Secular folks should worry.

[Res Ipsa]

Can you write a description of our respective world views in a compare and contrast fashion that accurately describes my world view?

Sure. I believe in a creator God in whom all truth and power resides. You don’t. At the end of the day you are under the false assumption that mankind is naturally going to ‘choose the right’. That’s not always true. History proves that.

In the modern world we can see what no theistic belief can result in. The United States is the beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world.

Or has been.

The question that can be asked is whether or not the gradual effects of the slippery slope leading to atheism and/or non theistic belief is at play.

Question: Do the liberal non theists on this board look at the United States and it’s Constitution as a ‘city on a hill’ showing forth a beacon of freedom/hope and liberty for all mankind?

If so, why? If not, why?

Regards,
MG

You got the first two sentences right. The third is not something I believe. Everything past that is about your world view, not mine. You were completely unable to describe my worldview other than the "doesn't believe in God" part, which is hardly a "worldview."

You're the one who said this thread described two different philosophies. So you tell me what I think about the United States and its Constitution. Take another crack at my worldview.

[MG 2.0]

The reason why people are spending less energy on you is because after 20+ years of watching your shtick they feel it’s pointless to indulge you and your attention-seeking nonsense.

Then ignore me, will ya’?

It would make things MUCH more pleasant if we didn’t have to listen to your filth.

Funny. At times I think it rather “pointless” to indulge in conversation with the likes of you. But I’m here to have useful and interesting conversations.

There are some, however, that don’t see that as ‘the point. They, you being one, are simply out to ‘score points’. Even if it’s done by dragging others through the mud. In the process, however, you are the one that soils yourself.

You haven’t addressed yourself to ONE point that I presented/made in my initial post today.

And you are such a waste of my time.

Ignore me, will ya’?

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

MG,

Its disingenuous to claim you were interested in a discussion about the type of society we collectively want. I asked you to define civil society as a starting point and you ignored that in favor of your crusade.

I think my post attempts to promote the discussion you would like to have.

Regards,
MG

I didn't see you define "civil society".

[MG 2.0]

Oh, and religious rights have been one of the first things to go in totalitarian theistic regimes and/or revolutions and/or governments that have risen to power. Iranian revolution? Mohdi's persecution of Moslems? Taliban persecution of other sects of Islam?

Yes, in regards to the Islamic State fundamentalists rising to power, you have a point. I would say, however, that the principles which they espouse are in direct contradiction with the principles of Christian religious thought.

I’m referring to the wide spread and mass destruction of life and property in godless regimes such as the old Soviet state that lead to the Russia of today, and the communists that run China. I suppose you could throw Hitler’s Germany in there too.

Granted, there is ‘soft’ secular humanism and the more strident ‘in your face, my way or the highway’ secular humanism. Just as there is with, say the hard religious/political right, and the Mitt Romney Republicans. Of which I am one.

Although when I claimed to be so, you essentially called me a liar. You also made me out to be a ‘Tuckerite’. That I am not. Some things I hear him say, I agree with. Other things I hear him say I find myself saying, “What a loon!” Same with Hannity and Co. Same with Trump.

Secular humanists with non theistic inclinations are inclined to put those that don’t have a worldview similar to their own into one large basket?

That seems to be the case with you. Although I would like to think you are better than that. However we want to define civil society, I don’t think this is part and parcel of where we would want to go. Lumping everyone into ‘the other’ basket and trying to silence them.

Basket making at its worst.

I’ve been willing to cut you some slack Res Ipsa, on a personal basis. I haven’t seen ANY evidence that you are willing to do the same.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You haven’t addressed yourself to ONE point that I presented/made in my initial post today.

DARVO.

The reason why people are spending less energy on you is because after 20+ years of watching your shtick they feel it’s pointless to indulge you and your attention-seeking nonsense.

You do good in little spats consisting of a few sentences. Anything longer and you skim it, or scroll past it. This is why people have, over time, limited their responses to you - because you don’t read … Plus, you’ve been caught in so many lies ref book reading, or linking academic papers you claimed to have read, or church resources you claimed to have read, but actually they contradicted your claims, or that you’ve studied religions and philosophies while being as ignorant of them as one can be. You’re literally one of the most dishonest people I have ever known of in my life. Which. You know. Is par for the damned course when it comes to Mormons, frankly.

I see we’re back to MG doing MG things. See: this thread where he doesn’t read, posts links that contradict his claims because he didn’t read the source material he himself linked, refuses to answer questions in good faith, and plays DARVO bingo like he’s got money on the line. Pathetic.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

I didn't see you define "civil society".

I did. Go back and look. It may not be the definition that you would like, but it’s there.

How would you define civil society? Would that definition include respect and value of human life, including the unborn and undefenseless? If not, why? Would a civil society include the right to bear arms as described in the second amendment of the constitution? If not, why? Would it include the right to free speech at institutions of higher learning? If not, why?

I think definitions are going to vary on what a civil society entails.

Anyway, I’m interested…how would YOU define civil society?

Sharing time.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You haven’t addressed yourself to ONE point that I presented/made in my initial post today.

DARVO.

The reason why people are spending less energy on you is because after 20+ years of watching your shtick they feel it’s pointless to indulge you and your attention-seeking nonsense.

You do good in little spats consisting of a few sentences. Anything longer and you skim it, or scroll past it. This is why people have, over time, limited their responses to you - because you don’t read … Plus, you’ve been caught in so many lies ref book reading, or linking academic papers you claimed to have read, or church resources you claimed to have read, but actually they contradicted your claims, or that you’ve studied religions and philosophies while being as ignorant of them as one can be. You’re literally one of the most dishonest people I have ever known of in my life. Which. You know. Is par for the damned course when it comes to Mormons, frankly.

I see we’re back to MG doing MG things. See: this thread where he doesn’t read, posts links that contradict his claims because he didn’t read the source material he himself linked, refuses to answer questions in good faith, and plays DARVO bingo like he’s got money on the line. Pathetic.

- Doc

You are not responding in good faith. I suggest you ignore me if you believe what you say to be true.

You still have not responded to anything I’ve said except to cast aspersions and slurs.

That says something about you, not me.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Well, that was … something.

I feel like I need a debrief. Or a beer.

Probably both.

Yes, that was something, indeed. To start a thread and within the span of a few days be called a racist, a bigot, a supporter of pedophilia, and being labeled as “retarded” and an idiot was an eye opener as to the extent that secular atheists will go to in order to distort and/or dispose those views that run contrary to their worldview. I am none of those things, but certain posters will twist words and context in order to make what they will ‘the truth’.

I would recommend that anyone who has been a non participant in this thread and you are coming across it for the first time, read it with open eyes and fairness. There is a great divide between those that believe in God and those that don’t. The argument in the OP article referred to is whether civil society (a society in which we all get along and every voice is heard and valued) can continue as each generation moves towards a secularistic non belief in God.

Posters in this forum seemed to believe that I am somehow against free thought and/or separation of church and state. Not at all.

Here is an interesting article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-atheism


There is much food for thought in this defense of secular thought and practice. One thing in particular was of concern to me.

What secularists do say is that in debates on public policy purely religious arguments should carry no weight. In a Voltaire-like defence of freedom of expression, we absolutely do not wish to suppress or forbid such arguments being voiced – but we do say that by convention they should count for nothing in the minds of politicians and decision-makers. By all means let the religious argue, say, against assisted dying with warnings of a slippery slope – an argument we can all understand and assess – but if they argue that life is the gift of God and that it is not for us to take it away, then in the process of public decision-making their words should be ignored. Such arguments cannot be legitimately admitted in a society where there are so many competing beliefs that reject its very premises.

It is those “competing beliefs” that might be a concern to all of us. Including secularists. We have examples in history where large swathes of humankind were exterminated because of those competing beliefs. Civil societies ceased to exist.

It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article. But then we steered towards a discussion as to whether or not the very premise of the article could be trusted and/or the results really had any basis in reality.

Rather than discussing the type of society we ALL would want to live in as we think about the world our grandchildren will grow up in.

Do we want a totalitarian government? Of course not. Do we want a governing establishment that does not value the essential value of life within and without the womb? We’ve already slid down the slippery slope in some respects where we have seen the value of life diminished. And on the whole it’s not by the religionists. It’s the secular humanists with “competing beliefs” that have held sway. If we have a myriad of examples throughout history of societies in which competing beliefs have resulted in large scale death and destruction of individuals, families, and religious beliefs…ought we not to be concerned that this could happen within our country/society?

Some (mostly secular humanists) say no. Others say yes, it is a concern we ought to pay attention to (mostly religionists)..

This dichotomy becomes evident on a board such as this. And when you have majority voices using whatever means necessary to drown out the minority voice(s) you have the perfect example of ‘uncivil society’.

Anyway, yes, Res Ipsa, this was an interesting and even enlightening thread. If nothing else, we have a record of two differing world views being laid out for others to see and observe.

I appreciate the opportunity of being the minority voice. And no, I don’t accept the accusation that I’m a bad representative of my faith. That’s simply a concoction made in order to smear my good name and the good name of the LDS Church.

There, that may wrap things up.

Regards,
MG

Point of reference for Doc.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

made me out to be a ‘Tuckerite’. That I am not. Some things I hear him say, I agree with. Other things I hear him say I find myself saying, “What a loon!” Same with Hannity and Co. Same with Trump.

What things, specifically?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

DARVO



- Doc