The sickness of secularism

[Khayr]

There are several churches, a mosque, a Sikh temple and a synagogue within a two-mile radius of me right now. I'm unlikely to go to any of them, but most of my neighbors are affiliated with one or the other.

 

It very delusional to say that you can have a church, mosque and a temple on the same street and still have those religions flourish. If I tell you that everyone can build what they want, then where is the value in my land, building, organization etc.? If Joe Tszu can erect a buddist temple right next to a syngogue, then how can that syngogue have its 'own community'?

 

You are boxing in all these religions and making them all to be the same-INFERIOR in the eyes of the Secular state. The Churches are only visited on Sundays and maybe Wednesdays, but Godforbid it's church members created a community around it and a school and a community centre and their market etc. (Soundls Cultish-right!) Then they would be deemed as a threat b/c its no longer a Sunday thing but a 'Way of life' and more importantly it becomes an ALTERNATIVE to Secularism and its worldview. Religion becomes something alive and viable and that would make it anthetical to secularism.

 

Are you catching the points?

 

Religion is not attractive when it is belittled and truncated to just the 'church' or 'home'.

There are loads of churches, masajids and temples around but on any given day, there are more people in line at the market then at any religious place.

[Socod_badne]

Cambaro and Cara are conspiciously missing. I wonder why?

[Ms DD]

Please dont stretch your mental capability too hard by wondering. We lead life away from the boards you know..

 

I am begining to learn that you dont do civil debate.

 

"Why are Atheists and secularists Satan personified? And who do you think has the upper hand in the cosmic battle between Good and Evil?"

 

One who doesnt see Force behind why we humans find ourselves here is ultimately bound only by his wants. With no imperative beyond the biological, a true atheist, pressed hard enough by circumstances toward unethical or immoral behavior, cannot feel compelled to resist. Why should he? Atheism can not provide a compelling argument at the concepts of ethics and morality themselves.

To a true atheist, there can be no more ultimate meaning to good and bad actions than to good or bad weather.

 

Besides where is good without God?

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Cambarro:

We lead life away from the boards you know..

 

Life? How lucky you are. Some of us lead double, triple and quadruple lifes. So many lifes that we end up confusing ourselves. Methinks you dost protest too much. Grow up!

 

 

With no imperative beyond the biological, a true atheist, pressed hard enough by circumstances toward unethical or immoral behavior, cannot feel compelled to resist.

 

 

Who would've thunk it, heh? You just confirmed my suspicion all along. I was grappling for an answer to account for your (and others as well) bizzare obsession in relegating the world into diametrically opposed camps. Be it democracy, be it secularism, be it any other question it always boils down, as far as you're concerned, binary option. You actually believe in the personage of Satan, that the world is locked in a perpetual cosmic struggle between the forces of Satan (read: all those who don't share your religion) and everyone else. Secularism is either good or bad. No room for compromise because that can be a subterfuge by Satan. Thanks, it explains a lot.

 

 

Atheism can not provide a compelling argument at the concepts of ethics and morality themselves.

 

I consider Atheism as illogical as Theism, I'm Lizard worshiper in case you don't know.

 

But tell me this. In Papua New Guinea, the MUNDUGUMOR consider a child found on your doorstep in the morning an offering from the Gods... to be cooked and eaten with fresh bananas. They believe in God(s) and eat babies. Tell me what makes them immoral, unethical (I'm sure you'll consider them that much at least) without judging them by your moral and ethical standards.

 

 

Besides where is good without God?

Do you know what begging the question is? It's logical fallacy and you're committing it.

[Ms DD]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

 

Life? How lucky you are. Some of us lead double, triple and quadruple lifes. So many lifes that we end up confusing ourselves. Methinks you dost protest too much. Grow up!

 

I guess it is bit too much of a ask that one maintains a modicum of civility. I have had just about enough emotive language as i can take from you. Good day

[Socod_badne]

^^You must lead very sheltered life to get offended by what anonymous people write on internet fora. Again, grow up.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Cambarro:

In order to have a belief, it neednt be coupled with rituals. Atheist secularists do worship their desire and nafs. They believe (yes believe) that they only hold logical reason and rationality (whilst religious folks believe that they solely have the truth..see we aint so different after all). That is their hogaamiye. Make no mistake. This secular person will even start to tell others that their religion and sacred Way is wrong because this materialistic man has completely been blinded by his own ego.

Cambarro, abayo , maybe u've missed it but i asked you to support your claims so we skip having a discussion where " that is what i think, i.e my stance" suffices.

 

I knew the Author was intentionally beeing dishonest, intellectually that is , and i see certain un-willingness to seriously,cincerely engage the subject matter from your part.

 

I don't understand that term 'Nafs' , but my Desire is everything but a Deity, i don't worship my desire, i don't whatissoever turn towards my Desire in prayers and i don't definitely belive my Desire created me, you or the universe.

 

 

To conclude ,i won't come off track , in fact i'll go back to one of your earlier inputs, an input that i think underlines this whole thread.

 

Originally posted by Cambarro:

Nowadays being secular is validated and given rewards. I mean in a work situation say to your work mates you are going to the pub later and everyone will join you, say you are going for prayers and you will get some odd looks.

The reason people give you the odd look when you're going for prayers could simply be that they know ,in your prayers, you're going to talk to yourself in solitary wish just about anything from a Deity you coulden't possibly ,possitively know and share the knowledge of it's existance.

 

Originally posted by Cambarro:

It would be an ideal if we were all free of prejudice and agreed that no worldview has a monopoly on truth and reason, but we know better

Firstly, one should speak for him(her)self as it were , secondly, i don't think practicing Islamic religion and having faith in the existance of an Allah conveys just that stance.

[Caano Geel]

lordhy!

[Oday_Shirwac]

?????

[Sophist]

LOL! I am enjoying this particuarly this

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

But you can't falsify this assertion, therefore Atheism is irrational.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You're right SB, i can't falsify it. BY JB

 

 

----

 

 

The status qou is nescience. In that case only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge:D .

 

I would love to write a long treatise on this -as matter of fact have done that many moons ago on this forum; pity I have no time for undergraduate philosophy students who are shy to ask for help.

[Johnny B]

^And who knew that the status qou would change untill an a notch better Nomad walked in ,axiologically motivated to guide us through the labyrinths of ethics ,as the futility of our attemps seem to insult his intelligence.

 

this Deontologically superior Nomad, "Mr do the right thing" is morally obliged to shed a light on what he conceives to be a murky pit,a no go zone for kids like me & SB.

 

And that he misses the point in SB's inductive reasoning and my affirmative respose deducted through cogent,but preceeding statement , is everything but a thought i entertain.

 

SB , are you a philosophy Student? i'm not.

[Cara.]

I don't understand that term 'Nafs' , but my Desire is everything but a Deity, i don't worship my desire, i don't whatissoever turn towards my Desire in prayers and i don't definitely belive my Desire created me, you or the universe. [big Grin]

JB, you're a troublemaker. Repent!

[Cara.]

Cambarro,

 

Originally posted by Cambarro:

To a true atheist, there can be no more ultimate meaning to good and bad actions than to good or bad weather.

Are you truly unaware of any theories or systems of morality that don't hinge on a father-like figure who watches your every move and punishes you if you're a bad girl?

 

Atheism can not provide a compelling argument at the concepts of ethics and morality themselves.

That is true. But then neither can religion. Religious people aren't moral, they are afraid. They avoid doing bad things (the ones that do anyway) not because those things are wrong, but because they fear punishment. They do good so they can be rewarded. It's all ultimately a selfish drive that stems from a worship of self. If a religious person was informed that they should kiss their first-born and then bake them in the oven, they'd happily do it. At least, the "TRUE" religious people would. Anything to attain hedonistic bliss in the afterlife.

 

Am I being sarcastic enough or should I lay it on a bit more?

 

I just can't understand people who make declarations about what other people MUST believe or think. It's breathtakingly arrogant, and coming from a person who's castigating secular democracies for being intolerant!

[Nur]

Cara writes;

 

Science classes teach science. Non-scientific theories don't belong in science classes. Creationism is not science by any stretch of the imagination. By all means, teach it in school, in religious education classes and such, but to force scientists to teach non-science is just perplexing. It's like asking a geologist to teach that the earth is flat on the grounds that someone somewhere believes it to be so.

 

Answer:

 

 

Before we argue on what is science and what not, let us look up the Dictionary, here is what I found:

 

Websters defines:

 

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

 

 

eNuri Comment:

 

How we know what we know differs, from time immorial mankind had different channels of conveying and receiving knowledge, at times we know, but we dont dont know how we know it, knowedge is said to be limited by our ability to deliver it. What we know can be either seen immediately, after time, or we may never see it, but that does not make it non exisitent.

 

Websters defines:

 

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

 

eNuri Comment:

 

Any systemized otgan of knowledge is called science, the word science is not a monopoly for Chemistry and Physics labs, these are material sciences (Chritsallography is part of it and has nithing to do with Christianity)

 

 

Websters defines:

 

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

 

 

eNuri Comment:

 

This part is what Cara referrs to throughout her response, so let us shed some light at this: Before we decide what is truth and what is not, we need to use a single yardstick to arbitrate competing intrepretations:

 

The two camps, those who want religion to be taught in school and those who arre aginst it come hare a bitter history. Its well known that Christianity frowned and at times lynched scientists, accusing them of heresy, because Christianity is based on folklore and not a well preserved Devine account, it collides with reason, and because of that, scientists grew suspicious of religions and the gap of mistrust became so wide that the two institutions agreed to disagree peacefully, as long as the Church collects its dues and scientsts carry on their experiments. things went well.

 

That was Christianity and empirical science, on the contrary, Islam, not only has it encouraged the scientific method of investigation, but also the Quraan challenges humans to go through blue membrane of earth, and hence to teh wider space , Allah says, you can , but only with Sultan, meaning, Power, Knowledge or authority. ( surah Jinn)

 

There is no recorded instant in which a scientsist was lynched for his beliefs in Islam, islam on the other hand has always been on the forefront to verify scientific advancement with verses of the Holy Quraan.

 

Therefore to say all religions are the same, is likke saying all sciences are the same. Its actually unsceintific to make such a rogue generalization, science is a well structured bodies of knowledge that are verifiable, through dedeuctive or inductive reasoning, or a phyisical experiment.

 

 

Webtsres Defines:

 

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

 

 

eNuri Comments:

 

Now, when we look back the scientific development through the ages, we would laugh at the recorded FACTS of scientists and medical doctors during the mid twentieth century, Newton believed in alchemy, as a science. What was thought to be a fact , like the atom being the smallest particle, kept changing, light was explained as particles, waves, after experiments, it matched both, space and time seem not understood well and unknown dimensions keep popping up with every new scientific paper.

 

In light of these developments, I do not think most Christians object to the fact the world is spherical, but they do object when Darwin tells their kids that thee evolved from King Kong, Evolution as a theory is being reexamined by enlightened bioligists, and just as scientsts were at one time terrorized by the Christian Church, Athiests in control of the Scientific institutions are terrorizing any threory that challenges the long held fallact of Darwin, which if taken at its face value reduces the human exisitence on earth to that of animals, its not strange therefore that parents complain about the immorality that this type of reasoning has broght about.

 

 

Cara writes:

 

 

What exactly is unexplainable? Everything that you believe that contradicts science?

 

 

Another question from a Christian perspective, since no scientific fact contradicts with Isalm. Cara needs to study the Quraan and Islam's pioneer advancements in sciences and the dark ages of Europe.

 

 

There are four possibilities:

 

Things we know, and we know that we know them

Things we know, but are unaware that we know them

Things we dont know, and know that we dont

Things we dont know, and do not know that we dont know.

 

The last is said to be 99% of cases.

 

To see what I am saying Cara, imagine being in a circle, which represents things you know, the more you know, the larger that circle gets in diameter, so what is inside looks to you as big, but what you dont know is geometrically getting larger at the circumference of that circle, Allah SWT says in Quraan: "Wa maa uuteetum minal al cilmi illaa qaliilaa" knowledge was not given to you but a little.

 

If you accept that fact that you are finite, in your abilities, phyisical, intellecttual and exisitence, its logical to accept that certain things will remain unexplained to you forever, but that does not mean that it does not have explanation, it may have, but not necessarily to you, due to your limited capacities of comprehension.

 

 

Cara writes:

 

Isn't this circular reasoning?

 

Answer:

 

To ask scientists to explain the unexplainable is not a circular argument. Circular argument arise when the output of one argument feeds into the argument in question itself, i.e. God exist, because he said so in the bible. I assume that was an honest error from your part, just like scientsts are capable of making errors.

 

Here cambarro was simply saying that scientists are incapable of expalining everything, there is not proved scientific method to disprove her argument, if you claim that science can explain everuthing, you need to prove that statment. If you believe that God does not exist because science did not prove it yet, is a fallacy, because it is inconclussive, if on the other hand you believe there is a probability, then it calls for considering other scenarios that may explain to others what they believe, but not necessarily to your liking, thus, if evolution is taught in school, with Cambarros tax money, she has every right to ask the school to teach the creation of man and satan and fall of man from grace of God due to his sins and arrogance and the terminal life in hell and heaven as a final reward.

 

 

Cara writes:

 

By drawing a line and saying "go no further", are you really showing the limits of science?

 

Answer:

 

I have shown that science has its limits, unless you can create the universe to make a laboratory for scientific inquiry, , or in your case a common house fly, or in case the house fly takes a bite of your sandwich, and you fail to get it back, i thing there are limitations, to say there are non, we have to redefine what science means.

 

 

Cara writes

 

or the flimsy nature of supernatural beliefs? If they fail to stand up to rational inquiry?

 

Answer:

 

 

Here you fail again a scientist, scientits classify, examine and then make a statement, in your case, you seem to have the illusion that all beliefs are the same , have warped logic, and are aginst scientific inquiry, I invite you to study Islam, your statement is closer to flimsiness than Islam.

 

 

Cara writes:

 

isn't it fallacious to then declare that it is logic that's at fault?

 

 

Answer:

 

Yes it is fallacious, your logic is very fallacious, science is a tool to understand nature around us, to cope with it and live harmoniously with nature, and its laws, to prosper for a higher purpose, the way to live and prosper is not found in labs, scientists did not discover the value respect, tolerance, forgiveness, sanctity of life, benevolencew, or benefits of male circumcision in labs, it was revealed to Abraham, and today science shows that circumcision for men is a protection against STD, labs do not teach values that a community needs to live by, these values came through revelations, are you denying that these revelations came from a wise and knowledgeable God? if people misinterpret religion, that does not make it irreleveant just like a wrong scientific experiment does n ot warrant that all science is wrong, di you remember a decade ago that two scientsists calimed that they invented cold fusion? what a joke the Christian priests would laugh.

 

 

Cara one question to you:

 

Which Christian faith were you brought up with,? I mean, Pentacostalist, Babtist, Seven Day Adventist, Mennonite, Catholic, etc.? I cant help ask this question as all of your arguments pertain to Agnostic arguments from a Christian perspective.

 

 

Nur

[Caano Geel]

lordhy!