Secular folks should worry.

[MG 2.0]

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

And here we are, in the weeds. That’s your intent, right?

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

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

Can I disparage Mormons and Mormonism without disparaging you as a person? Throughout this thread, you've demonized secularists as well as secularism, atheists as well as atheism, etc.

But you repeatedly miss the point of why I keep reminding you that you are talking about real, flesh and blood fellow humans, and not abstract entities. You haven't personally "offended" me at any point in this discussion. I haven't requested an apology, and don't expect one. Pretending that you are only talking about abstract philosophies is a piece of mental gymnastics on your part that allows you to deny the bigoted claims you make about non-believers. Your bigoted claims are exactly what is driving the divide in this country. And, upon re-reading them, although you cloak them in religious concerns, I'm convinced it's driven purely by politics. Your claims that secularists promote pornography in school libraries is exactly what has incited threats of death and violence against librarians and school personnel who are guilty of nothing other than trying to do their jobs. Read up on what this kind of rhetoric has done to long-term residents in Idaho who are also guilty of nothing other than doing their jobs. You can't engage in the kind of rhetoric that inspires hatred and violence and then say "oh, I'm just talking about ideas." The only person you are fooling is yourself.

Now, about your shift to "secular humanism." Is everyone who does not believe in God a "secular humanist."

[Morley]

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

And here we are, in the weeds. That’s your intent, right?

Ah, you can't find it either?

[MG 2.0]

…you that you are talking about real, flesh and blood fellow humans, and not abstract entities.

Yes, as a group in society which profess a certain worldview. If any one of them was my neighbor and was sick, I’d take them some chicken soup and wish them well.

Even consider them a friend.

I’ve known a few secular humanists along the way…although we didn’t sit around and make any kind of a ‘deal’ about it. We just knew/know that we disagree.

No harm, no foul.

You appear, to me, to be a bit snow flaky.

I’m NOT satisfied, I must say, to the posts I’ve made in this thread. A lot of flak discharge, innuendo, and nit picking about things of lesser consequence that the main thrust of this thread…which I believe is still intact. Although it’s like the Book of Isaiah, you have to stumble around a bit to find the meaning and exegetical purpose of the author.

Regards.
MG

[Res Ipsa]

…you that you are talking about real, flesh and blood fellow humans, and not abstract entities.

Yes, as a group in society which profess a certain worldview. If any one of them was my neighbor and was sick, I’d take them some chicken soup and wish them well.

Even consider them a friend.

I’ve known a few secular humanists along the way…although we didn’t sit around and make any kind of a ‘deal’ about it. We just knew/know that we disagree.

No harm, no foul.

You appear, to me, to be a bit snow flaky.

I’m NOT satisfied, I must say, to the posts I’ve made in this thread. A lot of flak discharge, innuendo, and nit picking about things of lesser consequence that the main thrust of this thread…which I believe is still intact. Although it’s like the Book of Isaiah, you have to stumble around a bit to find the meaning and exegetical purpose of the author.

Regards.
MG

And then you'd turn right around and portray them as a threat to civil society. Some friend.

You failed to answer my question: is everyone who doesn't believe in God a secular humanist?

[MG 2.0]

Ah, you can't find it either?

I could, yes. But there are 56 pages. If it’s a BIG deal for you (and you’re not just playing games), you’ll go back and read.

As it is, you’re merely taking up space.

This is par for the course, people.

Lurkers, and others that don’t have a set agenda towards secular humanistic thought and worldview, read the thread. Dig deeply into the links. See what YOU find as you research and then do your OWN thinking.

Folks here apparently have no real concern for their own children/grandchildren growing up in a world leaning more towards progressive secular humanist thought. They don’t seem to have any real concern in regards to moral/ethical relativism.

But they should.

They can’t see the forest for the trees.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Ah, you can't find it either?

I could, yes. But there are 56 pages. If it’s a BIG deal for you (and you’re not just playing games), you’ll go back and read.

As it is, you’re merely taking up space.

This is par for the course, people.

Lurkers, and others that don’t have a set agenda towards secular humanistic thought and worldview, read the thread. Dig deeply into the links. See what YOU find as you research and then do your OWN thinking.

Folks here apparently have no real concern for their own children/grandchildren growing up in a world leaning more towards progressive secular humanist thought. They don’t seem to have any real concern in regards to moral/ethical relativism.

But they should.

They can’t see the forest for the trees.

Regards,
MG

Ah, the Doubting Thomas ploy: "If you don't agree with me, you don't care about the CHILDREN!!!!!"

Pro tip: ranting on the internet does not constitute "caring."

[MG 2.0]

…is everyone who doesn't believe in God a secular humanist?

This is a question which is of interest to you. Feel free to give it a go.

My thinking is that just as there are different forms of the Humanist Manifesto:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto

there are various ways of approaching the answer to your question depending upon the individual answering. But there may be a ‘common core’, just as there is in the three Human Manifestos.

So how do you answer your own question?

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

…is everyone who doesn't believe in God a secular humanist?

This is a question which is of interest to you. Feel free to give it a go.

My thinking is that just as there are different forms of the Humanist Manifesto:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto

there are various ways of approaching the answer to your question depending upon the individual answering. But there may be a ‘common core’, just as there is in the three Human Manifestos.

So how do you answer your own question?

Regards,
MG

I'm asking you -- how you use the term. In the way you are using it, is everyone who doesn't believe in God a secular humanist?

[MG 2.0]

Ah, the Doubting Thomas ploy: "If you don't agree with me, you don't care about the CHILDREN!!!!!"

Pro tip: ranting on the internet does not constitute "caring."

No rant.

And yes, I do have a concern for future generations. My point is that progressive secular humanists ought to also be concerned about the health and vitality of future generations also. If this thread is any indication, however, there are a lot of folks that don’t see any harmful trends in society, and where many of our youth are headed.

Absolutely no response to the actual substance of my posts except for cherry picking here and there to twist things around to support the progressive secular humanist agenda. But there’s not much there. Unless you count ethical/moral relativism as being a good option for the future. For this purpose there has been a bunch of finger pointing and concern with definitions rather than the ‘state of the children’. Very little has been said in this regard.

It’s as though ‘all is well in Zion’ to coin an LDS phrase.

I think we will continue to go around in circles on this merry go round. That’s to be expected. What else can a merry go round do?

Regards,
MG