Is Secular Humanism a Fraud? (essay 1 now added)

[_bcspace]

However, certain criticisms of secular humanism are quite devastating. And the most incisive and damning criticisms tend not to come from devoted religious apologists (who as a group seem ill-suited to the task of hard, clinical, rational criticism), but from secular thinkers themselves.

Is anyone reading this? Should I go on?

Notice how Tal cannot delve into the criticisms of secular humanism without a detour rant against the LDS Church and religion in general. This precludes him from the capability of hard clinical rationality, something which many 'religionists' have in abundance.

Gold Two: [the Y-wings are running the gauntlet toward the Death Star reactor-port] The guns - they've stopped!
Gold Five: [realizes why] Stabilize your rear deflectors... Watch for enemy fighters.
Gold Leader: They're coming in! Three marks at 2-10!
[Gold Two is slain by Darth Vader and his wingmen; Gold Leader starts to panic]
Gold Leader: It's no good, I can't maneuver!
Gold Five: Stay on target.
Gold Leader: *We're too close!"
Gold Five: Stay on target!
Gold Leader: [shouts] Loosen up!
[he too is picked off by Vader and Company; Gold Five tries to escape but is fatally winged]
Gold Five: Gold Five to Red leader, lost Tiree, lost Dutch.
Red Leader: I copy, Gold Leader.
Gold Five: It came from... behind!
[crashes]

[_Canucklehead]

Is Tal waiting for the masses to urge him on?

...yet 'twas not a crown neither, 'twas one of these coronets;--and, as I told you, he put it by once: but, for all that, to my thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offered it to him again; then he put it by again: but, to my thinking, he was very loath to lay his fingers off it. And then he offered it the third time; he put it the third time by: and still as he refused it, the rabblement hooted and clapped their chapped hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps and uttered such a deal of stinking breath...

[_LifeOnaPlate]

However, certain criticisms of secular humanism are quite devastating. And the most incisive and damning criticisms tend not to come from devoted religious apologists (who as a group seem ill-suited to the task of hard, clinical, rational criticism), but from secular thinkers themselves.

I predict within a few years Tal will become a rabid EV. What say y'all?

That's funny. lol...

Mr. Tal, could you get to the point? I'm not sure what you're stabbing at... I will, however, add that Secular Humanism (SH) tends to get lumped in with religionism, which it is clearly not. It's not a worship system, and I hate it when religionists attempt to re-define it along the lines of a pseudo religion. I also dislike it when SH is associated with Communism/Socialism. It's neither a religion, nor a political ideology. It's a position that values humanistic ethics that propel us toward a greater understanding of nature, and hopefully a better world for humanity... Whatever that entails...

The religionists who put it in the religion category may have a different view on what constitutes religion. For example, I see everyone on this site as very religious.

Did you have to re-define the word 'religion' in order to make that work for you? What is, in fact, your definition of religion?

To be honest, I am not fully convinced by many or most if not all of the definitions I have read, and when looking into the etymology of the word I am confronted with many different opinions. So as far as "re-defining" religion, I suppose I'd need a solid definition to work with before re-defining. Even the common use terms can be problematic in my opinion. We hear the phrase "I am religious but I don't belong to a Church." That's an interesting comment.

The nearest I've come is a binding to or tying back to something.

[_Moniker]

Well, if you don't have a working definition how in the world can we all look religious to you? How does that work, precisely?

[_antishock8]

The religionists who put it in the religion category may have a different view on what constitutes religion. For example, I see everyone on this site as very religious.

The nearest I've come is a binding to or tying back to something.

You clearly have a concept of the word since you invoke it so much. The definition you provided is nonsense. What's your problem?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Well, if you don't have a working definition how in the world can we all look religious to you? How does that work, precisely?

I have a definition that I work with, though I suppose it is a personal definition. It's pretty simple, really. Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The religionists who put it in the religion category may have a different view on what constitutes religion. For example, I see everyone on this site as very religious.

The nearest I've come is a binding to or tying back to something.

You clearly have a concept of the word since you invoke it so much. The definition you provided is nonsense. What's your problem?

I use religionist in a normative sense in most cases; here not excluded. In the statement I refer to those who are considered "religionists," namely, those who believe in an actual system of faith-based beliefs. The kind of people referred to previously in the thread. As far as people here being religious, I believe people here have their own rituals, do their own kind of proselyting, measure things by their self-accepted values, etc.
By the way, I try to be light hearted and rib people on the board here, but I don't really know you and you are coming across as being very rude.

Do you ever get irritated by a "holier-than-thou" attitude? If so, you need to be aware that you exude it yourself.

[_antishock8]

The religionists who put it in the religion category may have a different view on what constitutes religion. For example, I see everyone on this site as very religious.

The nearest I've come is a binding to or tying back to something.

You clearly have a concept of the word since you invoke it so much. The definition you provided is nonsense. What's your problem?

I use religionist in a normative sense in most cases; here not excluded. In the statement I refer to those who are considered "religionists," namely, those who believe in an actual system of faith-based beliefs. The kind of people referred to previously in the thread. As far as people here being religious, I believe people here have their own rituals, do their own kind of proselyting, measure things by their self-accepted values, etc.

So, you essentially redefined the word because its "normative" use didn't suit you? Jesus, man.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The religionists who put it in the religion category may have a different view on what constitutes religion. For example, I see everyone on this site as very religious.

The nearest I've come is a binding to or tying back to something.

You clearly have a concept of the word since you invoke it so much. The definition you provided is nonsense. What's your problem?

I use religionist in a normative sense in most cases; here not excluded. In the statement I refer to those who are considered "religionists," namely, those who believe in an actual system of faith-based beliefs. The kind of people referred to previously in the thread. As far as people here being religious, I believe people here have their own rituals, do their own kind of proselyting, measure things by their self-accepted values, etc.

So, you essentially re-defined the word because its "normative" use didn't suit you? Jesus, man.

The normative use has become relatively meaningless to me, to be honest. I still use it in the normative sense, as you noted above. But as for me, I see religion as something more than being affiliated with a Church, believing God exists in some kind of Judeo-Christian or other tradition, etc. It's not about "suiting" me; it's about understanding the word, why people use it the way they do, how it was historically used, and what it means to me.

[_Moniker]

Well, if you don't have a working definition how in the world can we all look religious to you? How does that work, precisely?

I have a definition that I work with, though I suppose it is a personal definition. It's pretty simple, really. Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also.

I don't quite get it. What is the common denominator in all the posters here that looks religious to you?

Can we file for a tax exempt status?