Talk:Life stance

History of term

Does anyone know the history of the term? How wide-spread the usage is? Does it appear much outside of Humanist discussion? Is it used in any nation's laws relating to freedom of belief? A Geek Tragedy 13:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that it originated relatively recently, but the date is unclear. I initially thought it might have been originated with the 1996 document specified as a reference. However, it appears that it was in use at IHEU at least as early as 1993.[1] It does not appear to be used much yet outside Humanist circles. It seems to be fairly widely used among Humanists. I haven't seen any signs that the term appears explicitly in laws; this may be partially because the term is relatively new. -Rhwentworth 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As to how widespread the term is used (or not used) should be mentioned in the article. Alan Liefting 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just done exactly this, though I have no new information to add about where/when the term originated. If anybody digs up more information, a separate "history of the term" section might be in order. WonderClown 13:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added better references on this. It goes back to the 1970s at least. --Dannyno (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just religion

Life stance is religion. Some people don't want others to think of their views as religious, so they term them life stance... it's BS. They figure that everyone who is "religious" is a moron or are being duped while they impose their views as proven right.--71.192.88.79 08:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this point. If you've read the article, it mentions several different religions(e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism). Also, with a few clicks on wiki, we have Christian humanism, secular humanism, humanistic Buddhism, and probably more. With this many opposing view points on religion within the "life stance" category, why do you say "life stance" is religion? and who is imposing their views? who is proven right? If you further read about Humanism, it actually has no basis on religion at all. "Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality."--Pete Iriarte (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like someone is just angry or perhaps bigoted toward the non-religious. Religion implies belief in the supernatural. People who have life stances based on evidence and reason (e.g. secular humanism) to the exclusion of supernatural claims are not religious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.253.98 (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, it is a term of art derived from secularist ideology and used primarily by those of an atheist perspective. The word is invented to neutralize atheism and put a positive spin on it. The natural language of theism/atheism or religious/non-religious/irreligious makes out humanism as the lack of religion. The goal is to marginalize the traditional conventionality of religious belief and create a language that equalizes the atheist perspective as a neutral “life perspective” option lain beside any number of religious perspectives. Religion loses its presupposition and atheism its pernicious reputation. Like the “happy human” emblem, it is part of a thoughtful new propaganda initiative by the new humanism/atheism. This article purposefully ignores that relevant fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.156.48 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Our opinions are worthless. What matters are verifiable sources. And it so happens that while the equalisation of religious and non-religious was indeed part of the agenda, so was the desire to end battles among humanists about whether or not humanism was "religious" in some sense, or not. It's all in Stopes-Roe's papers. --Dannyno (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the word for equal valuation?

Does anybody know the word for holding that all life stances have the same value? Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure of the exact term in the case of life stances, but it's a logical fallacy to argue that all claims of any kind have the same value.

Example lifestances

I think we need a good example life stance, which anybody may refer to as an example. Wafflesim is the best one I know, but if you know any better, feel free to change it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On second though, we can do without such an example. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Would something like Marxism count as a life stance? Seeing as how it extends into politics, philosophy, religion, ethics and attitudes, I think its worth a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.20.208 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable sources says Marxism is a life stance, then we can discuss what to do with that information. I'm not convinced exhaustive lists of everything anyone ever said was a life stance are encyclopedic. --Dannyno (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Child of GOD TjNovaSage (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Natalism (life stance)

I deleted "Natalism (life stance)" from the table, because Natalism (life stance) is just a redirect to a section of Natalism that makes an unreferenced claim that Natalism is sometimes a life stance. If anyone finds a reliable source--preferably a reliable self-identified Natalist source--saying that Natalism is a life stance, then let's add it back in to the table here. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Belief System

I came here looking for something on this topic. I first went into Google, and then here, and am amazed that so far, I have not been able to find anyone who can accept this term as what I think it is. That a simple acceptance of the words seperatly, when brought together do not have to have their meaning change. If a Belief is something that we act on, and that a system is a group of things working in concert to accomplish something, the a Belief System, is what causes us to do what we do which produces the results that we get. Is someone interested enough in this to explain this to me. Thank You! Ken (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. But in any case Wikipedia isn't a discussion board. --Dannyno (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lord Lives! TjNovaSage (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Nihilism

In the table under "Values and Purposes" I changed the "Main intrinsic value" and "Main purpose" of nihilism from "nothingness" to "none." Nihilism does not value "nothingness," the point is there are no such things as values. Wouldn't want a reader to come away with a misconception. 64.85.228.98 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not same as meaning of life

I removed a merge-tag to "Meaning of life", since a glance at the introduction tells that they are different things. And even if they were, the Meaning of life article is long enough to justify forking. 85.82.170.6 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was 42? ;-] J. D. Redding

Case number for a citation?

Does anyone here not see the following?

Yet others hold the view that any life stance or belief in a moral code is religious [citation needed].

Yet the Supreme Court of the United States has on several occasions recognized that a person's moral life stance or philosophy qualifies as equal to religious belief and must be honored and protected under the intent of the Constitution and public law.

I think that the "equal to religious belief" is key. Does anyone have a Case number for a citation? J. D. Redding 04:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think US legal decisions have any relevance to the article. There is some coverage in the articles on Humanism and Secular humanism, though. --Dannyno (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient life stances

Should we not include Stoicism and Epicureanism as life stances? --rossb (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The article should explain what is meant by the term "life stance". Whether particular ideologies are life stances may or may not be obvious, but unless they are specifically identified in the literature then I don't think they should be included. Ask yourself: who says Stoicism and Epicureanism are life stances? If you have an answer and it can be verified by a reliable source, then maybe you can put the information in the article. On the other hand, there is a danger in just ending up with lists of ideas that the literature (or some writers) holds to be life stances, so maybe we don't want the information in the article after all. --Dannyno (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why deny someone an explanation. TjNovaSage (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)