Secular folks should worry.

[MG 2.0]

[Can you] define what you mean when you call someone a 'secular humanist,' since this seems to be your new term of denigration.

If I haven’t already (long thread), I’m happy to go with the dictionary definition which you can easily reference online:

The doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural.

An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/secular%20humanism

And again, let me be clear…as I have been throughout the thread…I’m not disparaging and/or denigrating individuals (as persons) when I am referring to the dangers of secular humanism and the trajectory that some see GenZ moving. It’s the philosophical views of ‘man without God’ that I find dangerous. This view of the world can result in moral and ethical relativism. I haven’t seen anyone dispute that up to this point.

If you dig deep into some of the links, without cherry picking as honor has done, you will see that there is general consensus that we are approaching a ‘tipping point’ in which secular thought theorists are fighting…and even demanding…to rule the day. Along with their media, government, and university sycophants.

Thus, the concerns that many have in regards to civil society.

I would expect to get a LOT of push back on this forum. Once one leaves Mormonism the tendency is a movement towards secular humanism.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

it's always frustrating to find research is being mis-used, but it seems to happen repeatedly, so you always need to confirm before just believing.

And it is also frustrating to see folks cherry pick and use information to fit their own agenda/worldview.

One of many links that one can dig deep into within the links I provided throughout the thread:

https://www.thefp.com/p/why-the-mental- ... of-liberal

Interesting stuff. Even sad. Extremely sad.

GenZ is at risk. Especially young women. I would think that would be of interest/concern to you as I stated in my header to this thread:

“Secular Folks Should Worry”.

I don’t know that there has been ONE person who has shown concern.

These are our own children and grandchildren people!

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Also, this:

The current generation is showing a continued shift in secularistic belief, that is…so that we’re being clear enough for some folks…absence of belief God.

viewtopic.php?p=2828235#p2828235
...

Well, let's test that out. Do I fall within your definition of "secularist"?

If we strictly define it as an individual that believes in separation of church and state, and that’s it, then yes. But then again, so do I.

OK, do you believe that “secularism” as you now define it is a threat to civil society?

viewtopic.php?p=2829190#p2829190

To be more clear, I would say secular humanism.

viewtopic.php?p=2829198#p2829198

Who knows what "secular humanism" means to MG 2.0?

[MG 2.0]

snip

If you believe (which apparently you do) that I am targeting you as a person let me be clear (two posts back):

And again, let me be clear…as I have been throughout the thread…I’m not disparaging and/or denigrating individuals (as persons) when I am referring to the dangers of secular humanism and the trajectory that some see GenZ moving. It’s the philosophical views of ‘man without God’ that I find dangerous. This view of the world can result in moral and ethical relativism. I haven’t seen anyone dispute that up to this point.

If I said anything previously that would make you think that I am disparaging you as a person, I apologize. I have clarified and been more precise in my comments.

Are we good?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

If I haven’t already (long thread), I’m happy to go with the dictionary definition which you can easily reference online:

From your link:

secular humanism

Definitions

noun An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.

noun Secularism.

noun the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural


Now how about linking to definition of 'civil society' that you agree with?

[MG 2.0]

If I haven’t already (long thread), I’m happy to go with the dictionary definition which you can easily reference online:

Now how about linking to definition of 'civil society' that you agree with?

My own comments in regards to civil society and civility among we, as members of that society, have been scattered throughout this thread. I invite you to go back and read. Those statements stand on their own and I am satisfied that they represent my thoughts/position.

Snowy day here in Utah! Pretty much homebound right now.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Now how about linking to definition of 'civil society' that you agree with?

My own comments in regards to civil society and civility among we, as members of that society, have been scattered throughout this thread. I invite you to go back and read. Those statements stand on their own and I am satisfied that they represent my thoughts/position.

Snowy day here in Utah! Pretty much homebound right now.

Regards,
MG

I've read them. Your ramblings are ambiguous. How about you summarize for everyone?

Or do I "convolute things into a rhetorical and definitive mess" when I ask you to this?

[MG 2.0]

My own comments in regards to civil society and civility among we, as members of that society, have been scattered throughout this thread. I invite you to go back and read. Those statements stand on their own and I am satisfied that they represent my thoughts/position.

Snowy day here in Utah! Pretty much homebound right now.

Regards,
MG

I've read them. Your ramblings are ambiguous. How about you summarize for everyone?

Nope. Your “ramblings” imputation is duly noted. I’ve been fairly explicit. Not ambiguous.

Eye of the beholder…

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

I've read them. Your ramblings are ambiguous. How about you summarize for everyone?

Nope. Your “ramblings” imputation is duly noted. I’ve been fairly explicit. Not ambiguous.

Eye of the beholder…

Regards,
MG

Then it'll be very easy for you to quote them.

[MG 2.0]

snip

I’m noticing a pattern here. You guys REALLY don’t want to discuss the potential dangers of secular humanism and future generations.

You want to steer off in other directions.

Very little discussion on the actual substance of my posts except to cherry pick here and there in order to stay ‘on point’ with your own agenda.

Interesting. But rather boring. We end up in the weeds.

Did you read in detail the link I referred Marcus to?

If you have kids/grandkids you ought to be concerned. And here you are, along with honor, going down a rabbit trail of definition gathering/dickering.

Regards,
MG