why not also show skepticism of the secular?

[Dancing David]

This is the fifth petunlent post. What am I supposed to do with all this? You are emotionally defending our secular system because you think I am attacking it. I am secular also, but I still like to know what it is and wonder if you do. It is an ideology, and like all ideologies, it will become outgrown and replaced. Try to be objective about it. Show skepticism. What is secular humanism? All you can do is complain that what I am suggesting is cryptic, unclear.

So my critique of your nonsense is petulance?

I actually addressed your actual points , starting with the first post and an appeal to emotion is all you have?

Secular humanism is a heterogeneous ideology at best, you have confused Friedman Chicago school economics with it, stated your social mores regarding gender roles and much other nonsense.

There is no secular humanist ideology, that is your assertion and therefore YOUR burden to demonstrate.

So i see your response as totally throwing your hands in teh air and just waving them madly in dismissal.

I addressed one of your questions using game theory, which you did not even respond to "In terms of equality, in game theory , it is better for all players to have some sort of leveling mechanism that allows for equal power and parity of opportunity.

That way if you find yourself moving from a power position to one of less power , you have a better chance of recovery. therefore having a level playing field benefits all players.

Now what we have in the real world is very different. We have systems that claim equality and are not, we have systems that are blatantly biased. Money, family status, class status and inside influence all unlevel any stated playing field."

Which is not a defense of some vague secular ideology but a means of saying why I think it might be a good idea.

So where is any of the evidence for your claims?

 

[Dancing David]

Charles Brough:

Demonstrate how secular humanism, a term is a SCOTUS paper, is an ideology?

I said earlier it is heterogeneous and therefore I do not think it is a coherent social structure, unlike may ideologies. Say the Tea Party, 'environmentalism' or the 'local food' movements.

Which individuals do you think embody this ideology, and how is it expressed as a social more.

i·de·ol·o·gy   [ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-] Show IPA
noun, plural -gies.
1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3.Philosophy.
a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

 

[Tricky]

What is secular humanism?

In simple words, secular humanism is the philosophy that we should do what is best for humans without regard for religious dogma. Secular humanists do not all agree on "what is best", but they do agree that we should do what benefits our species the most. It is not anti-religious, it is areligous.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Why must the burden fall entirely on men to protect everyone else? That doesn't seem beneficial to them.

Besides, it makes men, as a group, less equal than others who are just as capable of contributing to the protection. It seems unfair for women, homosexuals, etc. as a group to enjoy the benefit of being protected without any responsibility to do their part.

Thank you. I've been saying that for years.

This is the fifth petunlent post.

What the hell does "petunlent" mean?

 

[charles brough]

Not sure what your OP really has to do with skepticism, but many popular skeptical causes relate to secular activities. Alternative medicine, for example, is a popular area for skeptics to address, and is entirely secular.

I am suggesting that your thinking and that of most all educated people is shaped by an ideology that has been called Secular Humanism. Also, that there is, even among the educated, still much influence of the Christian ideology (or Muslim, Hindu or Marxist). And the two main ideologies determine how people think. Secular humanism consists of the ideals of equality, liberty, independence, individualism, capitalism, humanism and most science.

I also suggest that this combined way of thinking has been made possible only by a certain amount of compromising of both the Christian (Muslim, Hindu, etc)and Secular ideologies.

And finally, that the secular compromising occurred only in social theory where scholars sought to enterpret the data in ways that were the least offensive to the faithful. The rest of science and social science has remained uncorrupted.

I propose all this to see if skeptics could take an objective view of their own way of thinking!

 

[citizenzen]

Demonstrate how secular humanism, a term is a SCOTUS paper, is an ideology?

I just want to point out that the reference to secular humanism appears in a footnote of the SCOTUS ruling of Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Here is an interesting commentary on the use of the term in the footnote of the SCOTUS ruling (bolding mine) ...

The following United States Supreme Court cases have been selected for any/all references to secular humanism, a cite of Torcaso v Watkins, a religion of Humanism, etc. Notice that:

• Not one single one of these cases hold that secular humanism is a religion.
• Not a single one of these cases state that Torcaso v Watkins held that secular humanism was or is a religion.

In reading court opinions, one has to understand that only the actual ruling, i.e., the holding, of the court has meaning as law and is legally binding. The content of footnotes, dicta, reasoning, or rationale is not the actual decision or "holding" of the court. Although such commentary in the footnotes, dicta, reasoning, or rationale can be informative, interesting, and even provide persuasion for future arguments, it isn't law; it isn't the finding of the court-- it isn't binding on anything.

People can say the court said this, or the court said that, but the only thing that the court said that matters is the actual holding or ruling of that case.​

So what was the text of the ruling?

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, 10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. 11​

And what was the footnote?

[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.​

Secular humanism is no more a "religion" than Ethical Culture could be considered a religion.

More importantly, a footnote is not a legal part of a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[slingblade]

In simple words, secular humanism is the philosophy that we should do what is best for humans without regard for religious dogma. Secular humanists do not all agree on "what is best", but they do agree that we should do what benefits our species the most. It is not anti-religious, it is areligous.

But is it weak areligious or strong areligious?

 

[Dancing David]

I And the two main ideologies determine how people think. Secular humanism consists of the ideals of equality, liberty, independence, individualism, capitalism, humanism and most science.

And you have yet to show that this is a coherent ideology at all, especially on large scales, almost every one of your subgroups is hardly homogeneous and shows amazing diversity in individuals.


Science is a method not an ideology, individualism is uniquely USian and most rhetoric, capitalism is not a universally accepted ideology, even in the US.

 

[caniswalensis]

Hitler's mom told you you were special?

Yeah, right after I banged her!

HAR! Classsic burn on Hitler!

 

[kerikiwi]

But do we or should we have equal rights to a job? If you were an employer, would you hire a person who was unreliable because even uinreliable people have rights?

Can you give some examples of people who have said anything remotely approaching that? Anywhere?

 

[citizenzen]

Can you give some examples of people who have said anything remotely approaching that? Anywhere?

Yeah. That's a pretty bizarre notion.

I've been on numerous hiring committees at a state university that practices affirmative action* and I can attest that unreliability is grounds for not hiring someone. We run reference checks specifically looking for red flags like that.




*Affirmative action, unlike what many people think, doesn't mean quotas for hiring minorities or women. Affirmative action simply means that race, gender, religion, sexual preference, age and other factors are not in themselves grounds for excluding individuals from consideration.

 

[VanillaCone]

Why not also show geraniums of the melancholy?

 

[Pup]

*Affirmative action, unlike what many people think, doesn't mean quotas for hiring minorities or women. Affirmative action simply means that race, gender, religion, sexual preference, age and other factors are not in themselves grounds for excluding individuals from consideration.

I thought affirmative action meant doing something to make up for discrimination in the past, so it always included some kind of preferred treatment. Not necessarily quotas, but at least something like a policy of always choosing the minority between two equal candidates.

If affirmative action just means not excluding candidates due to race, gender, etc., well, that's being fair, but there's no name left for the policy of giving preference to the formerly-discriminated-against race, gender, etc. until they catch up in society.

I can see good points in the arguments for both sides, about which is actually fairer. But it seems we do need different labels for impartial treatment and temporary preferential treatment. If the latter isn't "affirmative action," what is it?

 

[VanillaCone]

I thought affirmative action meant doing something to make up for discrimination in the past, so it always included some kind of preferred treatment. Not necessarily quotas, but at least something like a policy of always choosing the minority between two equal candidates.

If affirmative action just means not excluding candidates due to race, gender, etc., well, that's being fair, but there's no name left for the policy of giving preference to the formerly-discriminated-against race, gender, etc. until they catch up in society.

I can see good points in the arguments for both sides, about which is actually fairer. But it seems we do need different labels for impartial treatment and temporary preferential treatment. If the latter isn't "affirmative action," what is it?

I'm pretty sure you're right about this. Affirmative action involves taking some sort of, well, action to counteract the lingering effects of past discrimination. The idea is that merely preventing future discrimination is not sufficient redress for the prior injustices.

 

[charles brough]

So my critique of your nonsense is petulance? I actually addressed your actual points , starting with the first post and an appeal to emotion is all you have? Secular humanism is a heterogeneous ideology at best, you have confused Friedman Chicago school economics with it, stated your social mores regarding gender roles and much other nonsense. There is no secular humanist ideology, that is your assertion and therefore YOUR burden to demonstrate. So i see your response as totally throwing your hands in teh air and just waving them madly in dismissal.

Sorry not to have responded adequately to your posts . . .

I have, you say, confused the Friedman Chicago school of economics with our secular ideology?" That is a really absurd claim but I, even so, respond to it further down. Moreover, I don't state any of my social mores because they conform rather well to everyone elses. You take everything I write so personally and get all heated. I thought we were discussing the real world, not our feelings and impressions. Skeptics take a scientific view of things and try to be objective---not deal with their emotional impressions.

I addressed one of your questions using game theory, which you did not even respond to "In terms of equality, in game theory, it is better for all players to have some sort of leveling mechanism that allows for equal power and parity of opportunity. That way if you find yourself moving from a power position to one of less power, you have a better chance of recovery. therefore having a level playing field benefits all players. Now what we have in the real world is very different. We have systems that claim equality and are not, we have systems that are blatantly biased.

I didn't respond to this because there is no need to. I don't question it. But what does it have to do with our secular ideology? In the whole history of human society, there has never been a level playing field, so it has never needed one. You are being led by our secular "equality" doctrine and trying to change that. That is surely an admirable goal and I personally wish you well, but the only subject here in this thread is whether we should take an objective, scientific look at our own secular ideological system. So far, I am still the only one who has even tried to show what it is. All you say it is is that it is heterogenes. Aren't all ideologies?

If people don't have anything but the vagues idea of what it is, let me propose it again: it is a humanistic ideological way of thinking based on the ideals of liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, capitalism (any or all types, and not communism or socialism) and science. It purports to achieve it's goal through "the pursuit of happiness," the progress of science, and world leadership.

"Money, family status, class status and inside influence all unlevel any stated playing field." Which is not a defense of some vague secular ideology but a means of saying why I think it might be a good idea. So where is any of the evidence for your claims?

That is and has been exactly my point all along. You are using "science" to justify you illusion that our secular ideal of "equality" can be achieved. I am not criticizing it because I also personally regard it is a good ideal, but it is one that can never be achieved.

 

[Gazpacho]

I don't state any of my social mores because they conform rather well to everyone elses.

Everyone else's where you live, maybe. (Although probably not. Do you live in a monastery?)

We love to live crowded in cities just like we huddled together in small groups. We love to be close to people who are like ourselves.

I absolutely loathe living in crowded cities, and you're still projecting. You're doing what hack propagandists do, playing ventriloquist with your hand up "society's" neck, or "everyone" or "real Americans." If you're confident in whatever position it is you're arguing, then you shouldn't have to fall back on this tactic.

BTW, do you understand that waving your hand and saying "ideology" will not cause homosexuals, or gender-variant people, or bigotry to stop existing? That it will not stop people who face discrimination from perceiving the situation they're in?

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry not to have responded adequately to your posts . . .

I have, you say, confused the Friedman Chicago school of economics with our secular ideology?"

yes, I think that you have yet to show that capitalism and its alleged benefits are even a wide spread idea, it may be a wide spread political meme, but at what level do i individuals promote it

That is a really absurd claim but I, even so, respond to it further down.

yes your statements that capitalism is somehow part of a heterogeneous ideology of secular society is absurd , or at least unsupported.

Moreover, I don't state any of my social mores because they conform rather well to everyone elses.

Wow, another unsupported assertion, social mores vary upon the area and subsociety that one looks at.

You take everything I write so personally and get all heated.

Oooh, the psychic powers now?

I thought we were discussing the real world, not our feelings and impressions. Skeptics take a scientific view of things and try to be objective---not deal with their emotional impressions.

So you aren't a sceptic, okay.

And so when are you going to support your assertions?

I didn't respond to this because there is no need to. I don't question it. But what does it have to do with our secular ideology? In the whole history of human society, there has never been a level playing field, so it has never needed one.

So yet another unsupported assertion, what makes you think that the vast majority of human existence was anything other than a level playing field?

I will give you a hint, agriculture comes rather late in human existence.

You are being led by our secular "equality" doctrine and trying to change that.

No, I expressed why I think it is a god idea for an idividual, if you actually tried to do more than project, you would know that many scoieties stille xist that feel disequality, especially in political power are beneficial.

That is surely an admirable goal and I personally wish you well, but the only subject here in this thread is whether we should take an objective, scientific look at our own secular ideological system. So far, I am still the only one who has even tried to show what it is. All you say it is is that it is heterogenes. Aren't all ideologies?

Wow, yet another assertion on your part, was there a warehouse sale on assertions without evidence?

You have yet to show that there is even a consistent belief in the things you label as secular ideology.

So your whole construction is rather vague, capitalism is not universally supported and promoted by individuals.

If people don't have anything but the vagues idea of what it is, let me propose it again: it is a humanistic ideological way of thinking based on the ideals of liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, capitalism (any or all types, and not communism or socialism) and science. It purports to achieve it's goal through "the pursuit of happiness," the progress of science, and world leadership.

Except you have not shopn that those are more than political rhetoric, in the COTUS, some of those are expressed legal frame works.

I notice you also pared down your list.

Individualism is not again a demonstrated value amongst individuals.

You keep asserting your premise, you have yet to demonstrate it.

Democracy is again a legal framework, you have yet to show it as more than rhetoric, are workplaces democratic? How many part of social interaction promote democracy?

may societies are oligarchies, even within the US

That is and has been exactly my point all along. You are using "science" to justify you illusion that our secular ideal of "equality" can be achieved.

No I stated my reason for why I feel individuals may benefit from a level playing field. I never stated anything like what you just said, please stop making stuff up.

I am not criticizing it because I also personally regard it is a good ideal, but it is one that can never be achieved.

Um, so you can't present coherent evidence and you want to blame it on the 'secular value of science'? I say you are just full of rhetoric and don't know how to construct or back your arguments with coherent evidence of more than your personal opinion.

 

[charles brough]

Everyone else's where you live, maybe. (Although probably not. Do you live in a monastery?)

I absolutely loathe living in crowded cities, and you're still projecting. You're doing what hack propagandists do, playing ventriloquist with your hand up "society's" neck, or "everyone" or "real Americans." If you're confident in whatever position it is you're arguing, then you shouldn't have to fall back on this tactic.

BTW, do you understand that waving your hand and saying "ideology" will not cause homosexuals, or gender-variant people, or bigotry to stop existing? That it will not stop people who face discrimination from perceiving the situation they're in?

". . .waving your hand," "playing ventriloquist." "do you live in a monastery?," implying "hack propaganda" etc. etc. . . Why not deal with this subject objectively in a conversation instead of with such venemous hostility? The intensity of your discomposure exposes your deep emotional bias, something you won't admit even to yourself. If others can deal with this subject, I'll discuss it with them instead . . .

 

[godless dave]

Equality is a value, and values are not matters of fact. So speak of equality as a true or false value is to speak of a pizza being tasty as true or false.

Likewise with rights, they are social constructs, and the rights we have are granted to us by society, not by any god or by nature. Over the centuries we have moved toward more equal and more individualized rights.

What Humes Fork said.

 

[Gazpacho]

". . .waving your hand," "playing ventriloquist." "do you live in a monastery?," implying "hack propaganda" etc. etc. . . Why not deal with this subject objectively in a conversation instead of with such venemous hostility? The intensity of your discomposure exposes your deep emotional bias, something you won't admit even to yourself. If others can deal with this subject, I'll discuss it with them instead . . .

Are you or are you not repeatedly relying on claims that "everyone thinks" this-or-that, as a substitute for actually laying your position and defending it as your position?

"do you live in a monastery?,"

Well, do you live in a community where nobody is more liberal-minded than yourself, and there are no women who object to having their status dictated by their genes, and everyone believes in the same "order of things"?