Utterly Meaningless

I took her comments to mean, “He is right, but he should have checked with me first anyway.”

Or something like that.

Well, we’d have to start with a definition of secular and go from there. Its definitely true that in the US, secularism is in practice inclusive, but some of the most secular societies today and in history have been decidedly non-inclusive.

Secular humanism is considered to be a religion, BTW.

Christian apologetics teaches that in the US, secularists have incorporated Christian absolutes such as tolerance, but without the logical basis for them. Consequently, as time passes and US secularism becomes further removed from its Christian roots, it will become much like it has become in other places – morally relativistic, and decidedly non-inclusive.

The reason the US is such a strong advocate of human rights is due to its Christian heritage. Similarly, the reason Cuba, China, and North Korea do not advocate or respect human rights is due to their honest commitment to their secular values, and following them to their logical conclusion.

Sorry, but I have tasted that fruit for too long and don’t want any more of it. Thankfully, my mom got out of Cuba…

“What we’re looking at here,” she said, “is Christian bashing.”

OMG!
I cannot belive that she went there.
That’s the thing with that group, call them on something and you are “Christian Bashing”.
~sheesh~
I have to admit that I thought the Pride’s were long gone after the whole Gentle Spirit debacle.

Secular humanism is considered to be a religion, BTW.

By whom? People with poor reading comprehension skills?

Typical HEOS inclusiveness…. brow beat people when they disagree…

Anyway, here’s a definition that is consistent with what I have experienced dealing with secular humanistic folks… (christ...2.html)

“First, Secular Humanism is a worldview. That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality – something like a pair of glasses. Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview.[2] Do not let the word “secular” mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”[3]”

Anonymous chickens.

“Anonymous chickens.”

Is this the sum total of your debate skills? If that is the best you can do, perhaps it’s time to rethink your philosophy.

I’m not browbeating anyone. You made a throwaway assertion, and I, as someone rather familiar with secular humanists, questioned that assertion.

You’ve now provided at least some evidence by referencing HM I — written in 1933 by religious humanists, or what used to be called deists — and HM II, written in 1973, which, while retaining some flavor of religious humanism, is pretty rough on the anything smacking of the supernatural (“As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.”). Also, please note that the phrase “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view” comes not from the manifestos themselves, but from a book preface.

You omit — inadvertently? — any reference to the modern HM III, which invokes neither religion nor faith.

Secular humanism is undoubtedly a worldview, perhaps even a philosophy — but no more. Surely you don’t want to cheapen religion by equating it with something that’s merely philosophy …

If anyone is interested in an exploration of religious vs. secular humanism, this is a great place to start. And here’s some discussion of myths about secular humanism.

And before we go circular by devolving into accusations of “Christian bashing”, let me state that I do not consider myself a secular humanist in the (quasi)doctrinaire sense and I don’t necessarily agree with SH views on the role of religion in society and individuals’ lives. I am taking issue only with characterization of SH as a religion, not religion in general or anyone else’s religion specifically.

SH-basher!!!

Surely you don’t want to cheapen religion by equating it with something that’s merely philosophy …

This came off as smartass, but I was trying to make a serious point — religious critics seem to throw the “religion” label at SH in a dismissive way, as if they’ve internalized the secular connotations of “religion” and “faith” as “irrational set of beliefs”; in effect, conceding the game before they’ve even played. Seems to be a disconnect there to me. Would it not be stronger to defend religion and theism vigorously and attack SH as simply a worldview?

Yes, I have replied to myself twice. I enjoy these public interior monologues. Why do you ask?

SH-basher!!!

I don’t have to listen to no RCS.

Funny. Actually this is kind of strange; Google was supposed to stop indexing comments here. Evidently not.