The sickness of secularism

[Legend of Zu]

A debate without definitions and ground rules - what a waste of Space? eh!

 

Cheers

[Nur]

legend

 

I guess I am the first to look up the Websters Dictionary for defiitions of topic variables on this thread, and drive toward a reasonable conclusion? I dont understand your comment on waste of space, which post are you referring to?

 

Nur

[Legend of Zu]

^^^ I wasn't referring to your post - more like the gist of the thread. I think you were the first person who tried to define before debating; however many contributors to the thread are running around with conceptualized words assuming others define these words as they do; And more importantly there is a mixture of debates running simultaneously and yet the contributors to the thread do not distinguish which one are they debating on.

 

For example: some assume or assert that secularism = atheism; another debate is going on about Intelligent design vs. Darwinism; Science vs. Religion (well at least in the conformity of Christian theology) and so on.

 

If the ground rules and definitions are not clarified in any debate; it will be merely what you can call “waxaa la yedhi” [borrowing from Ngonge]

 

Cheers

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by J B:

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

Nope. I have learned long ago philosophy is for smug eggheads who don't have the chutzpah to put their ideas to the test against reality (like science). They rather debate how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin than finding factual knowledge of our world.

[Sophist]

[Nur]

Much Thanks Legend, I realize keeping the traffic in respective lanes is not so easy when so many are crisscrossing lanes causing too many accidents.

 

Keep the good work.

 

 

Nur

[Ms DD]

Salaam aleykum

 

Nur Thanks for putting so succintly what i wasnt able to explain properly.

 

Many of the posters above are separating secularism and atheism. I maybe inclined to agree.

However, the de facto result of this is that any government-based entity is forbidden from providing overall social structure (moral guidelines). Therefore, education becomes not "neutral", but anti-religious, because if anyone tries to provide social instruction, it looks like they are choosing one religion over the other.

 

It's not purely neutral if you actually FORBID religious instruction in schools. That is an affirmation of atheism, not secularism.

 

You can't rely on scattered, in cohesive "community organisations" to provide macro guidance to entire societies. If that were possible, governments wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

 

Civilisation (economic and social structures) must come down from the top; left to their own devices, people, who are self-centered and narrow, will not come together and agree by accident.

[Nur]

Cambaro sis

 

Secularism is a smoke screen for Atheism. Atheism comes in many flavors, denial of Allahs exisitence, denial of his commandments, denial of following of his commandments, the word Ilxaad in Arabic means "to divert the essence of a thing away from its meaning" . Atheism is diverting mankind's attention away from the purpose of his creation, only ignorant " Muslims" fall for this purported separation, any knowledgeable Muslim who believes that Allah is the true sovereign over our lives ( SAMAD) will never reject that Islam guides our lives, while in the meantime accepting secualrism and all the filth that comes with it to guide their lives, and that of their innocent kids. Its utter contradiction, if not a concealed or undiagnosed disbelief in Allah and the day of judgement to practically endorse one faith for this life and another passive belief for the next life (unless of course one is lying to him/herself). Allah says about these folk : Alladiina jacalul Quraana cidhiin.

 

 

Nur

[Johnny B]

Sheikn Nor-ow, LoZ might been right about the wasted space, after all, even you coulden't keep defining the variables as it were.

Secularism is a smoke screen for Atheism.

ooops, was that a defination ?

There, you should been a little more explicit according to nothing less than the Webster.

 

Atheism comes in many flavors, denial of Allahs exisitence, denial of his commandments, denial of following of his commandments,

Now, that is beeing too un-ethical, to be frank un-pragmatic at all.

 

How can one deny or be in denial of something YOU could not cogently present.?

 

In your mind-set Sheikh Nur-ow, for some unknown reason, a Deity wants to communicate Humnity and wants to make it's presence known , yet it needs your help in ways and means to just realise that?

 

To wrap this Topic, i think it stands to reason that a person who belives in a specefic religion that utterly dismisses all other religions and Gods is in no position to argue that (s)he is beeing sidelined for the coexistance of all our conflicting belifs of our World.