For those who already know, your idea may be different from mine. It is innate in most of us, and there are those who come across a description of our principles and realise they were already humanists, but un-conscience of it.

It's origins date back to earliest civilisation, and traces of it can be found in Babylon, China, India, and Egypt. Anywhere that encouraged the solving of problems using thoughts and actions, without having to placate spirits, pray to ancestors or prioritise any deities, resulting in a much higher quality of life, through science, responsible politics, economics, and moral values. But the place were deliberate philosophies dedicated to such principles first developed was ancient Greece. Were the Sophics, Epicureans and Stoics all had moral, rational and at times materialistic or naturalistic world-views which have since been regarded as among the best positions on life humanity has come up with.

In some ways we have surpassed them, but many cultures are struggling to catch up with even the earliest examples, and still put their fates into a religious trust, giving up responsibility and thought.
Although these early enlightened thinkers were drowned out during the reign of the cross, their influence was often behind the better actions or ideas of the West, and with the coming of the First Enlightenment humanity could once again experiment and explore a better path than tyranny or ignorance.

To me humanism is a rejection of (what is perceived as) non-human derived or focused values, ethics, world-views, and priorities. Now all such theistic or supernatural concepts really come from humanity, but that is never recognised, and humanity can never be seen as it truly is, until it is given the credit and responsibility for all religions, deeds and ideas that we have. Theists strive to meet the needs of souls, and deities, things that either don’t exist or don’t matter, while the most important things are left undone by them or harmed.

Looking from a humanitarian perspective, there are many terrible things happening in the world. Religions and superstition is not making it any better as it's ideas of what is wrong do not match reality, and its solution to the few problem they are prepared to deal with often merely involve strengthening their power and influence. Or creating dependency moulding charities or proselytising missions. Then there are the well meaning but short sighted people who's ideas of a remedy are short term and both uneconomical and often an affront to humanity's dignity. I'm after permanent solutions, using all the powers humanity has its disposal. Any other position is unethical, inhumane or irresponsible. I simply advocate proven methods of betterment such as science, morality, education, humanitarianism, over prayer, superstition, religious "charities" and missionaries. They are seen as all-important to the theist, and a complete waste of time to those who observe it's constant failure to help civilisation and life. It is humanistic education and science that got of out of the dark ages, not ignorance and faith, and the less said about what religious doctrine has done to morality the better.

As for humanism's positive assertions, they are based on the "assumption" that human life is the most important thing in existence, that all things including ethics must be orchestrated to serve human life, and nothing, no ideology, no religion, and no philosophy must subvert that priority. This may not seem as rationally defensible as it is ethically, (although its rational credentials far outweigh any religious doctrine) but those who would try to undermine it through questioning the derivation of such an assumption, only display their own interests as being something other than humanity. Otherwise they'd support such a clearly ethical position, regardless of ideological differences, but they'd deny our right to claim any morals at all without their god.

Even if we simply believed in morality because we wished to, and couldn't defend such a position with logic and impenetrable reason, can theists claim their position isn't just based on what they want, rather than derived from pure reason?
Put simply, humanism is dedicated to assisting humanity in all its endeavours that are not immoral, or inhumane, and preventing anything or anyone from harming human life. This is a broad position, and can include environmentalism, as humanity is dependant on the earth, and other forms of life. It can be spiritual, if the priority is recognised, and it can be scientific, as humanity's importance can be defined using purely un-emotional, and detached scientific factual terms, and still match up with the principles of humanism.

This, to many in England is common sense, and to others blasphemy, but I am not interested in theists and their opinions on this site, I have heard them all, and I have no further wish to engage with them in any way. This site is for humanists, and others of an ethical persuasion, I with ignore all religious protests, or accusations. I have dealt with them, and although for a time it amused me, I find talk of how we are all sinners, hell bound and we need Jesus, Allah, etc offensive. I wish to cultivate associations with like minded people, as well as philosophers, and those seeking the truth. Theists have no say in this, their voice is strong enough in this world, and has done enough damage. There is no soup box for them here.
No, there are problems in this world, I am here to discuss them with those capable of recognising their reality, and the correct means to deal with them, reason, science, ethics, and a total absence of superstition.

Humanism is at least a practical and considerate approach to our needs, my particular interpretation is what you will find here, as well as someone who simply want's to leave the world a better place than when I found it.