What is Secularism?
You’re probably accustomed to thinking about secularism as anything non-religious. That’s partially true, but that doesn’t explain its appeal or its power to influence the culture.
Secularism means current = authoritative. The ideas and values of today’s culture are the standard by which all other ideas are judged. Anything that came on the scene before you did is likely to be considered irrelevant. Our information age contributes to this view. The latest buzz via instant intra-cranial download, is a transfusion of information that replaces what preceded it 5 minutes earlier. “Truth” changes minute by minute.
Isn’t it easy to see how the Bible could get pushed aside in this climate? It’s old, thick, and deep. It stubbornly rebuffs the latest principles of our world (Col. 2:8). But maybe we should use that description to point out it’s radical relevance. Human nature doesn’t change, God doesn’t change, and the Bible shows how the two interact. Isn’t that a refuge in a world that constantly does change?
Love this site…the concept…the name…etc. I’ll check back often!
I have to ask this: Is this a joke?
“Secularism means current = authoritative.” Really?
Then theocracy means ancient = authoritative? Anything that “came on the scene” after a holy script is likely to be considered irrelevant? You’re holy text contributes to this view? The writings of men who believed the earth was flat, the sky was a dome over the earth, disease was caused by demon infestation and being tortured, stoned or burned alive was a good punishment for being accused of being a witch or not accepting the doctrine of Christ are the absolute truth until the end of time?
I’ve read “Meet the Skeptic”. Think it’s a good book? Come debate an actual skeptic.
http://www.youtube.com/user/themanofearth
Love this site.
To comment on the comments of themanofearth. Really that’s the best you have. Then maybe we should push aside all the books of antiquity that were written why the earth was considered flat based on that lame logic. I don’t Socrates would appreciate that. How many people have been killed by the great mind of Nietchze and atheism where everyone considered animal. Come on themanofearth you need some better arguments. These are the same lame worn out ones that Dawkins pushes. Next you’ll say we’re descendents from mars.
1) We HAVE pushed all of those books aside EXCEPT for the holy scripts including the Bible.
2) I am merely using the same logic used in the article itself to justify the stance on secularism and applying it to the “alternative” which most religious people would suggest as it’s only fair to, considering that the annalists of secularism is completely inaccurate.
3) Barring the fact that Socrates the philosopher (not the confirmed historical figure as found in military records of the period) as described in the writings of Plato may not have even existed, Socrates would have greatly appreciated having his ignorance exposed. Had you ever read Plato’s works in which Socrates’ dialogs are featured, you would have known that.
4) I’m assuming that with “How many people have been killed by the great mind of Nietchze and atheism where everyone considered animal.” you’re attempting to refer to Nazism, Stalinism, and Communism under Pol Pot? Please tell me you’re not that brainwashed to accept that complete load of warn out bull. Hitler was a Christian, Stalin’s murderous reign had nothing to do with his lack of belief in a magical sky fairy, and Pol Pot wasn’t particularly rational in any sense of the word and if you’d payed attention in an actual history class or READ any of Hitler’s or Stalin’s writings and speeches, you’d know that too.
5) This is the kicker and my favorite thing to notice. You didn’t reply to my post directly which means that I wouldn’t be informed of your response unless I checked back. So you’re either an ignoramus who can’t seem to work a website properly or a coward who lacks any meaningful sense of intellectual integrity that I’ve already wasted too much time on writing this response: Which is it?
1) That’s why the Bible is taught in public schools right? Come on lets be a little realistic please.
2) No your not using the same logic. You put up a lame straw man argument.
3) So what your saying is your right and I’m wrong. There’s no possible way your could be wrong.
4) Yes I know the lame arguments that Hitler’s a Christian. He couldn’t of been telling lies or anything. He doesn’t have condictary quotes that he hates Christians or Christianity.
5) I didn’t know I had to notify you of my comments.
Let’s be a little sincere here. You don’t really want to have real conversation. You just want to rant and puff yourself up and seem smart. Your problem with Christianity is that it doesn’t condone your lifestyle and things you like to do.
If we live our lives in obedience to our Savior does it make your life or anyone elses hard? There is nothing about Christians that harm the culture. You can’t find Christians out keeping homosexal’s from living their lifestyle. Abortions still happen daily. People still have sex outside of marriage. You bring up fringe events that are outside the norm of a bible believing church. Yes people highjack titles all the time, but if you didn’t latch on to those events you have nothing to beat us up with.
Answer this question. Where does morality come from if there is not a moral law giver?
Took you long enough.
1) The Bible is NOT taught in public schools unless it’s part of a religion class. If it’s part of a science class, historically ONE court case is enough to put an end to that nonsense.
2) Minus some very minor grammatical differences I said the exact same thing that apologetics1 did.
3) No what I’m saying is that you’re demonstrably wrong and you didn’t realize it because you’ve obviously not read Plato.
4) Oh… sarcasm in response to factual claims. Sad.
5) It’s only polite to allow someone to respond to criticism or detractors or didn’t you know that either till I called you out on it?
Aside: I can’t respond directly to your response to me because the site only allows 3 comment levels. If you’d like to contact me directly, you can do so through my YouTube account listed above.
“Where does morality come from if there is not a moral law giver?”
Really? LMAO!!! Well if you’re willing to look/think beyond “The good book is good” you’ll find a rich world of philosophy and scientific research on the subject but here’s a link to a response to that question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M
As far as my motivation for doing the things that I’m doing here on this site I suggest you look in the link below and read.
You can also go here and see a video.
The link to read.
http://apologeticsdiner.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/conscience-accuser-and-defender/
So you want me to think, and by insulting and bullying me with your position I will change my mind and be a free thinker. That is comedic at best. At least you think there are absolutes in either there is a right or a wrong. I will give you that.
I saw the two videos and found them to filled with animosity and hate to say the least. I won’t try to convice you that wrong about Hitler because it’s obvious that you pull all your stuff from atheist websites based on your video.
One thing I notice from this post to the other article is that your views are contridictory. In the video about creationism society holds children in high regard and says you don’t need Chrisianity to value children. Then in the other article post you say that abortion would be accepted if wasn’t for Religion. So which is it. Society hold children in high regard or not. I think we both know the answer to that.
So here the big question to ponder. If your right I have nothing to worry about and continue to live as Christian and if this life is all I have to be accountable for then I go into the ground with no problems.
If Christians are right and you have a creator to give an account to for all your deeds and you have not been covered by Christ atoning sacrafice on the cross then you have a lot to be concerned about. The thing is only one of us can be right.
“So you want me to think, and by insulting and bullying me with your position I will change my mind and be a free thinker.”
*Chuckle* Since that’s a completely inaccurate way of portraying what I stated, I have to answer no. I even specifically stated as much in the video titled, “Why… (An Atheist’s Story)” or did you not see the video? You know where I equated my activism to that of members of MADD?
“I saw the two videos and found them to filled with animosity and hate to say the least.”
I love how apologists claim that atheists and secular activists are hateful when expressing our distaste for the demonstrably bad reasoning and negative social, political and interpersonal effects that exude from religion and religious/dogmatic belief on virtually every level instead of being able to say anything meaningful in response. It’s almost comforting to know there’s so little variation in that tactic.
“In the video about creationism society holds children in high regard and says you don’t need Chrisianity to value children. Then in the other article post you say that abortion would be accepted if wasn’t for Religion. So which is it. Society hold children in high regard or not. I think we both know the answer to that.”
A sad response because the abortion issue is not about valuing children but mitigating suffering. I already have a response and judging from your obvious lack of understanding of the issue, you should pay close attention.
“So here the big question to ponder. If your right I have nothing to worry about and continue to live as Christian and if this life is all I have to be accountable for then I go into the ground with no problems.
If Christians are right and you have a creator to give an account to for all your deeds and you have not been covered by Christ atoning sacrafice on the cross then you have a lot to be concerned about.”
Really? THAT’S your “big question to ponder”?
I’ll be nice and let you inform yourself of the problems with Pascal’s wager.
Here’s a very quick 2 min version here:
and a more detailed assessment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
“The thing is only one of us can be right.”
That at least is true however there are two things that must be commented on when considering this.
1) For you to be right, all of science must either be completely wrong or so susceptible to the will of an omnipotent being that it would be ridiculous to believe that something as regular as pressing a button on your cellphone should work the next time you press one. This is because moral salient claims made in a holy text (in your case the Bible) rest upon claims about the nature of reality that violate virtually every principal known to science. If the Bible is right, science is wrong; which includes modern medicine, modern biology, physics, chemistry, etc. The existence of the internet should be virtually impossible or literally a god given miracle.
2) I’m not making the claim that some form of a god (and all the little things that go along with it) doesn’t exist.
Since you ARE claiming that one (and a very specific one) DOES exist, the burden of proof is on you to provide the proof in order to justify your beliefs and the actions motivated by that beliefs. If you are incapable of doing so, which seems to be or at least so far is the case, your beliefs and the actions motivated by those beliefs are unjustified and, therefore, void of any actual merit.
All I need to do is counter your arguments (which I can) and you being right becomes so unlikely as to be almost childish to think you could be.
I would like to challenge the unbeliever here to watch the movie “Exspelled” with Ben Stein, it covers about of “science” to show how GOD is real.
LMFAO!! EXPELLED!?!?!?!?!
That’s your best retort?
It was a horrible movie (Cat Woman was better but that’s just an ad hominem), it had NO science in it what so ever AND if you’d do a quick search on Google you’ll find that every argument and/or piece of information put forward in that movie is either a distortion (especially the “interview” with Richard Dawkins which was actually an ambush interview), a complete failure (where he tries to connect Darwin’s theory of natural selection to SOCIAL Darwinism) or an out right fabrication/lie (“Intelligent Design” is an actual scientific theory). If you don’t do your research before you talk you’ll always end up with your foot in your mouth.