The Gospel of Unbelief

[rtwngAvngr]

This whole discussion has gotten bogged down in definitions.

The POINT is we have a public set of rules, I loosely call them morals, public morals. Where do PUBLIC morals come from?

 

[Bullypulpit]

This whole discussion has gotten bogged down in definitions.

The POINT is we have a public set of rules, I loosely call them morals, public morals. Where do PUBLIC morals come from?

The observation of interactions between individuals, and the consequences of those interactions, over the centuries. Those interactions which resulted in the peaceful interaction between individuals in a given society are the basis of "public morals". In other words, the observation of specific events over time which lead us to infer general principles.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The observation of interactions between individuals, and the consequences of those interactions, over the centuries. Those interactions which resulted in the peaceful interaction between individuals in a given society are the basis of "public morals". In other words, the observation of specific events over time which lead us to infer general principles.

SOunds good. BUt it's actually PROSPERITTY PRODUCING interactions that are selected for, peace is one of these, because people who can get along peacefully can cooperate better.

 

[dilloduck]

Public morals? --behavior that the majority finds acceptable

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Public morals? --behavior that the majority finds acceptable

As in laws. Where do our laws come from.

 

[dilloduck]

As in laws. Where do our laws come from.

Who ever is strong enough to enforce them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Who ever is strong enough to enforce them.

But we are not just a senseless dictatorship, we at least make attempts to have rational reasons for our laws.

 

[jillian]

But we are not just a senseless dictatorship, we at least make attempts to have rational reasons for our laws.

Yes...a *rational*, not mystical, basis for law.

But Dillo is right. Enforcement of law is by strength of those trying to enforce them. And law exists as a result of those who have the power to enact them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes...a *rational*, not mystical, basis for law.

But Dillo is right. Enforcement of law is by strength of those trying to enforce them. And law exists as a result of those who have the power to enact them.

That's all machiavelli and cool and everything, and true, but let's limit this discussion to "rational" people coming up with mutually satisfactory laws.

 

[dilloduck]

That's all machiavelli and cool and everything, and true, but let's limit this discussion to "rational" people coming up with mutually satisfactory laws.

Then we're back to what a majority finds acceptable is codified.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Then we're back to what a majority finds acceptable is codified.

No. Our laws are not subject to a pure democratic mob. The constitution has firm parameters on what's up for grabs and what isn't. Really we're a constitutional republic with democratically elected positions in all three branches. Once in a blue moon we have an actual policy referendum.

 

[LOki]

Man, you can really run with your analyzing. :clap1: Great response, however the short reply is, despite your attempts, I can't really see where you actually disproved my theory. It appears to me that you just basically sidestepped it - quite adroitly. You did this by assuming your "option" of variation of meaning to the word secularism, built on that, and thus wiggled free. The fact that secularism has different variations of meaning is something I mentioned a while back, I might add.

I'll try again--shorter version, less rambling.

If you think Atheism is a religion, then why can't we also define Secularism as a religion?

Definitions:

religion: A personal set of formalized attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on a statement of faith.

faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

secularism: (per Webster)
1. worldly spirit, views, or the like: esp., a system of doctrines and practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious faith and worship
2. the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education.

Line if reasoning:
Secularism is a doctrine based on worldly spirit or views, and rejects - without any proof - that God does not exist within that worldly spirit or views.
You have faith, or a firm belief, in secularism - which has no basis of proof.
Therefore secularism is a form of religion.

I reject your definition thus: In order for secularism to be religion by the definitions of religion and faith you provided--and I am constrained to agree with--"[rejection of] any form of religious faith and worship" must be rejected upon a statement of faith. Besides being internally contradictory (a religion that rejects religion), your definition fails to provide the statement of faith neccessary to assert secularism as a religion. I doubt you can come up with one that won't beg the question.

I disprove your theory thus: Your insistence that secularism neccessarily rejects religion is inconsistent with the verifiable fact that secularists practice various religions--including those that assert God exists. As secularists do not necessarily reject religion, your theory that secularism is a religion-the religion that rejects religion-fails the test of proof that merely requires the existence of those who practice religion and believe on faith that God exists, and on rational grounds, that religion has limits--even if they believe God doesn't.

The incorrect assumption by one person that secularism is a religion doesn't make it so. Calling the "desire to maintain a separation of religion and government" a "government sanctioned religion" is the epitome of contradiction.

Well spoken. I don't know who Robert Green Ingersoll is. And his authority, premises for his assertion that "Secularism is the religion of humanity;...", and his definitions are all in question--is he using the same definitions you and I are using? Is he an Atheist extremeist hijacking secularism in the manner white-supremacists hijack Christianity? I don't know--but I do know that assholes using rational argument doesn't make rational people assholes.

That Other Church

"For each element in the Judeo-Christian family of faiths, secularism has its counterpart: a strict ethical code, albeit focusing on health issues ("Thou shalt not smoke," etc.); the use of shame when individuals disregard ethical rules (e.g. fat people); a related promise of eternal life through medical advances; a creation story (Darwinian evolution); and so forth. All that's missing is a deity, but not every religion has one, as the case of Zen Buddhism attests."

Allow me to presume it's not neccessary for me to deconstruct this bullshit for you now.

The government, by favoring Secularism, is actually establishing a religion. And by doing this, it is also violating our Constitutional right to free expression of our various personal religions.

Nope.

Secularism fits the dictionary definition of a religion. The fact that all secularists refute this fact because being in a religion is supposedly evil is the joke.

You have fallen into the trap of the dumbs. Would you assert that apostates using Christian arguments for apostacy are Christians? If not, why would you assert that secularists using Atheist arguments for secularism are Atheists?

This whole discussion has gotten bogged down in definitions.

The POINT is we have a public set of rules, I loosely call them morals, public morals. Where do PUBLIC morals come from?

Rational principles.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Rational principles.

ok. Should we make the assumption that man CAN control his own behavior or CANNOT control his own behavior. The question of free will. Do men posess free will? How we answer this question will effect how we build the rest of our society.

 

[dilloduck]

ok. Should we make the assumption that man CAN control his own behavior or CANNOT control his own behavior. The question of free will. Do men posess free will? How we answer this question will effect how we build the rest of our society.

If we are to build a society, I would prefer we assume all men to have free will.

 

[Bullypulpit]

SOunds good. BUt it's actually PROSPERITTY PRODUCING interactions that are selected for, peace is one of these, because people who can get along peacefully can cooperate better.

Peace is a prerequisite for prosperity...Unless you're a war profiteer or weapons dealer.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Peace is a prerequisite for prosperity...Unless you're a war profiteer or weapons dealer.

Well first there has to be some society to fight for before you can sell arms.

 

[LOki]

Should we make the assumption that man CAN control his own behavior or CANNOT control his own behavior.

If we presume man does not control his own behavior we relinquish every reason the discussion of morality should occur. I'll choose to assert he can, provided we dispense with discussion of those with patently diminished capacity for such control; e.g. infants, children, mentally ill, etc...

 

[Hobbit]

Peace is a prerequisite for prosperity...Unless you're a war profiteer or weapons dealer.

No, peace is a pipe dream thought up by people who live in a fantasy world where everyone can be made happy. As long as there are people in the world, there will be those who have, those who don't, and those who take. Unfortunately, that is human nature, and while peace may seem like something to strive for at all costs, it is unattainable and will remain so until the world ends.

 

[Nuc]

No, peace is a pipe dream thought up by people who live in a fantasy world where everyone can be made happy. As long as there are people in the world, there will be those who have, those who don't, and those who take. Unfortunately, that is human nature, and while peace may seem like something to strive for at all costs, it is unattainable and will remain so until the world ends.

Then why does Bush keep harping on "Democracies don't attack each other!"

Which anyway does seem to be true.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If we presume man does not control his own behavior we relinquish every reason the discussion of morality should occur. I'll choose to assert he can, provided we dispense with discussion of those with patently diminished capacity for such control; e.g. infants, children, mentally ill, etc...

A very thoughtful and mature reply. Thank you for that.

Not that you're DEFINITELY a communist, but I just want to point out for the record that communists do not believe in free will, they believe man's behavior is determined by the property and economic relations which dominate his world, and which segment of this economic world he's born into.