomfort. Whenever I shave, my shower takes about 30 minutes longer, as I have sensitive skin and tend to cut myself if I rush. It also takes me 30 minutes to get through a French language course. Je apprendre le français. C'est vast tres bien!

Hi everyone, I'm writing this post because this sub really needs a post on this topic, but so far, all posts about this topic broke our sub rules, created terrible mess of comments and had to be removed. Understandably, Im under no illusion and I know this post will eventually also be flooded with racists and other toxic comments and will get locked on that basis. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. This post will actually be connected to humanism and humanists (and not just "humanity" which is not the focus of the sub; I will also do a meta post on what we consider off-topic later)

What do we say?

I really expected Humanists International to say something new about the "renewed" conflict but there was silence. It seemed that many organizations were stunned by the Hamas attack on October 7, perhaps humanist distrust of islamist fundamentalists overshadowed the distrust of the far-right in Isreali government. But as times goes on and we see more and more tragic destruction of Palestinians and hear more and more about IDF crimes and callousness I would hope that the initial stun wears off! Let's not forget Humanists International is not a stranger to statements on Israel:

• IHEU statement on Israel-Palestine conflict, 2014

• 'Position Statement on Annexation of Palestinian land', Humanists International, Board of Directors, London, United Kingdom, 2020

And some statements from some of the member organizations I know of:

• Call for ceasefire in Gaza, Humanists UK, 21 March, 2024

• Statement on the Middle East, Humanists UK, 13 October, 2023

• Joint Statement from the Forum for Religious- and Life Stance Leaders in STL Condemning the Killing of Civilians in Palestine and Israel (Norway, 27th October 2023)

• "Fritt Palestina" statement from Norwegian Humanist Youth, 2025, (in Norwegian)

So what I decided to say.. I worked with humanists from other countries on a new statement, in summary it calls for: return of hostages, permanent ceasefire, end of the sales of weapons, ensuring humanitarian aid, end of occupation and settlement operation, bringing all warcriminals to justice, ect. Unfortunately we weren't able to submit it before this years Humanists International's general assembly, but the board of HI knows about it, and there's hope that they will finally release an updated statement. On the other hand, the fact that there is already so many statements (even UN level ones) and it doesn't change the situation in any real shape or form makes my blood boil. Isreali government doesn't trust the UN, so it decided to just ignore most of it. It seemed to me that the only chance was USA (Israel used to somewhat listen to them) and USA have decided to elect the most pro-Israeli White house ever. Let's not forget that it was probably Trump's relocation of US embassy to Jerusalem in 2018 was a last big provocation before Oct8 attacks, but that's kind of going into unproductive speculation.

To keep the discussion productive

What do you think are the best comprehensive articles and links that you would add as footnotes to our statement? Was there an article/story that changed your mind personally? Please share.

And please add value to your comments, if what you want to say was already said, perhaps keep it to upvoting and downvoting. On this particular controversial thread, I will be doing heavy moderation to keep it productive as long as possible. Thank you!

Hi there, my 40 years of experience (77 now) as a human species humanist believing anything that has mass and takes up space organic or inorganic may also possess an essence perceivable to the sensory receptors of an individual or group. Let's give this essence a label, let's call it a soul and make soul innate to the Humanist Trilogy.

My experience collectively is the basis for the Humanist Trilogy, a lifestyle package that individuals can adapt to suit themselves. The only cost to adopting the Humanist Trilogy is a little of your time to occasionally refresh yourself on the principles of humanism and animism spread over the rest of your life, well worth it. The financial cost is nothing.  It is a privilege to help you become aware of your human heritage; it belongs to you.

Losing someone reminds us how deeply connected we are to others. We cannot control how long someone stays in our lives, but we can appreciate the time we have with them. Perhaps accepting this can help us value our relationships more.

I've been thinking about sustainability from a human behavior angle, and it made me wonder whether we're losing some basic knowledge about how to live sustainably. My grandparents lived in ways that today would be considered environmentally friendly, but they weren't thinking about climate change. It was simply how life worked. They reused everything:

• Old pullovers were unraveled and knitted again

• Sour milk was used to make fresh cheese

• A chicken was used entirely — meat, organs, bones

• Food waste was almost nonexistent

It wasn’t about virtue. It was just necessity. Food and materials were valuable, labor was relatively cheap, and waste was costly.

Today it’s almost the opposite, we live in abundance. Food and materials are cheap, labor is expensive, and convenience dominates. As a result:

• People throw away edible food

• Meat is consumed daily, often wasted

• Many people don't know how food is produced or processed

• Some foods are rejected simply because they seem "unpleasant" to modern sensibilities

It feels like we might be losing some basic practical knowledge that once connected people more closely to reality — to food, materials, and consequences of waste.

There's also an ethical dimension. We produce enough food globally to feed everyone, yet some populations face undernourishment, while others struggle with obesity and overconsumption. At the same time, huge amounts of food are wasted.

This feels like a paradox of abundance. When resources are plentiful and cheap,, it becomes harder to value them. Waste becomes easier, and the practical knowledge that once encouraged careful use start to disappear..

Sometimes I wonder whether responsible behavior is actually easier when there are constraints. Scarcity used to push people toward efficiency and reuse — not because they cared about sustainability, but because they had to. Abundance removes those pressures.

This also makes me think about how modern incentives work. Making resource-intensive food more costly might encourage more thoughtful consumption, yet the deeper issue may be structural — rooted in how modern societies produce and distribute abundance.

In a world of abundance, responsibility must come from somewhere else: awareness, culture, education, or social norms rather than necessity.

How do we cultivate responsible behavior in a world of abundance — without relying on crisis or scarcity?

Curious how others think about this.

What is there in Humanism when a new human life is conceived with no forethought by both sexual partners to stay connected, and committed to seeing the child well taken care of until of adult age?

Additional: I was asked to rephrase this, as a card carrying Humanist, I would find it appalling if I found it was true that such an organization as Humanist, proclaiming to be rational, scientific and thoughtful would set forth ideals of absolute freedom of sexual expression without clearly indicating the realities possible with such activity. So I ask is there anything regarding an education program of not just the Pros sexual freedom but the many Cons including the possibilities of bastard unloved children, STD's which can literally killed if not cause lifetime pain and expensive medical care and costs?

We already have enough children whose parents can only say, I didn't consider you and your life, I was drunk and wanted to get my freak on wit dis bitch or dude in the bar, Instead of; you conceived on purpose and with love and with a concern for your future mental health and proper education.

So, does my Humanism organization have an education program for informed safe sex with routine doctor visits, before the sexual act, with birth control measures training, and the rights and dignity of the future humans considered at all times before conception??