why not also show skepticism of the secular?

[Twiler]

You have a good list of qualifications. It even says in the Bill of Rights "certain, unalienable rights" and not to everything. What I see happening with that, though, is that people do tend to use it to change our society in ways that are always thought beneficial but only because our ideals make us think they are. Should women have the "right" to fight and die in combat? Is it that next in the "equality" and "rights" trend? Would it really be beneficial for women? Or is it the man's responsibility to protect the women and children? I say our secular ideals are leading us in directions that conflict with basic human nature.

Good.

 

[Piggy]

That is convenient. It defines secular as being "Truth". Here we depart because I don't know if our scientific understanding of ourselves and the world is the final, abstract truth. I think of the science view as only being what is more accurate than what we used to believe and especially the old religions which people cling to but are now otherwise obsolete. In other words,our secular science is the last and most accurate view of ourselves and the world but it is not abstract truth because it has to change by constantly becoming more accurate.

Science is not our secular ideology, however. Our secular ideology is the ideals and goals that grew out of the Age of Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the US Constitution.

Alsp, religions are not a departure from "truth" but merely more accurate than the ideological systems that preceeded them (such as the monotheistic ones being less INaccurate than the polytheistic faiths they replaced.

Dude, if you go around believing in supernatural stuff for which there is no evidence, which is contradicted by modern knowledge, and which is derived from an ancient worldview that has long since been debunked, then you're believing in things that are not real.

The "non-secular" doesn't exist.

 

[Tricky]

This is one big ball of non sequitur.

You seem to be equating "secular" with some sort of strawman version of PC liberalism, then using your Jumping to Conclusions Mat to bounce over to US jurisprudence.

Nothing in the text of the OP has anything to do with being "secular" (as opposed to spiritual or religious).

As for being skeptical of the secular, all you have to do is go browse the threads here regarding all sorts of non-religious woo, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, crank physics, cryptozoology, etc. etc. etc.

But from a skeptical point of view, since all religion is based on some sort of departure from valid evidence and is therefore incompatible with skepticism and reason, nothing actually exists other than what you would call "secular".

In my opinion, there's really no need to divide the world into secular and non-secular... there is only what exists and what does not, and everything non-secular falls into the latter category.

This... is giving me an idea.

Why don't religious people have absolute faith in the secular? Obviously religious people are capable of having absolute faith. Why not just apply it to both religious and secular beliefs? Everybody would be on the same page! Damn, this is great.

I'm going to patent this philosophy and call it the "Charles Braugh Correlary Question".

 

[catsmate]

Should women have the "right" to fight and die in combat? Is it that next in the "equality" and "rights" trend? Would it really be beneficial for women? Or is it the man's responsibility to protect the women and children? I say our secular ideals are leading us in directions that conflict with basic human nature.

That is a terribly silly argument. Pretty much every part of modern society can be considered "unnatural" or "against human nature" from constructing and living in buildings and cooking our food, to living in cities and restricting ourbehaviour based on laws.

 

[citizenzen]

That is a terribly silly argument.

Sometimes I get the impression that "against human nature" means "makes me feel like less of a man".

 

[charles brough]

That is a terribly silly argument. Pretty much every part of modern society can be considered "unnatural" or "against human nature" from constructing and living in buildings and cooking our food, to living in cities and restricting ourbehaviour based on laws.

Not at all. The only thing we have drastically modified is polygamy. Men still love having their own group take enemy terriory which is what goes on in every baseball, football, socker, etc. game. The women still cook and take care of the children, also nurture as in nursing.

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. As ideological unity in our society breaks down, we lose that needed sense of community and stress builds up.

And we devise laws that conform to our natural social behavioral instincts. Even chimps have a sense of justice and will assault another one who accepted a favor without being willing to reciprocate.

 

[Twiler]

Not at all. The only thing we have drastically modified is polygamy. Men still love having their own group take enemy terriory which is what goes on in every baseball, football, socker, etc. game. The women still cook and take care of the children, also nurture as in nursing.

What about male nurses, cooks, teachers?

We love to live crowded in cities just like we huddled together in small groups.

What about the people living out in the country?

We love to be close to people who are like ourselves.

I don't think that this is a universal truth.

As ideological unity in our society breaks down, we lose that needed sense of community and stress builds up.

Or, we learn to cope with individualism.

And we devise laws that conform to our natural social behavioral instincts. Even chimps have a sense of justice and will assault another one who accepted a favor without being willing to reciprocate.

Doesn't that imply that the equality laws you're arguing against also originate from natural instincts?

 

[charles brough]

What about male nurses, cooks, teachers?

What about the people living out in the country?

I don't think that this is a universal truth.

Or, we learn to cope with individualism.

Doesn't that imply that the equality laws you're arguing against also originate from natural instincts?

You say "what about it?" and I ask right back, "well, what do YOU think about it?" And as for "universal truths?" what in hell is that? Do you know of any absolute truth in our understanding of ourselves and the universe, something that is "true" and hence has and will never change? Also, keep in mind that in the social sciences, we can only make generalizations to which there are always some or a few exceptions. Nit pickers are those who focus only on the exceptions.

You pose a good question. As far as an "equality instinct" I would instead suggest that among most mammals, most males would like to be the alpha. That is why we men are regarded by women as egotistical. Our personal prestige in the social pecking order is important to us. We compete for it and "success" is the word we use to mark progress in achieving it. If s msn generallly admires those who achieve in and thus run things, he is content to compete in the system for more success.

But if the system is corrupt and he has lost respect for government and the system, we don't say so, but it shows up in how we all mock them by using the system to set them up on stages where they have to make outlandish promises, denigrate each other and soothe us with platitudes in order to take hold of that power. It shows up in how much we "hate politics."

If we do not respect the alphas in charge and the system they have established, we increase our demand for "liberty," "independence," "freedom" and "rights." It shows up with us rioting from time tto o time, staging giant protests, not votingThey are no longer platitudes. Now, we really mean it when we say them. Never mind sending pur troops "free" Muslims, people here feel they are the ones who need to be freed. The only problem is what goes in its place . . .

 

[Dessi]

If we do not respect the alphas in charge and the system they have established, we increase our demand for "liberty," "independence," "freedom" and "rights." It shows up with us rioting from time tto o time, staging giant protests, not votingThey are no longer platitudes. Now, we really mean it when we say them. Never mind sending pur troops "free" Muslims, people here feel they are the ones who need to be freed. The only problem is what goes in its place . . .

Its honestly hard to figure out what you're complaint is. Yes, people have different values than you. No, that's not a bad thing.

 

[Dancing David]

No, I just prepared some objective questions expecting specifically-worded, thoughtful and objective answers, but people are clearly too defensive and sensitive about their own ideology, even their secular one.

Perhaps you should have been more specific, thoughtful and obkective in your questions.

Maybe you should restate them again.

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.

So maybe the issue is your inability to frame an articulate question? So why not ask again, instead of some retreat and snark position?

I mean seriously have you read any of the threads about incest?

there is no valid reason to say that incest is bad in biological terms, now in terms of social mores and emotional power conflicts in families it is terrible.

The bias of societies against homosexuality is just a ridiculous social more, with no basis in facts than bias against people who have dark skin.justifiable

 

[Dancing David]

In our large social gathering, I often see a transgender individual who dresses somewhat like a women but she is over six feet tall and muscular. She has a narrow pelvis and definite male facial features. You wonder what is going on with such a individual but reluctant so bold or rude as to intrude into a preson's sexual-personal life.

Transgender identity is about personal identity. People fall along a large number of spectrums, I for example fall very highly along many 'female' traits and do not fall very high at all among many 'male' traits. In my youth I identified with women and girls, they were my role models, they were the ones I wanted to spend time with and in many ways theyw ere the ones I wanted to be when I grew up.

I had a rather mixed gender identity, until the age of sixteen, when I found that while I like women and still identified more with them than most stereotypical men, I really liked kissing girls and having sex with them. The issues I had with gender stereotypes still exist. I do not match most expectations for men in US society. I meet many of them for women, every job I have had, except for women has been dominated by a preponderance of women, I still make more female friends than I ever do male friends. What male friends I have are usually gay.

So I am reconciled to a male body gender since the age of sixteen , although up to that point I really wanted a female body, and I enjoy and like my male body. But in terms of gender roles and identity, I would say that in terms of stereo typing I am 75% female/25% male. I never wanted to wear dresses or make up, so in that sense I am not femme, but I want to cook like my mom and all those sorts of things.

 

[Dancing David]

No, I could add "people who are unreliable" or how about the criminally insane?

People need to be treated differently. The mentally retarded, for example, need to be treated in a special way which includes a lot of patience and no show of anger, ever. And they need to be supported. The President, for another example, should be treated with some respect and referred to as "The President" by the media instead of "Mr. Obama" or even "Obama" as is commonly heard on both Fox and CNN.

Um, wrong, people who are developmentally disabled or cognitively impaired deserve as much equality as they can. They deserve as much consideration and equality as other people. there are people who are 'slow' all around you, they comprise 15% of the population, do they deserve your special treatment?

Do people with disabilities deserve special treatment, for what reason? Some bizzare stereotype and mischaracterization on your part.

The criminally insane deserve equality too, equality to live with the consequence of their choices. that also goes for those of us who are insane but not criminals.

Equality means equal access to opportunity, I wonder what you think it means?

Social mores on the correct form of address for the POPTUS are social mores, are you saying that you wanted him treated equally as other presidents?

 

[Dancing David]

And here is at the heart of the problem! Is there any difference in form between East Asian Marxism ("Communism") and Fascism or even Judaism other than that Judaism is an older ideology and has the belief in "spirits" because it is older?

Wow, so you can't differentiate between different cultures, societies, social structures, political structures, economic structures.

Really you think that east aisian marxism is the same as Judaism, care o explain that?

I can think of ways that they are different.

It seems to me they are all ideologies, except that the "religions" are really very old. The human race has, after all, made some intellectual progress since way back in prehistory!

All ideologies are the same , makes as much sense as all dogs are the same.

It also seems to me that our faith in the capitalistic system, rights, freedom, individualism, democracy, etc. is an ideology held by millions if not billions of people and that it is generally included by the individual along with his other, older ideology ("religion"). If it is not the two ideologies together that determine how everyone thinks, what does?

Wow, so you do know that personal perspectives vary on each one of those that you delineate?

Secularism is not an ideology, 'free market capitalism as politically expressed by the Chicago group' is almost an ideology, however even within that group there is considerable variation.

People are informed by many different structures in society and it is vertically and horizontally heterogeneous. I think that you may want to start with cultural anthropology, social psychology, sociology and political science, that may help you understand.

 

[Dancing David]

I say our secular ideals are leading us in directions that conflict with basic human nature.

Oh double wow!

So you define 'human nature' as 'the social mores and cultural norms I was raised in'?

You do know that 'human nature' is plastic to a large degree?

 

[Dancing David]

And we devise laws that conform to our natural social behavioral instincts.

That right there first degree hogwash, unsubstantiated in any way and as false as 'trickster sky daddy god'.

There are no ************ social behavioral instincts.

Humans have biological determinants that influence behavior, but instincts human do not have.

 

[Dancing David]

You pose a good question. As far as an "equality instinct" I would instead suggest that among most mammals, most males would like to be the alpha. That is why we men are regarded by women as egotistical. Our personal prestige in the social pecking order is important to us. We compete for it and "success" is the word we use to mark progress in achieving it. If s msn generallly admires those who achieve in and thus run things, he is content to compete in the system for more success.

So, lets try and find some research that backs any of that crap you just made up, try and find research to back it up, I will even give you a break and we can say within the last ten years instead of the last three.

Your ignorance of the complexity of social hierarchies is amazing, riddle me this:

How has more sex with a female chimp in estrous, the dominant male, or the more submissive male?

What the fred makes you think that even 25% of men give a **** about their status and that they want to run things? Any research, any metrics, any data?

 

[charles brough]

Its honestly hard to figure out what you're complaint is. Yes, people have different values than you. No, that's not a bad thing.

Desi, why do you think I am complaining? I'm being objective and explaining how our secular system is an ideology like everything we believe. That is all. It is social science to look at your own society and the belief structure that holds it together. This is not personal to me. It is a challenge to understand and that is what science is for.

 

[Dessi]

Desi, why do you think I am complaining? I'm being objective and explaining how our secular system is an ideology like everything we believe. That is all. It is social science to look at your own society and the belief structure that holds it together. This is not personal to me. It is a challenge to understand and that is what science is for.

You're being the opposite of objective. You're trying to generalize your own personal beliefs as if they were universal rules that everyone should follow. Nothing you've said has anything to to do with science, let alone skepticism.

I think you're complaining because of very specific comments you've made in this thread, particularly:

If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests, and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

You're either objecting to all theses, or you're equivocating on the word "equal". No, people are not physical or mentally equal, that much is obvious. Yes, people should have equality of opportunity regardless of their differences.

I'm sorry, but your entire thread is simply cryptic. You say one thing, people ask for clarification, then you say "oh I didn't say, I'm just talking about science" -- not helpful. I apologize for saying that if you're not a native English speaker, but I'm not the only person who feels that way. It would probably be best to allow this thread to die because the point you're trying to make, whatever it is, is totally lost on everyone.

 

[Twiler]

You say "what about it?" and I ask right back, "well, what do YOU think about it?"

No, you see, you said (in short) 'Not much has changed because people are sticking to traditional gender roles.'

I said, 'What about these people who aren't?'

And now you're saying 'What do you think?', trying to obscure the flow of debate.

And as for "universal truths?" what in hell is that? Do you know of any absolute truth in our understanding of ourselves and the universe, something that is "true" and hence has and will never change? Also, keep in mind that in the social sciences, we can only make generalizations to which there are always some or a few exceptions. Nit pickers are those who focus only on the exceptions.

They're also known as scientists.

You pose a good question. As far as an "equality instinct" I would instead suggest that among most mammals, most males would like to be the alpha. That is why we men are regarded by women as egotistical. Our personal prestige in the social pecking order is important to us. We compete for it and "success" is the word we use to mark progress in achieving it. If s msn generallly admires those who achieve in and thus run things, he is content to compete in the system for more success.

But if the system is corrupt and he has lost respect for government and the system, we don't say so, but it shows up in how we all mock them by using the system to set them up on stages where they have to make outlandish promises, denigrate each other and soothe us with platitudes in order to take hold of that power. It shows up in how much we "hate politics."

If we do not respect the alphas in charge and the system they have established, we increase our demand for "liberty," "independence," "freedom" and "rights." It shows up with us rioting from time tto o time, staging giant protests, not votingThey are no longer platitudes. Now, we really mean it when we say them. Never mind sending pur troops "free" Muslims, people here feel they are the ones who need to be freed. The only problem is what goes in its place . . .

So, how do you make a distinction between what people really want and what they don't?

 

[charles brough]

So, lets try and find some research that backs any of that crap you just made up, try and find research to back it up, I will even give you a break and we can say within the last ten years instead of the last three.

Your ignorance of the complexity of social hierarchies is amazing, riddle me this:

How has more sex with a female chimp in estrous, the dominant male, or the more submissive male?

What the fred makes you think that even 25% of men give a **** about their status and that they want to run things? Any research, any metrics, any data?

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.