Formal Debate - Atheistic Secular Humanism is every bit a Religion, as Christianity .

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Titleand topic:Atheistic Secular Humanism is every bit a Religion, as Christianity .

1. TheyCallMeDavidwill be taking the affirmative position and will post first; Freodin will be taking the negative position.
2. This debate will consist of 3 alternating rounds (3 posts each, a total of 6 posts)
3. Maximum lengths of posts will be 5000 words.
4. Maximum time between posts will be one week from the time a post is approved and made visible.
5. Outside quotes will be allowed, but will be subject to the 20% rule.
6. Start date: Not later than Sept. 20, 2014.
7. The Peanut gallery for all members to discuss this debate can be found here: Formal Debate Peanut Gallery - Atheistic Secular Humanism...

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Thanks to Freodin for being my Debate Partner in this discussion to unpack whether atheistic Secular Humanism is A RELIGION in both a narrow dogmatic sense and broader sense of the word. What ill be proving, is that Secular Humanism is a religion much like any other World Religion except for it jettisoning a personal theistic Creator (which by the way requires substantially more FAITH than those that do know there is a personal Creator) --- Ill provide this in my first 2 Posts and for my last Post ill be proving how Secular Humanism has and will continue to destroy the moral fabric of any civilized Society ...and has done so with America in particular.

To start, lets examine what the term Secular Humanism means from an objective viewpoint :




Dictionary ---- noun: secular humanism
humanism, with regard in particular to the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God.

Secular humanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[1][2][3]

Common elements in Secular Humanism :

1. Non-theism is common to all forms of secular humanism. Humanists deny the need for a Creator of the World.
   
   
2. Naturalism is essential to humanism, following from the denial of theism. Everything in the Universe must be explainable in terms of natural laws alone.
   
   
3. Evolution is the secular humanists way to explain origins.
   
   
4. Ethical relativism unites secular humanists for they have a distaste for moral absolutes .
   
   
5. Human self sufficiency is a central tenet. Humanists believe that human beings can solve their own problems without divine help. They hold that humanitys survival depends on personal behavior and responsibility. They believe that human reasoning and secular education is the hope if the human race is to endure .
   
   

Based on the above objective descriptions, it is accurate to conclude that with Secular Humanism : MAN is the measure of all things. Now that we have a foundation from which to work from, we can take a look at how atheistic Secular Humanism qualifies as a Religion much like any and all World Religions that embrace a divine Creator do :

(Im using Atheism and atheistic Secular Humanism interchangeably since every Secular Humanist is an Atheist) . Atheism is religious in the sense that it is a comprehensive worldview
which seeks to explain the 'why' of existence. Because it has its own
creeds, their own 'scriptures' (formal affirmations) , their own 'clergy' (Leaders and Organizers) , and thier own
closely knit groups for formal organized discussions / agendas ........ it is
correct
to label atheism as a religion (even if the particular individual is
not
a member of any atheist organization per se). . This may not be well
recieved amongst atheists because a major reason for thier apriori
philisophical bias against a personal Creator is due to the stigma
associated with the religious in society .

Consider these facts about atheism/secular humanism and see if it has all the trappings
of a practiced religion :

1. It is highly organized thruout this nation and the world. There are many large
Atheist Organizations that would love a greater constituency and advertise for such.

2. There are even Atheist Camps thruout the nation with a well
publicized large one in Ohio for the commeraderie of fellow Atheists who believe in
common affirmations (naturalism and materialism for instance) .

3. They meet regularly to discuss local and national agendas which
include scrutinizing Theists and Christians .

4. The Atheist Organizations collect dues regularly just like Churches
collect free will offerings on a Sunday to cover overhead, expenses,
activities, and material distribution.

5. They have very large national Conferences yearly just like Church
Denominations do. A very large one was held last year in Colorado.

6. There are active Internet Atheist Newsgroups to educate followers in their tenets of matter and naturalism accounting for the many
many complex designs and engineering of our Universe, Solar System,
Planet, Human anatomy, DNA, et al...

7. They collaborate to build up each other in their freewill chosen
lifestyles the same that Church Members build up one another in
following and obeying Christ as a lifestyle.

8. They want macro evolution theories taught as 'scientific fact' (when it is actually a faith-based dogma) in
public schools without ANY time for the option of an ad hoc Universe that displays great intelligent design ; whereas Creationists
want both to be presented so students can make a clear and concise
decision based on rationale and what REAL modern science has discovered.

9. Most National Atheist Organizations have logos, flags, and
banners...the same that national Church Denominations have. They advertise on the sides of busses,
in local and national Newspapers, on PBS-TV , and have dedicated radio programming.

...and 10. They have Museums located around the Country that show well
prepared artistry on fancy posterboards how apes gradually turned into
cave-men that turned into modern man (despite the fact that no
observation has ever occured for macro-evolution , to which even Prof.
Richard Dawkins (the global Atheists Guru) freely admits and which famous
atheist Scientists Hoyle and Wicksramaghe calculate at a faith busting
1 in 10x40,000 th probability for abiogenesis which is necessary so
macro evolution can be tenable .

If this isn't proof enough that Secular Humanism is a dedicated Relgion, then consider the following taken from their own Organization :

a. Famous Evolutionist Prof. Julian Huxley called his view 'the religion of evolutionary humanism' .
b. Secular Humanists share a core of beliefs., as found in the formal Documents of The Humanist Manifestos 1 and 2 plus The Secular Humanist Declaration Document. In the Humanist Manifesto #1, 'religion or religious' was used 28 times to reflect their status and views . These Documents are on par with The Bible that all Christians embrace and hold dogmatically to ---- These Documents are the Secular Humanists truth-source.
c. The Writers of The Humanist Manifesto #1 consider themselves religious , and even take on the term of 'religious Humanists' . Their religion however, is without an ultimate personal object of religious experience (per se)....although ill be demonstrating in my last Post how an adherrant to Secular Humanism makes ONESELF the ultimate personal object of focus which has led to the many societal ills we face today ; further...ill be taking a few of the Humanist Manifesto #2 affirmations to demonstrate how they have directly influenced Society in a very adverse and highly destructive manner .

Summarizing......Secular Humanism is a worldview . That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality—something like a pair of glasses. Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview. Do not let the word “secular” mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is "a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view."Not all humanists, though, want to be identified as “religious,” because they understand that religion is (supposedly) not allowed in American public education. To identify Secular Humanism as a religion would eliminate the Humanists' main vehicle for the propagation of their faith. And it is a faith, by their own admission. The Humanist Manifestos declare:
"These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith."

Finally, EVERYONE is religious !
Did you ever notice that people often give their opinions about
religion but then caveat it by saying, “But I’m not a theologian”?
Well, the truth is everyone’s a theologian. Some are more informed
theologians than others, but everyone has some set of religious
beliefs. If we define religion as someone’s explanation of ultimate
reality—the origin, operation, meaning, and destiny of all things (as atheistic Secular Humanism does in their creeds) then
everyone is religious, including atheists. While some people
devoutly
believe that God is the cause of all this, others are just as devout
in support of an atheistic explanation or that of some other
religious
worldview. Even those who are devoutly agnostic or indifferent have
taken a religious position. It’s not that they’ve never thought
about
an explanation for ultimate reality, it’s that they believe the
question is unknowable, undecided, or irrelevant. That’s still a
religious position.


Dave.

 

[Freodin]

In his first post, David tells us in his usual charming way what secular humanism is, what it might do, what its adherents usually profess to believe. He gets several things wrong – mostly in his equivocation of atheism and secular humanism, but also in some other ways - mainly he is correct though.

But in his attempt to show that secular humanism is a religion, he excluded one very important point: he does not tell us what “religion” is.

The reason for that may be that it is rather difficult to say what “religion” is: there are several methods to approach this term, attempting to define “religion” in regard to all kind of views, based on substance, function, social or cultural terms or other criteria. None of these attempts are able to describe or define “religion” precisely. They are either too strict and tend to exclude accepted expressions of “religion” or they are too vague and thus diminish the distinctiveness of the term, sometimes to a point where it becomes useless.


David tries to start with an attempt to define “religion” based on its functionality. He presents us with a list of things that secular humanists do.

We might ignore the fact that most of his list are (mistakenly) aimed at “atheist organizations” and not “secular humanist” ones – I’d say that you can find examples for most of his list referring to secular humanist examples.

We might ignore the fact that some of his examples are rather irrelevant – do you need to have (Summer) Camps for camaraderie to count as a religion?

We might also ignore that fact to some of his points are not regarding the definition or functions of religion at all, but just snide remarks at his opponents.

Yet nothing in his list pertains to anything specific for a religion: as various posters have pointed out on the comments-thread, this same list could be applied to political parties or sports organizations.


So that alone isn’t “proof enough” to call secular humanism a religion, especially not in the sense of this debate.


In a similar way, the statements from “famous evolutionists” are not very helpful for this debate. As we have seen in the above paragraphs, there are no clean-cut definitions of “religion”, and we have to ask, in what way did these individual speakers see their position as “religion”.

Careful analysis of the texts and the context of such statements will reveal that in every point the speakers used the term “religion” in about the same way that David tried to use here: in a view of functionality.

Careful analysis will also reveal that all these speakers distance themselves and their humanist views very strongly from “traditional religion”. In what regard do they (and we) think they are able to do so?

We might reach an answer to this question when we get back to the stated topic of this debate – a point that David has, as yet, completely ignored in his argument.

Is secular humanism every bit a religion as Christianity is?

As yet, we have only talked about the functional approach to the definition of “religion”. The substantial approach is just as diversely discussed amongst the scholars, but we can find a good hint for the core content of “religion” by checking the dictionaries.

dictionary.com gives one description of

“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies…”​

Merriam-Webster has in its descriptions

“the belief in a god or in a group of gods
an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods”​

The Oxford dictionaries in a similar way give us

”The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”​

And, for good measure, a description from the German Duden dictionary

”gläubig verehrende Anerkennung einer alles Sein bestimmenden göttlichen Macht; religiöse Weltanschauung“ (faithful worshipping acceptance of a divine power that is determining all existence; religious worldview)​

Dictionaries don’t give in-depth, scholarly definitions of a term – they provide descriptions of the common usage. And all these excerpts show that the common usage of the term “religion”, now and in the past, all are based on God, gods, higher powers, the superhuman and supernatural.

This is what makes Christianity a “religion”. Not the community, not the summer camps, not the collection of fees… the acceptance and reliance on the supernatural.

As secular humanism vociferously denies any connection with such a concept, it is clearly not “every bit” a religion as Christianity is.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

A few responses to Freodins first post : There wasn't any intended 'charm' on my behalf to defining what Secular Humanism is , for, the definitions were taken from notable independent online Sources as well as from the very Manifestos of Secular Humanism. They weren't my subjective opinion ; I just report the facts as has been pre-determined. As for the definition of 'religion' , it was alluded to in a functional sense as well as in a substantive (Noun) form by both myself as well as the formal Secular Humanism Declarations Document as such : "These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and GROWING FAITH." Additionally, the practice of Secular Humanism is a secular religion according to esteemed Secular Humanist of the Year, Editor of the Secular Humanist Magazine (called The Free Inquiry) , and actual Signer of the Humanist Manifesto #2 whos name is Prof. Paul Kurtz --- now deceased and no doubt an avid Creationist . The Noun and term 'Religion' according to Secular Humanism itself is defined as a practiced FAITH which is living , active, and growing.............and this is exactly what Christianity is all about too. Examples of this living, active, and growing Faith for The Christian were shown to have many precise similarities to Secular Humanism. Further, Summer Camps for both Christianity and Secular Humanism are designed to enhance commaraderie due in large part to common traditional ideologies, constructs, and beliefs that the entire Group enjoy. Thus, Secular Humanism is in fact a Religion that's lived out daily and has many of the same trappings as any World Religion that has a transcendent Deity ...........except the 'deity' of Secular Humanism is Oneself (Man) who according to Secular Humanism is : The measure of all things. Concluding.... the fact that Secular Humanism exposed as a Religion is met with a bellicose response is because the Secular Humanist is appauled at the thought of any Religion being taught in our Public Schools , yet its THEIR Religion that is . This shows one aspect of the bigoted hypocrisy concerning Secular Humanism. Humanism remains de facto the established religion of our land, and the public schools are the main vehicle for the promotion of its worldview. (As one great Humanist triumphantly declared: 'Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism').

I would now like to move onto the common constructs and ideologies of Secular Humanism and place them under intense scrutiny as to their truthfulness . These affirmations and others are being taught in virtually every Public School in Western Countries and are so engrained in the populace that they undergird our present Culture culminating in horrific consequences that will continue to mount exponentially . They sneak their way into virtually every textbook the Student studies including Biology, Cosmology, Physics, Sociology, Human Sexuality, and more. Here they are once again with a response to each in CAPITAL letters :







Common elements in Secular Humanism taken from their Manifestos #1 /2 :

1. Non-theism is common to all forms of secular humanism. Humanists deny the need for a Creator of the World. RESPONSE : THUS, THE SECULAR HUMANIST BELIEVES THAT A UNIVERSE/ SOLAR SYSTEM / EARTH INCLUDING THE 8 UNCHANGING LAWS OF PHYSICS AND OVER 150 RAZOR EDGE PRECISE SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMED FINE TUNED CONSTANTS (ALL WORKING IN UNISON) MAKING THE UNIVERSE EVEN POSSIBLE , THEN SUSTAINED, REQUIRING ABSOLUTE MIND-BOGGLING PRECISION FOR ANY FORM OF LIFE TO EXIST ON EARTH ( SOME OF THESE CONSTANTS TO WITHIN A 120 DECIMAL POINT LEEWAY OTHERWISE NOTHING EXISTS) .... ALL CAME INTO EXISTENCE BY NO ONE WITHOUT ANY WILL AND VOID OF ANY REMOTE MEANING . FURTHER SECULAR HUMANISTS WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THIS QUALIFIES AS 'SCIENCE' TO GAIN THE TRUST OF THE UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC...PARTICULARLY IMPRESSIONABLE NOT YET MATURE TEENAGE STUDENTS WHO TRUST THEIR TEACHERS AND THE INFORMATION PRESENTED FOR WHICH THEY ARE TESTED ON. HOWEVER WHEN WE CONSIDER WHAT SCIENCE IS AND DOES, WE FIND IT FAILS , FOR : SCIENCE IS knowledge derived from observational study . Can we see it occuring, test it, or demonstrate it ? THEREFORE, HUMANISTS DENYING A PERSONAL CREATOR FOR OUR HIGHLY PERSONAL CREATION EFFECTS IS BASED ON A STATEMENT OF FAITH ALONE AND NOT SCIENCE YET ITS TOUTED AS SUCH IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS . IF THE READER CARES TO LOOK AT THIS MENDACIOUS ATHEISTIC RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEW IN GREATER DEPTH SHOWING THE UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO GOD EXISTING, PLEASE REFER TO THIS RECENT CF DEBATE IN WHICH I PARTICIPATED : http://www.christianforums.com/t7813978/
   
2. Naturalism is essential to humanism, following from the denial of theism. Everything in the Universe must be explainable in terms of natural laws alone. RESPONSE : IN A DESPERATE MEASURE TO EXPLAIN AWAY AN OBVIOUS PERSONAL THEISTIC CREATOR FOR OUR PERSONAL EFFECTS OF REALITY , THE SECULAR HUMANIST MUST DISREGARD ANY CONSIDERATION OF A PERSONAL THEISTIC CREATOR RIGHT FROM THE START AND FORM A BIAS TOWARD ONLY NATURAL CAUSES ; THE TROUBLE IS, NATURAL CAUSES CANT EXPLAIN MANY THINGS INHERENT TO OUR UNIVERSE/REALITY AS WAS CATEGORICALLY SHOWN IN THIS RECENT CF FORMAL DEBATE : http://www.christianforums.com/t7813978/
   ADDITIONALLY, REAL SCIENCE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSIDERING ALLLLLLL AND ANY CAUSES BOTH NATURAL AND INTELLIGENT AS IN THE SCIENCE OF ARCHEOLOGY FOR EXAMPLE ....THEREFORE THIS PARTICULAR COMMON ELEMENT OF SECULAR HUMANISM , NATURALISM, IS AT ODDS WITH SCIENCES MOST FUNDAMENTAL DUTY . FURTHER, SINCE THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE HAS NOT BEEN SEEN TO COME ABOUT 'NATURALLY' NOR CAN IT BE TESTED OR DEMONSTRATED ....IT AGAIN FAILS TO QUALIFY AS REAL SCIENCE. YET THIS RELIGIOUS FAITH IS TAUGHT BY TEACHERS AND TEXTBOOKS AS IF IT IS SCIENCE AND REALITY IN A MOST BIASED MANNER NOT ALLOWING EQUAL TIME FOR SCIENTIFICALLY BASED INTELLIGENT DESIGN BECAUSE IT WOULD STRONGLY INFER A PERSONAL INTELLIGENT CREATOR -- THUS THE CHARADE THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS 'RELIGIOUS' MUST CONTINUE TO BE OBFUSCATED EVEN THOUGH THE WORD 'GOD' NEED NOT BE BROUGHT UP NOR ANY RELIGIOUS TEXT APPEALED TO . SECULAR HUMANISTS CHAMPION EDUCATION FOR OUR YOUTH , THEREFORE ALL SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE STUDENT INCLUDING I.D. SO THE PERSON CAN DRAW THEIR OWN RATIONAL CONCLUSIONS INSTEAD OF MAINTAINING AN OBDURATE AGENDA .
3. Evolution is the secular humanists way to explain origins. RESPONSE : IT MAY BE AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN ORIGINS BUT AGAIN, EVOLUTION IN ITS VARIOUS FORMS ARE FAITH BASED AND NOT REAL SCIENCE EVEN THOUGH IT IS TAUGHT AS FACT. HERE IS A LIST OF HUMANIST EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES TAUGHT IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS THAT IS NOT SCIENCE , WITH RESPONSE TO EACH IN BOLD LETTERS : a. Cosmic Evolution--- Origin of time, space, matter. No One has seen these originate . Further, it is absurd for time, matter, and space to come from nothing by No One for no reason plus it is sheer lunacy to claim non-material entities such as time ,space, logic, reason, abstract thinking , love, Mind, etc... came about randomly from materials.
   b. Chemical Evolution--- All our many elements came from hydrogen and helium (at the Big bang) . No one has seen this process occurring and no science experiment has ever brought about our 100 + independent elements from Hydrogen and Helium .
   c. Stellar and Planetary Evolution ---- Star formation. No one has observed a Star being formed. We have only witnessed a Star exploding into a SuperNova .
   d. Organic Evolution-------Origin of life from non life. This has never been observed or created and when tests have been done, they don't resemble anything close to a 'basic' lifeform we have today having enough specified information in its DNA to fill 1,000 Encylopedia Volumes containing instructions . Further, it flies in the face of established Laws of Biology which have never been controverted., nor shall.
   e. Macro Evolution ----- One kind of animal changing into another kind and eventually on up to a Human Being. No One has seen this occurring and Laws of Science determine it is impossible . Further, before Macro Evolution can occur, Abiogenesis must be shown to be true which is hasn't and is impossible to the scientifically determined chance of 1 in 10 ^40,000 th power conducted by two world famous ATHEIST Scientists in the last century. Even world famous evolutionary Scientist Prof. Richard Lewontin of Harvard University publicly declared evolutionism/materialism is based on pure FAITH alone (actual quote upon request) .
4. Ethical relativism unites Secular Humanists, for they have a distaste for Absolute Moral Laws. They may have a distaste for abiding by absolute moral laws, but, you wont find any Secular Humanist who is indifferent to being morally violated by Another .... even if that other fellow Relativist sees nothing wrong with what he did. Instead, outrage occurs by the Victim. For additional scrutiny on this Humanist construct, the Reader may wish to consider this CF Formal Debate which nullifies moral relativism : http://www.christianforums.com/t7825098/ .
5. 
   Human self sufficiency is a central tenet. Humanists believe that human beings can solve their own problems without divine help. They hold that humanitys survival depends on personal behavior and responsibility. They believe that human reasoning and secular education (their own religion) is the hope if the human race is to endure . Just a cursory look at a Society that embraces Secular Humanism shows the devastating consequences of Man thinking 'he can solve his own problems ' -------------- something ill be demonstrating in my last Post.

So far, it has been conclusively shown that Secular Humanism IS in fact a substantive and functional Religion as evidenced by the same daily trappings as any other World Religion / it is a Religion as confirmed by the actual Writers of the Humanist Manifesto themselves (the word appearing 28 times) / and its common elements masquerading as Science is also based on a religious faith ----- a faith that Teenage Students are indoctrinated into via a most biased manner by deliberately preventing them from acquiring scientific-based knowledge of (willful) Intelligent Design for fair evaluation .

My concluding Post will unmistakably link this sordid indoctrination to virtually every societal ill we face today as a Nation.

David.

 

[Freodin]

For better readability, I will divide this post into two parts.
Part one will deal with the question we allegedly debate in this thread, while part two will try to reveal the deeper motives behind this question.

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

In his second post, David again all but ignores the main point of this debate: is secular humanism a religion “every bit” as Christianity is. In just one sentence, he tries to deal with that question… and gets it wrong.

“ The Noun and term 'Religion' according to Secular Humanism itself is defined as a practiced FAITH which is living , active, and growing.............and this is exactly what Christianity is all about too.”

This is wrong on several counts.

First, he simply replaced the term in question – “religion” – with the concept of “a living, active and growing faith”. A closer look at these terms will only reveal that “(a) faith” is as vaguely defined and multi-faced as “religion” is, and that theists and secularists will disagree on what “living, active and growing” means to them.

Second, by reducing Christianity to “it is all about living, active and growing faith”, he not only does away with all the concepts that distinguish the common understanding of “religion” from “not religion” – he also does away with all of the things that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions.

Third, he mischaracterizes the position of secular humanism (at least the parts he quotes): SecHum may, in certain instances, describe itself as “religion”. SecHum may also, in at least one instance, make a reference to “a living and growing faith”.
But nowhere does SecHum define itself as “a faith”, nor does it define “religion” as “a growing, living, active faith”. David simply takes several terms that seem to support his position and connects them in the way he wants, ignoring all the existing context.

For example, he ignores all the instances where SecHum distinguishes clearly between their position, and what the call “the traditional religions”. Even for the secular humanists who do see their position as religions (in whatever way), it is clear that it is not a religion of the kind that Christianity is.

David tries to use quotes from “esteemed secular humanists” to back up his claim. Again he ignores the context, the existing debate about the definitions of the term “religion” and the intentions of the authors of these statements.
One of the distinctions the humanist authors make – the contrast between “traditional religion” as dogmatic and authoritarian and the “religious humanism” – can be clearly seen in David’s own posts.

In his first post he said: “These Documents [the Humanist Manifestos] are on par with The Bible that all Christians embrace and hold dogmatically to ---- These Documents are the Secular Humanists truth-source.”
He completely ignores the contradicting statements found in the very lines from this “dogmatic truth-source” he himself quotes: “These affirmations are not a final credo or dogma…“
He cites the humanist voices that use the term “religion” for their view – these are, in his eyes, the religious authorities - but ignores those who deny this term.
He ignores the voices on his own side, who claim (for quite the same reasons as David argues here) that Christianity isn’t a religion at all! What would that mean for secular humanism being “every bit” a religion?
And he ignores the neutral voices – those who have to be neutral by necessity – like all the judges from the US federal courts who declared in several cases that neither secular humanism nor “evolutionism” is a religion in the sense of the establishment clause.

Basically, the main question of this debate has already been dealt with in the instances where it matters for the real core of his position – and the response it got was negative for his side.

Secular humanism is not a religion of the type that Christianity is.

 

[Freodin]

[part 2]

Now why is the question of the status of secular humanism so important?

To secular humanists, it isn’t really important. They, like me here (and I am not in any way connected with any secular humanist organization), might argue against it, for they value correctness.
But religion or non-religion, it wouldn’t change anything about secular humanistic organizations, nor the society they operate in. It might even bring them advantages.

For the conservative Christians on the other hand, it is a tool in their struggle against what they perceive as an attack their religious freedom and identity, but what in fact is a reduction of Christian privilege.

David’s post – his screaming rant against the perceived ills of secular humanism – shows this quite clearly.

He is, of course, wrong in most of his points, which is mostly due to the fact that he is unable to distinguish between the concepts of secularism, secular humanism, atheism, anti-theism, evolution and science.

He repeats his arguments from previous debates, presenting them as authoritative and correct, while ignoring any counterarguments that were made. (If the reader really wants to see his style of debate, I do advise him to look at the debate David linked to... he will see that he never addressed the objections I made to his arguments. A fool-prove way to win a debate: just declare yourself the winner!)

But for this debate here, all the arguments he made are irrelevant. He assumes – no, asserts! – that secular humanism is a religion, because it includes, supports or uses other concepts, thus all these concepts are in themselves religious, and they are illegally taught in schools to innocent children.
He is wrong in these assertions, and thus the basis of his argument here fails completely.

Secular humanism is not taught in schools, not even in the separation-of-church-and-state-based USA.
Atheism is not taught in schools. Anti-theism is not taught. Not even secularism is taught in schools.
Secularism is the bases for all modern, western-style educational systems… the neutrality in religious topics. It is used in teaching, but not taught.

All of the concepts he attacks in his shouting match of a post may be taught in schools, but not in the way he describes it. There is no denial of a creator, there is no denial of theism.
None of this is ever mentioned. The reason why this is possible: it works!

Evolution works as described, with or without God. So there is no need to mention God nor Not-God. All of natural science works this way, all of the humane sciences work this way. The arts work this way, the physical education.

An active denial of deities is not necessary… so it is not done. An active inclusion of deities on the other hand is not only unnecessary, it would distort and disrupt the educational system.

But let’s take a look at the other side. David criticizes that “impressionable not yet mature teenage students” are “indoctrinated” by lying atheistic secular humanist teachers. He cannot present any scientific arguments against the “mendacious worldview” that he thinks is taught, so he tries to degrade it to his own level of “faith”.

Public schools do indeed try to teach science – accepted science, defended by scientists, defined as science in judicial decisions… attacked and defamed as “not science” only by those who disagree with the content!

On the other hand we have “Sunday Schools”, where children, even younger than “impressionable teenagers” are taught by figures of authority, children who “trust their teachers”. They are indeed “indoctrinated”: taught the doctrines of religion. Taught to accept these “on faith”.

But in David’s worldview, this is of course acceptable. It is a matter of faith, of dogma. And by his worldview – shown by his constant malicious and vilifying remarks about his opponents – he is unable to evaluate another worldview in terms other than his own, by faith, authority and dogma.

He sees secular humanism as a religion just as his own, because he cannot see it in any other way. The way he sees his religion dictates the way he sees everything else. He cannot evaluate it based on its own merits, not even from a neutral position.
Thus all that is left for him is try to bring every other worldview down to his level – even if that means demeaning his own religion.

But secular humanism is a worldview that is nothing like his own religion. Undogmatic, non-authoritarian, secular, naturalistic, based on reason and logic.

It is not a religion in the same way Christianity is a religion.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

PART 1 of 2 . Final Post.


The charter for this Debate Thread was two-fold : 1. To determine if Secular Humanism is a practiced religion whereby its Adherrants apply its formal written affirmations in daily living (as Christians do) and 2. To determine the impact that this widespread secular religion being Public School endorsed and taught has had on modern Western Countries with America in particular. My first two posts conclusively showed Secular Humanism as religiously motivated by its own internal evidence and from external evidences as well .

We closely examined Secular Humanism as a practiced religion / occupying a set of common affirmative Beliefs that don't qualify as real Science even though they are touted as such, and are thus based on pure speculative faith / and its religion being taught in Public Schools certainly thruout the nations of America , the UK, and I suspect all Western Countries which Students take with them into Adulthood .

I would consider it a lesson in futility if I were to rehash the categorical evidences for a third time in an attempt to satisfy my Opponent that Secular Humanism is a practiced Religion , therefore im going to chalk it up to my Opponent needing to maintain a state of denial . Further, his declaration that 'Secular Humanism isn't taught in public schools' is easily refuted by ANY Reader of this debate that's been thru the Public School System (myself included) ., for, passing Class Tests and obtaining a High School Diploma in America is dependent on embracing this mendacious worldview indoctrination ; only a true Born Again experience occurring in the Individual as a result of Ones eyes and Soul being opened to the truth can provide conviction ....a quickening of the heart by the Creator himself .

Having established Secular Humanism as a Religion, Philosophy, and Worldview..., we can now consider a few constructs of Secular Humanism in light of the effect they have had on Society based on its thrust toward 'Man Being The Measure of all Things' and the fundamental psychology that what One firmly believes in, commits to, and follows has a direct bearing how that Person/Group behaves privately and publicly :

1. Manifesto #1. Affirmations 1 and 2 . says all of reality comes about by the processes of natural evolution without a shred of intelligent input. RESPONSE: Secular Humanists are FORCED to believe despite any credible scientific evidence that our Universe having highly personal, intelligent, information effects came about by a non personal, non intelligent, unwilled, non informational original Source which led to accidental formation of galaxies and planets , accidental first life on earth, accidental graduation of a pond scum protozoa to human being via unwilled accidental materialism and naturalism thru blind random chances ,ad infinitum . This disturbing and illogical worldview was thoroughly dissected and shown for its irrationality and utter impossibility in this recent CF Formal Debate : http://www.christianforums.com/t7813978/ with nearly all of my followup questions highlighted in bold black letters going completely unanswered or hardly addressed because there aren't any cogent answers available . If a Person believes their existence is without ultimate meaning/purpose , that their dignity and worth is on the order of an insignificant amoeba , morality being optional and determined by the Individual, and they are here for nothing but survival and going on feeding frenzies of available pleasures ........ what are the logical widespread implications and ramifications of such a practiced religion to a Society that is all about SELF ? The chart in this site will help us see some of the implications of a daily practiced religion where morality is optional or undesirable : http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/implications.html . What can we expect from a huge number of Citizens in any given Country that take such a view of morality ? Would we expect them to rule-bend , have disregard for laws to suit themselves, and do what was 'right' in their own eyes despite proven consequences to the action ? Such is the slippery slope of religions that elevate Oneself to Master thereby encouraging narcissism . Five unbiased independent scientific Studies considered how atheistic Secular Humanists themselves rated moral principles and how the general populace view the public behavior of this particular Group --- the results are found in this recent CF Debate clearly showing the disdain of making Man the Measure of all Things : http://www.christianforums.com/t7805623/ . And, I would appreciate Freodin not making Me out being villainous toward Atheists as I simply report the facts that have been determined by unbiased Studies of which I am not affiliated with ; I do not hate professed Atheists , and in fact have atheist acquaintences which I routinely get together with socially and usually enjoy their company so long as they remain controlled and considerate of God in their speech. Finally, here is what the Secular Humanist of the Year had to say on the implications of Evolutionary Principles and Morality ; Prof. Paul Kurtz from his book The Humanist Alternative, sums up the end result this way: “If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself”. Given the massive destructive fallout from Man making up his own rules, Kurtz certainly got it right .

The popular Atheist Voltaire said : "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." So,.lets test Voltaires claim by going further with Secular Humanism on a sociological level ............

2. Manifesto #2. Affirmation 2. says : " Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful (to Individuals and Society ; rather, Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces .Neither has science found evidence that life survives death. Humans should look after the welfare of this life, not the next) " . RESPONSE : This affirmation is completely fallacious because real Science based on reality shows the necessity of a personal intelligent Creator without a shred of chance that chance, accidents, time, and non intelligent Materials thru Naturalism could produce ANY SORT of a life form with its inherent biological information equivalent to 1,000 volumes of encyclopedias (DNA instructional information for the tiniest of amoebas ) . As for life after death, the historical evidence shows that the New Testament of the Bible is THE MOST accurate historical document of all ancient literary works and it attests to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ ... the same Jesus that claimed to be the One to give immortal salvation thru his personal atoning sacrifice and taught approx. 25% of the time on eternity apart from God in a conscious state (Hell) . The only 'fear' that comes into play are for those who don't want to take advantage of this free undeserved gift because Secular Humanism suits them better. For those who receive, love, and have made Jesus their King and Savior, the promise of 'God not giving us a spirit of fear but of power, love, and a sound mind' is the truth the Christian lives by. If Jesus Christ is 'illusory' , then we have to throw out every single ancient literary work because all of them have far far less historical evidence and eye witness testimony than the reporting New Testament. Lastly, besides the many eye witnesses to Christ surviving death from a physical resurrection and others He resurrected , in more modern times there has been many thousands of people who have been flatlined and pronounced dead yet they have come back to life in a fully restorative state . One such individual (Val Thomas) layed flatlined in a hospital for some 17 hours before coming back to life again. Others have slipped away and have been brought back only to report of such objects as a pair of gym shoes on a certain section of the roof. MANY firsthand accounts have been witnessed by Surgeons who did the ressusitations that have written reports and books on the experiences ; one such book is called To Hell and Back by Dr. Maurice Rawlings , an atheist Surgeon who became a CHristian as a result of these experiences recording Patients words at the moment they came back. As for concentrating on this life alone getting all the gusto One can accumulate in the allotted time left by snubbing God, this is the greatest mistake One could ever make. Jesus said : 'There is a way that seems right to a man, but it ends in destruction (severe regret)' . The way that seems right is for a Person to live making himself the center of the Universe and partaking in any pursuit he desires whether right or wrong (of course...everything is 'right' to such a deceived Person if he deems so) .

3. Manifesto #2. Affirmation 3. says : " We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction (Humanists base their values system on the here and now and values have no suprahuman basis or goal) " . RESPONSE : Therefore, doing what thou wilt is the whole of the law as Satanist Allister Crowley said . With no objective moral standards , there is no objective difference between a Mother Theresa and an Adolph Hitler, for, both truly believed they were doing the correct thing. This Humanist Affirmation is perhaps THE greatest detriment to any civil society because anything goes and nothing is objectively wrong to do concerning actions, talk, behavior, lifestyles, motives. Freethinkers (Secular Humanists) find this refreshingly liberating because afterall, its a life with no holes barred . This makes such things as walk in abortion on demand due to sexual hedonism backfiring , euthanasia, homosexuality , inappropriate behavior with animals, hookup sex , incest, rape, et al.... optional . Afterall, any of these could be seen as permissible in the Mind of a moral relativist.

4. Manifesto #2, Affirmation 4 says : "Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses (a combination of critical intelligence and human caring is the best hope for resolving human problems) " . RESPONSE : Very ironic that things like reason, logic, intelligence , love, caring, etc.... are championed when you cant get ANY of these things from an atheistic Materialistic Worldview . If Materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if the mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is really true including Ones theory of materialism. Chemicals cant evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react. Reason itself is impossible in a world governed only by chemical and physical forces . Further, the only reason why anyone would truly care about anothers wellbeing is because they feel a moral obligation / moral oughtness to do so ... but why feel this way when The Person is simply made up of accidental compilations of atoms ? Atoms don't care, atoms don't think, atoms don't reason , they don't consider whats logical or right, and compassion and caring cant come from accidental atoms and raw chemicals. This is just one more example of the seriously flawed religion of Secular Humanism ---- it isn't even justifiable let alone its constructs being sound.

5. Manifesto #2. Affirmation 5 says : " The preciousness and dignity of the Individual Person is a central humanist value (individual freedom of choice should be increased) " . RESPONSE : Weve already seen thru previous affirmations of this religion that Man was just a random cosmic accident living in a random accidental Cosmos ; an animal that graduated from the Forest just looking to fulfill his/her own needs and survivalbility . How do we get preciousness and dignity for a Human Being from a long line of accidental mutations that ultimately originated from pond slime ? Further, because our existence is accidental , we are just a random compilation of atoms including our Brain and thus our thoughts.....why should we place ANY kind of trust in the affirmation that the Individual has preciousness and dignity since this formulated idea came from the thoughts of an accidental Brain ? It makes no sense to appeal to ANY kind of positive description toward Something that was utterly accidental. Its just one more example of hypocrisy with this religion.

6. Manifesto #2. Affirmation 6 says : " In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct . The Authors affirm rights to birth control, abortion, divorce , and any form of sexual behavior between two consenting adults. Individuals should be allowed to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as desired" . RESPONSE : Sounds so wonderful that such freedom should be granted in the area of sexuality...afterall, why shouldnt Mankind treat their sexuality in an unrestrained limited manner since globally we are just a bunch of graduated Forest Animals (?) What a shame it has been for western countries in particular to embrace the mendacious teaching that our sexuality doesn't carry with it any sacredness, holiness, or moral duty to preserve it as a gift bestowed upon us from our Creator . Today , instead of treating our sexuality responsibly and practicing great self control to honor ourselves and others in accordance to Gods loving and protective mandates, we groom our Children in the ways of irresponsible Secular Humanism so Boys become Sexual Perannahs for ego inflation and Girls wanting to become Tramps by using their sexuality for power , control, attention, and to become popular with the opposite sex. As a result, our Crisis Pregnancy Centers across America are busting at the seams with children pregnant with children as are the Killing Mills cranking out some 4,000 murders of developing Human Beings because 'Mom' demands her Humanism liberty over life itself (so much for Affirmation #5 above with the hypocritical adage of 'preciousness and dignity for ALL HUMANS as a central value' ----- that would be ALL Humans except the scientifically confirmed Humans who are the most innocent and defenseless of us all while developing in the womb).

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Part 2 of 2 . Final Post.

7. Manifesto #2. Affirmation 8 says : " We are committed to an open and democratic society. People are more important than decalogues , rules, prescriptions, or regulations. " . RESPONSE : Here is manifest an opposition to divine moral law as found in the 10 Commandments (Decalogue) .... the highest form of morals and ethics known to mankind . In this affirmation we find the demand for total autonomous living with secondary regard (if any) for rules and regulations . Because People are important, our Creator gave us specific objective Moral and Ethical directives because Man left to himself being consumed with SELF , would bring harm and destruction upon himself , others, and entire Nations . Secular Humanism says it champions responsible living , yet it also demands the freedom to live without restraint as evidence from denouncing the Worlds foremost Moral Standards for living --- the 10 Commandments ; yet no Secular Humanist could ever find anything inherently wrong with patterning their life after these.

Synopsis : Based on the above formal affirmations of Secular Humanism , the questions become : IS Secular Humanism best portrayed by our present Western Culture and WHAT INFLUENCE has Secular Humanism had on American Society in the last half century ? For those who wish to deny that our Culture is squarely based on Secular Humanism, what then do you propose IS the influence of our present Culture when considering what our Public Schools teach / what our Mass Media pummels us with at every turn / and the lifestyle philosophies that are rampant today ? If not Secular Humanism, then is it based on Christian morals, ethics, principles, and constructs to live by ... or is it Hinduism , Islam, Buddhist, some other ???? If you answered Christianity, then do we see the positive fruit of the Christian 10 Commandments and Jesus' teachings on morality ....or.....do we see the widespread effects of the above affirmations of Secular Humanism carried to fruition whereby Man (just a graduated Animal of the Forest) decides what he wants for himself ?

The following sums up Secular Humanism :

Denies the deity of God, the inspiration of the Bible, and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Denies the existence of the soul, life after death, salvation and heaven, damnation and hell.
Denies the biblical account of creation.
Believes that there are no absolutes, no right, and no wrong – that moral values are self-determined and situational. Do your own thing, “as long as it does not harm anyone else.”
Believes in removal of distinctive roles of male and female.
Believes in sexual freedom between consenting individuals, regardless of age, including premarital sex, homosexuality, lesbianism, and incest.
Believes in the right to abortion, euthanasia (mercy killing), and suicide.


Do we see all of the above taking place in American Society today or not ? Running down the list quickly..... is God/The Bible/Intelligent Design/prayer still a part of The Public School System as it once was until circa 1962 ? If there is no eternal Soul, no life after death with no eternal reward for living an exemplary life ... does this provide a license to make virtually any lifestyle choice permissible ? If there are truly no moral absolutes meaning that nothing is objectively wrong and One gets to choose for himself .... has Man been shown to act responsibly and righteously in modern Society , and, is there anyone who is getting harmed by someone else when it comes to popular lifestyle choices lived out today ? Have stay-at-home Dads done a better job at raising small children so Mom can be the bread winner , and, have married Women contributed to more or less workplace adultery followed by the shattering of families ? Has sexual freedom been a great thing for society and has sex education thru passing out of condoms been the savior it was hoped to be ? Have over 50,000,000 abortions performed in America since 1973 with 95% being from walkin Abortions because sexual hedonism went further wrong, been without any harm to Baby / Mother / Society ? Has life been cheapened over the last few decades under Secular Humanism, or, has its central affirmation of dignity and preciousness of life been upheld ? Has the Secular Humanist promotion of homosexuality for 'sexual freedoms sake' been correct considering 78% of all AIDS cases have come from male homosexuality with many current High Schoolers coming up the ranks of Secular Humanism / Homosexual Groups making presentations in our classrooms to give it a try and not be ashamed ?

Has MAN being the measure of all things , been able to provide and maintain a civil Society where we love our neighbor the same way we wish to be loved and treated and is it a Society whereby People come alongside each other as concerned fellow Human Beings feeling some sense of despair seeing Another going down a destructive road .... or has it become a could -care- less Society where Tolerance to immorality has taken over (if the term immorality still exists today) ? When we consider that 1 in 3 American Adults have at least one STD today , can we say that unrestrained Sexual Freedom is a wonderful concept according to Secular Humanisms affirmation or should we have kept our sexuality wholesome, pure, and deeply personal so as to respect ourselves and the Creator who gave us it ? How come Male Homosexuality didn't deliver on Secular Humanisms popular adage of 'so long as nobody doesn't get harmed' with 78% of all HIV/AIDS deaths and contractions coming from this specific people group with millions currently infected and millions having died prematurely in the name of sexual 'freedom' ? When we consider that by the time a woman is finished with college at age 22, she will have had a 1 in 3 chance of being sexually abused or assaulted in the USA...its clear that Men aren't viewing women respectfully and with dignity in accordance to the culture based religion of Secular Humanism . Why is this ? Could it be from the constant promotion of sexual freedom and from Men looking upon women as Tramps because women have bought into the popular deception also ? Could it be that Men deep down inside have no respect (contempt) for a Feminist who is groomed by Secular Humanism ? Yes, I believe so without a doubt. Secular Humanism is the poison of every Society because of Mans need to play the charade of being his own 'god' and its a practiced religion that only magnifies itself over time .

How can we expect Secular Humanism to answer the following greatest issues facing mankind , and what kind of attitude, behavior, mindset, defeatist persona could we expect as a result ? Lets examine the logical conclusion :

Outlook on life :

a. Who am I ?
b. Where did I come from ?
c. Why am I here ?
d. Where will I go when I die ?

According to Secular Humanism, A. thru D. could be summed up as follows : 'Human Beings are just an accidental compilation of atoms without any ultimate agenda except to survive and gather up things and any experience to make us feel good ; I came from a very tiny piece of Pond Scum aka : A Protozoan that burped forth from a magical sea of ripe chemicals , albeit non-living and We have as much dignity and worth as atheist Richard Dawkins pointed out recently :' The Human Fetus has as much worth as an adult Pig' . I arrived here in history by pure accident and have no large purpose, meaning, goal, etc.... and im here to just occupy a small space on a spinning planet that also arrived accidentally. I have no hope after this earthly life is over and all I can wish for is to feel some small significance as I lie on my deathbed knowing I made some sort of a difference to an accidental unpurposed reality ; I expect to be worm food or to evaporate into thin air upon my earthly demise because I have no Soul madeup of Mind, Will, Emotions even though I practiced these entities daily all my life..... and if there is a personal theistic Creator which I kept on jettisoning so I could do my own thing .... then im sure he will cut me some slack when I tell him that he should have revealed himself to me more ' . What sort of sociological fallout can we expect from such defeatism and outright lies if most of Society buys into such a charade ? Every social ill today can be traced back to the affirmations of Secular Humanism .

Time has come for my final exhortation ; To those who choose Secular Humanism as a lifelong pursuit , I tell you that it will not bring the deep fulfillment , satisfaction, meaning, purpose to a life lived on earth and it will end in an emptiness from still having the void in your Soul which was only meant for the Creator, your Creator, to fill. Substitutionary people / things / money / power/ prestige / experiences cannot fill this specific void -- many have tried but to no avail. Just like the smell of a new car eventually wears off, so will a God-voided Life . Its within your power to change course anytime you wish by making God the driving force of your life instead of Self. To those who have chosen The Christian Faith, I trust that this debate has made you aware of the dangers of Secular Humanism which Public Schools proclaim to your kids as young as 5 years old and invite you to read the following short site about how Secular Humanist molests our most precious commodity : http://christianfaithinamerica.com/culture-war/is-humanism-molesting-your-child/

Finally, what I have done in this debate is take the actual affirmations and ideologies that Secular Humanism formally declare and have shown the consequences to People and Society that believe in them and live them out religiously. If my Opponent feels it necessary to denounce The Christian Faith for being best for Society , I hope he would do the same and use the ACTUAL affirmations and ideologies found in the Bibles 10 Commandments as well as any/all of Jesus' public teachings which are what true genuine Christ Followers act upon in their daily lives .... and NOT confuse the issue by showing how some professed Christians ARENT living out their Christian Walk properly. I drew on sociological examples of People who act out true Secular Humanism and I trust he would do likewise for Christians if he so chooses. And, I hope he will take the time to answer some of the many questions posited regarding Secular Humanism as asked about in part 3 of this debate .


David

 

[Freodin]

So a tiny, despised minority of people managed to hijack the educational system of the western world, and convinced everyone that their position was correct… but on the other hand failed to convince everyone that their position was correct, because people act on some hare-brained conclusions of what secular humanist positions “really” mean, instead of what these positions say.

In David’s view, every societal ill is derived from secular humanism. If not from what secular humanism states, then from what secular humanism, in his view, implies.
He is unable to support this claim, though, and of course completely ignores existing facts that contradict his assertion.
For example, he laments the number of teenage pregnancies in the USA – “busting at the seams” in his exaggerated style.

He ignores the fact – verified in several studies – that the teenage pregnancy rate is significantly higher in the states where the religious motivated abstinence-only-sex-ed is practiced.
He ignores the statistically supported fact that overall in the USA, teenage pregnancy rate is dropping, to an almost historical minimum.
He ignores the fact that in the worldwide comparison, especially of western societies, the USA has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates, while at the same time being the most religious of these societies.

He ignores all that, but even if he did acknowledge these facts, I am sure that he would find a way to put all the blame on secular humanism and all the praise on… well, your guess.

He wants to clarify that he, never ever would be “villainous toward Atheists”, but as references he cites sites like “is humanism molesting your children” and quotes Satanist Aleister Crowley. But I am sure his atheist friends are allowed to use his bathroom.

What else can you add to such a display of Christian love for the truth?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Final post is up; debate is closed.