Secularism: what is it?

[stealthmongoose]

agrab0ekim

stealthmongoose

agrab0ekim

stealthmongoose

Wendigo

But you see, you can throw a monkey wrench into the works of a machine, but that does not change the machine's intended function. Only its current ability to function as intended.

Still, he makes a fair point about making monkey-wrench (or theist wrench) proof machines.

I will support your point by adding that what your opponent is arguing is might makes right, or at best an ad populum with authoritarian spin fallacy. It's really a no brainer.

I can be a d**k neanderthal idiot and teach my kids that 2+2 = God, or i could be wise and irrelevant to religion and teach them the truth about 2+2 ='ing 4.

Morality and ethics come as a result of appreciation for the truth of things, and as easy as it is to shut one's ears and eyes to the truth it does not make it any less evident.

are you saying I'm making those claims?
If so, prepare to defend your words, as I would never argue for ad populum with authoritarian spin, that would ******** me over so exceptionally much

No sir, i'm stating that your proxy justification for the abuse of the system is one of ad populum authoritarian spin, as using the power of one's position beyond the extent of the system's purposes (I.E. Using that system to cram religious belief into people) is very much an argument of ad populus and authority.

This is because what you're essentially saying is "If I or others use this secular government for underhanded religious purposes and succeed, it is no longer a secular government despite it's secular laws."

While this may or may not be YOUR opinion, i felt it necessary to point out as an authoritarian statement appealing to an argument of populus.

That being said, the system is certainly not perfect. If there are abusable laws that can be used to relegate special cases for theocratic indoctrination or otherwise, they should be changed to be more effective in blocking out that method of coersion, but it's people who abuse their power, not the government's laws themselves, that usually cause this to happen.

oh, what I'm trying to argue is that the FFs were okay with that concept, if not in theory, but in the way they set it up. I believe that it is clear that religion was supposed to play a role (see detockville (sp?) and his morality comments), but don't necisarially agree with how far it has gone.
Not "you're being sneaky, good job" but "you're abusing a well-known and intended loophole, smart move"

That said, I never once wrote my personal view of the matter, so nobody here knows it (hehe)...

Then the next question to be raised is "What proof do you have that this loophole is intentional?"

Let's keep in mind that a secular government at it's core would do what it can to block out these attempts at "taking the people's truck for a ride" and you'd have to ignore a lot of laws retroactively, including the bill of rights to do so.

Now let's put it quite simply. If the Bill of Rights (or any founding document within this country) was written as a means to end religious oppression within this country, then would any religious law that comes after be anything short of an immoral and unrighteous power-play for the sake of lying about the efficiency of one's own beliefs by hijacking the work of those who are driven by belief in reason instead of divinity?

The answer seems very clearly that any abuse of such a system would not warrant ownership for the work and power of the system when it is fully functional.

Like if I shot you in the head and argued that you were always meant to have a new sphincter.

[Xiam]

I was under the impression that secularism is just not caring about the whole "religion" thing. Atheists have more of a stance on the issue (no God), whereas secularists think the question itself is absurd and will not even dignify it with an answer, deciding instead to focus on things such as "Hey, what's on TV?" or "Isn't somebody's birthday coming up? I'd better prepare for that." Instead of... you know... debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Xiam

I was under the impression that secularism is just not caring about the whole "religion" thing. Atheists have more of a stance on the issue (no God), whereas secularists think the question itself is absurd and will not even dignify it with an answer, deciding instead to focus on things such as "Hey, what's on TV?" or "Isn't somebody's birthday coming up? I'd better prepare for that." Instead of... you know... debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist.

That's apatheism.

[Avaline Fitheach]

Atheism is basically a belief system where the concept of godly beings isn't there; to an atheist, a god is a strange, perhaps even alien thing to believe in. Even if nobody can agree upon just why things happen, an atheist can feel reasonably sure they're right when they say, "Claiming God did it probably isn't the answer".

Secularism, on the other hand, is the absence of any religious slant, even atheism. For a secular source of information to in fact be secular, it has to assume any given take on religion is, by default, irrelevant and summarily avoid overly belief-oriented editorializing.

In plainer English, atheism is believing there is no such thing as a god or goddess, and secularism is avoiding the religion subject altogether.

[Xiam]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I was under the impression that secularism is just not caring about the whole "religion" thing. Atheists have more of a stance on the issue (no God), whereas secularists think the question itself is absurd and will not even dignify it with an answer, deciding instead to focus on things such as "Hey, what's on TV?" or "Isn't somebody's birthday coming up? I'd better prepare for that." Instead of... you know... debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist.

That's apatheism.

Secular refers to the mundane. Worldly things apart from the spiritual or religious. Not connected in any way to religion.

As much as people would like to tout atheism as this, it still ends up running as "the opposite of theism" instead of, you know, not dealing with the issue at all, and instead focusing upon the more... secular... things.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I was under the impression that secularism is just not caring about the whole "religion" thing. Atheists have more of a stance on the issue (no God), whereas secularists think the question itself is absurd and will not even dignify it with an answer, deciding instead to focus on things such as "Hey, what's on TV?" or "Isn't somebody's birthday coming up? I'd better prepare for that." Instead of... you know... debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist.

That's apatheism.

Secular refers to the mundane. Worldly things apart from the spiritual or religious. Not connected in any way to religion.

As much as people would like to tout atheism as this, it still ends up running as "the opposite of theism" instead of, you know, not dealing with the issue at all, and instead focusing upon the more... secular... things.

Hence, "apatheism".

[Xiam]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I was under the impression that secularism is just not caring about the whole "religion" thing. Atheists have more of a stance on the issue (no God), whereas secularists think the question itself is absurd and will not even dignify it with an answer, deciding instead to focus on things such as "Hey, what's on TV?" or "Isn't somebody's birthday coming up? I'd better prepare for that." Instead of... you know... debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist.

That's apatheism.

Secular refers to the mundane. Worldly things apart from the spiritual or religious. Not connected in any way to religion.

As much as people would like to tout atheism as this, it still ends up running as "the opposite of theism" instead of, you know, not dealing with the issue at all, and instead focusing upon the more... secular... things.

Hence, "apatheism".

neutral

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I was under the impression that secularism is just not caring about the whole "religion" thing. Atheists have more of a stance on the issue (no God), whereas secularists think the question itself is absurd and will not even dignify it with an answer, deciding instead to focus on things such as "Hey, what's on TV?" or "Isn't somebody's birthday coming up? I'd better prepare for that." Instead of... you know... debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist.

That's apatheism.

Secular refers to the mundane. Worldly things apart from the spiritual or religious. Not connected in any way to religion.

As much as people would like to tout atheism as this, it still ends up running as "the opposite of theism" instead of, you know, not dealing with the issue at all, and instead focusing upon the more... secular... things.

Hence, "apatheism".

neutral

I don't see how what you said has any bearing on what I said - I never claimed atheism is secularism, nor that atheism isn't the opposite of theism; I claimed what you were describing - "deciding instead to focus on things...instead of...debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist" is apatheism.

[Xiam]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

I was under the impression that secularism is just not caring about the whole "religion" thing. Atheists have more of a stance on the issue (no God), whereas secularists think the question itself is absurd and will not even dignify it with an answer, deciding instead to focus on things such as "Hey, what's on TV?" or "Isn't somebody's birthday coming up? I'd better prepare for that." Instead of... you know... debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist.

That's apatheism.

Secular refers to the mundane. Worldly things apart from the spiritual or religious. Not connected in any way to religion.

As much as people would like to tout atheism as this, it still ends up running as "the opposite of theism" instead of, you know, not dealing with the issue at all, and instead focusing upon the more... secular... things.

Hence, "apatheism".

neutral

I don't see how what you said has any bearing on what I said - I never claimed atheism is secularism, nor that atheism isn't the opposite of theism; I claimed what you were describing - "deciding instead to focus on things...instead of...debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist" is apatheism.

If I intended to describe apatheism, I would have said "this is apatheism."

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Secular refers to the mundane. Worldly things apart from the spiritual or religious. Not connected in any way to religion.

As much as people would like to tout atheism as this, it still ends up running as "the opposite of theism" instead of, you know, not dealing with the issue at all, and instead focusing upon the more... secular... things.

Hence, "apatheism".

neutral

I don't see how what you said has any bearing on what I said - I never claimed atheism is secularism, nor that atheism isn't the opposite of theism; I claimed what you were describing - "deciding instead to focus on things...instead of...debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist" is apatheism.

If I intended to describe apatheism, I would have said "this is apatheism."

If I didn't intend to discuss apatheism, I wouldn't have quoted someone who's post consisted of "that's apatheism".

[Xiam]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Secular refers to the mundane. Worldly things apart from the spiritual or religious. Not connected in any way to religion.

As much as people would like to tout atheism as this, it still ends up running as "the opposite of theism" instead of, you know, not dealing with the issue at all, and instead focusing upon the more... secular... things.

Hence, "apatheism".

neutral

I don't see how what you said has any bearing on what I said - I never claimed atheism is secularism, nor that atheism isn't the opposite of theism; I claimed what you were describing - "deciding instead to focus on things...instead of...debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist" is apatheism.

If I intended to describe apatheism, I would have said "this is apatheism."

If I didn't intend to discuss apatheism, I wouldn't have quoted someone who's post consisted of "that's apatheism".

The problem is, I'm saying "wow, that's huge!" but you're saying, "You mean it's large."

If I meant "large," I would have said "large." stressed

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

neutral

I don't see how what you said has any bearing on what I said - I never claimed atheism is secularism, nor that atheism isn't the opposite of theism; I claimed what you were describing - "deciding instead to focus on things...instead of...debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist" is apatheism.

If I intended to describe apatheism, I would have said "this is apatheism."

If I didn't intend to discuss apatheism, I wouldn't have quoted someone who's post consisted of "that's apatheism".

The problem is, I'm saying "wow, that's huge!" but you're saying, "You mean it's large."

If I meant "large," I would have said "large." stressed

Secularism isn't a synonym for apatheism, though - one can be religious whilst being indifferent about the existence of deities.

[Jorgunmandr]

I'm surprised how many people are wrong about what Secularism is. How does one exist in a society and not know how the very core of it works?

[Xiam]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

Lucky~9~Lives

Xiam

neutral

I don't see how what you said has any bearing on what I said - I never claimed atheism is secularism, nor that atheism isn't the opposite of theism; I claimed what you were describing - "deciding instead to focus on things...instead of...debating with people about whether God exists or doesn't exist" is apatheism.

If I intended to describe apatheism, I would have said "this is apatheism."

If I didn't intend to discuss apatheism, I wouldn't have quoted someone who's post consisted of "that's apatheism".

The problem is, I'm saying "wow, that's huge!" but you're saying, "You mean it's large."

If I meant "large," I would have said "large." stressed

Secularism isn't a synonym for apatheism, though - one can be religious whilst being indifferent about the existence of deities.

So they can be religious while being apatheist. Alright then.

Except secular still refers to the non-religious, the mundane. Secularism is mostly a government policy, I think, which is mostly just not getting involved in the whole issue. And instead, focusing on the mundane. What is right here, right now. The material aspects of life which must be dealt with.

[agrab0ekim]

stealthmongoose

agrab0ekim

stealthmongoose

agrab0ekim

stealthmongoose

Wendigo

But you see, you can throw a monkey wrench into the works of a machine, but that does not change the machine's intended function. Only its current ability to function as intended.

Still, he makes a fair point about making monkey-wrench (or theist wrench) proof machines.

I will support your point by adding that what your opponent is arguing is might makes right, or at best an ad populum with authoritarian spin fallacy. It's really a no brainer.

I can be a d**k neanderthal idiot and teach my kids that 2+2 = God, or i could be wise and irrelevant to religion and teach them the truth about 2+2 ='ing 4.

Morality and ethics come as a result of appreciation for the truth of things, and as easy as it is to shut one's ears and eyes to the truth it does not make it any less evident.

are you saying I'm making those claims?
If so, prepare to defend your words, as I would never argue for ad populum with authoritarian spin, that would ******** me over so exceptionally much

No sir, i'm stating that your proxy justification for the abuse of the system is one of ad populum authoritarian spin, as using the power of one's position beyond the extent of the system's purposes (I.E. Using that system to cram religious belief into people) is very much an argument of ad populus and authority.

This is because what you're essentially saying is "If I or others use this secular government for underhanded religious purposes and succeed, it is no longer a secular government despite it's secular laws."

While this may or may not be YOUR opinion, i felt it necessary to point out as an authoritarian statement appealing to an argument of populus.

That being said, the system is certainly not perfect. If there are abusable laws that can be used to relegate special cases for theocratic indoctrination or otherwise, they should be changed to be more effective in blocking out that method of coersion, but it's people who abuse their power, not the government's laws themselves, that usually cause this to happen.

oh, what I'm trying to argue is that the FFs were okay with that concept, if not in theory, but in the way they set it up. I believe that it is clear that religion was supposed to play a role (see detockville (sp?) and his morality comments), but don't necisarially agree with how far it has gone.
Not "you're being sneaky, good job" but "you're abusing a well-known and intended loophole, smart move"

That said, I never once wrote my personal view of the matter, so nobody here knows it (hehe)...

Then the next question to be raised is "What proof do you have that this loophole is intentional?"

Let's keep in mind that a secular government at it's core would do what it can to block out these attempts at "taking the people's truck for a ride" and you'd have to ignore a lot of laws retroactively, including the bill of rights to do so.

Now let's put it quite simply. If the Bill of Rights (or any founding document within this country) was written as a means to end religious oppression within this country, then would any religious law that comes after be anything short of an immoral and unrighteous power-play for the sake of lying about the efficiency of one's own beliefs by hijacking the work of those who are driven by belief in reason instead of divinity?

The answer seems very clearly that any abuse of such a system would not warrant ownership for the work and power of the system when it is fully functional.

Like if I shot you in the head and argued that you were always meant to have a new sphincter.

the fact that we swear on a bible, take an OATH, the fact that until 40 years ago an Athiest's word was useless in court, the fact that the court allows for non-secular legislation in practice (Lemmon, hence 3 prongs, not just one), etc.
trust me, if personal views were not supposed to count, then starting with our first innauguration we've ******** up

You're saying I'm using circular reasoning, that the current is evidence that it had been intended, I believe. That is close, but off. I trust SCOTUS to USUALLY (heller, Lochner, heart of atlanta, etc. aside) find the proper interpretation, and here they have found mine. Sure, it might not be what was intended, but if SCOTUS says it is then that is good enough for me. Read the Lemmon case, they go into some of the detail needed