Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence, and reason to discover truths about the universe and have placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making.
Epicure was 341–270 BC (thanks, wiki), Lucrece was c. 15 October 99 BC – c. 55 BC (thank you wiki, but note that Lucrece also abbreviates Lucretius, not just Lucretia). Pietro Aretino was 19 or 20 April 1492 – 21 October 1556 (thank you wikipedians!). Oh, if you want to reference a cruel man like Frederick the Stauffer, 26 December 1194 – 13 December 1250 (thank you wiki).
270 - 99 = 171 years.
1194 + 55 = 1249 years.
1492 - 1250 = 242 years.
I am not sure this gets going very much before Hume, so add another ... (1711–1776 - thank you wiki - 1711 - 1556, 11 + 100 + 44 = 155.
171 + 1249 + 242 + 155 years, then. According to this, so much, plus basically all before Epicure is not "recorded history". 1817 years.
Democritus as precursor of Epicure? Sorry, he did believe materialism, of a sort (not quite identic to modern one), but he did not ... sorry, yes he did*, seemingly, so, if he also sought ethics without religion, he would be included. His life time is added to "recorded history" and the one not so qualified - according to the writer or wikipedians on Humanism org - is extended to ...
370 - 341 = 29
... 1846 years plus somewhat shorter everything before Democritus. Or, on their view, infinity before 341 BC minus 119 years to make infinity before 460 BC is still infinity, so, according to their weird maths, formalised by Cantor, it was not even somewhat shorter.
Going back to Nimrod? Well, could work in a sense ... for a Christian or for a Jew or a Muslim. But if Humanist org starts accepting Nimrod from Genesis, how about accepting Jesus from Gospels as historical? Not quite their cup of tea, since they shy away from the ensuing Lewis Trilemma.
Actually, their "throughout recorded history" is a bit parallel to a Ruckmanite's claim of Christians opposing Catholicism in somewhat resembling Baptism for all centuries since Christ.
In either case, not very historical.
Oh, one detail. Some right wing people (whom I otherwise have a lot in common with, as in being right wing Christians) would actually disparage this article for relying so much on wikipedia. I hope that's not your view .... if it has a bias, it's on your side. And yes, there may come a day when wikipedia rules I have to put in yet another intermediate between some of the previous, I saw one Leucippus mentioned who would do, so the years of your not "recorded history" could be reduced somewhat - but probably not very much.
Oh, wait ... were you saying China? Confucius? The man in whose name "social credit scores" are introduced over cell phones leading to disasters? Yes, humanism has a longer history there than over here. And a less glorious one.
And, back to Hume, isn't your argument against the supernatural one from recorded history? Well how about knowing it before arguing from it?
Hans Georg Lundahl
Sts. Peleus, Nilus and Elias
Egyptian bishops martyred in Palestine**
* Need I say "thank you wikipedians"?
** In Palaestina sanctorum Martyrum et Aegypti Episcoporum Pelei, Nili et Eliae; qui, tempore persecutionis Diocletiani, cum plurimis Clericis, pro Christo sunt igne consumpti.