Can secularism be oppressive to any religious believer?

[F1fan]

Godless evolution is an idea from the Atheist secular religion but you have no problem teaching that in public schools. Materialism denies God.

False. Evolution is a large set of conclusions from hundreds of thousands of experiments based on facts and data. Gods and other religious ideas are irrelevant. Your attitude here is an example of why free societies need to be secular: so there can be true and accurate knowledge.

And if you don't like that materialism doesn't include supernatural concepts, then find evidence of a supernatural existing outside of human imagination. If you cannot, then don't blame science.

You promote Godless materialism so just ask yourself.

AKA, reality. And that's a problem?

Secularist are religious about their anti-religious ideology. The false assumption being that the lack of a formerly recognized religion is a lack of belief. Godless secularism has invaded every aspect of declining civilization.

So if secularists are religious, and being religious is bad, then you shouldn't be religious either, right?

Secularists haven't disproven God but proceed as if they have.

Which version of God haven't they disproved?

Don't worry about it, the list has about 4000 names on it. But that's OK because it's up to believers to demonstrate their idea of god exists outside of their imagination.

 

[F1fan]

The reason creationism doesn't belong in any classroom is because the classrooms are Atheist territory. Naturally, you see it as an "of course"

Its important that the church and state are separate, but that wasn't enough for the (Atheists, Humanists or Secularist). They seek to separate religion, religious values and religionists from having a voice in society.

Theists have a huge voice is society. Secular governments don't allow governance to be tied to a religious belief, like Sharia Law. Do you think Sharia Law should be the basis of laws where you live?

 

[ecco]

Godless evolution is an idea from the Atheist secular religion but you have no problem teaching that in public schools.

Why do you refer to it as Godless Evolution? Many scientists who support it are Christians. Many clergy of different faiths support it.

Godless secularism has invaded every aspect of declining civilization.

"Godless secularism" is making slow inroads for the betterment of society. The people who created the Covid vaccines didn't get the methodology from God. They figured it out using science including biology (the same biology that supports evolution).

Secularists haven't disproven God but proceed as if they have.

cOLTER, cOLTER, cOLTER, you've been around the forums long enough to know that atheists do not have to disprove gods. It's the believers on whose shoulders the burden rests. Can you disprove Shiva or Shango or even the Easter Bunny? Of course not. And no rational person would ask you to.

 

[F1fan]

I'm a theistic evolutionist. I want facts taught, not Atheistic belief masquerading as scientific fact.

So what facts are missing from secular science? And be sure to explain and demonstrate the missing fact is actually a verifiable fact, and not religious belief.

To say life evolved is supported by facts. To say life evolved after life spontaneously invented itself and one-day-we-will-prove-it is a kind of unsubstantiated faith presented as fact.

That's abiogenesis, and it is a natural process that is consistent and plausible in nature, so is the best hypothesis for how inorganic compounds became organic. Gods, magic, supernatural ideas have no basis in fact, so we throw them out because that is what an objective process has to do.

In general, the bias of evolutionary scientific discussion is the assertion that Life appeared on its own and disregards a creator through some sort of event. The Miller–Urey experiment was an attempt to recreate the hypothesis.

That experiment WAS a hypothesis. The experiment had flaws but it is based on natural processes that can explain how the building blocks of life happened. Thus far no creator gods have been found, nor any supernatural process is known to exist, so we can't include them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can argue that secularism is good, but shouldn't forget that it asserting its own ideological truth just as religions are and is not simply a default or neutral position.

That makes zero sense to me.

So much so, that I can only conclude that how you define "secularism" is very different from how I understand it.

Ultimately it is about one group's ideological preferences defeating other group's and denying them legitimacy.

Again, this makes no sense to me.
Secularism is not an ideology or doctrine

 

[ecco]

Atheistic science is a religious belief presented as a neutral standard that everyone should just shut up and accept.

Why do you find it necessary to drag science down to the level of a religion?

To say life evolved over time is an observation based on a number of correlated facts. But to go one step further and claim life invented itself...

Well, I sure wouldn't believe "life invented itself". It's just plain silly and childish. Wherever did you get the idea that that is a scientific theory? Oh, wait. I'll bet you got that strawman from Creationist websites. They do love to post strawmen,

... life invented itself when lightening struck a pile of sand, means nothing and is going nowhere, is Atheistic science. Its a form of religious belief.

Lightning hitting a pile of sand? Really? You sure aren't getting these concepts from any textbook on abiogenesis. In fact, your comments make me believe that you have never read a scientific paper on abiogenesis.

Are you sure you aren't confusing your Bible with science? Gen 2
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

...Atheistic science. Its a form of religious belief.

Nah. It's way, way better than any religion.

 

[Augustus]

That makes zero sense to me.

So much so, that I can only conclude that how you define "secularism" is very different from how I understand it.



Again, this makes no sense to me.
Secularism is not an ideology or doctrine

You don't understand how secularism is an ideological preference? Seriously?

What do you think it is?

(I guess you are assuming there is no difference between an ideology and an ideological preference/principle i.e. a single component of a broader ideology. What I said was the latter)

 

[ecco]

They seek to separate religion, ...from having a voice in society.

No. Religion can have a voice in society. It just has to realize that that voice doesn't make it right or that that voice should drive laws.

They seek to separate ... religious values ... from having a voice in society.

Religious values like how and when beating slaves is acceptable?
Religious values like telling teenagers masturbation is evil?
Religious values like shaming and ostracizing homosexuals?

Those religious values have no place in a civilized society.

They seek to separate ...religionists from having a voice in society.

When those religionists promote ideas like those listed above, they should have their voices rejected.

 

[ecco]

To say life evolved after life spontaneously invented itself and one-day-we-will-prove-it is a kind of unsubstantiated faith presented as fact.

Five hundred years ago some people speculated that the earth revolves around the sun. Today it stands as accepted fact. You do accept heliocentricy, don't you?

In general, the bias of evolutionary scientific discussion is the assertion that Life appeared on its own and disregards a creator through some sort of event.

It's not a bias. It's accepted that "life" formed in the same fundamental way that water molecules and polymers form.

If you want to believe that your creator makes every water molecule, that's your privilege.

The Miller–Urey experiment was an attempt to recreate the hypothesis.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

In case you haven't heard, science progresses. Your bible, on the other hand, still insists that goat spots are related to wooden rails.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Every theist cherry-picks. All theists cherry-pick.

The slavers cherry-picked verses to support their beliefs.
The abolitionists cherry-picked verses to support their beliefs.

That's the problem with the Bible, and most all scripture, one can find justification for almost anything

Don't single out theists as if they are somehow less intelligent or somehow more prone to manipulation. People have to use our feelings and brain together, both to feel and think, and anybody who says otherwise becomes the pawn of other people. The works of Carl Marx are scripture, too, and no one can deny that they are abused and used to oppress and cherry picked. They are as dangerous as any scripture. So there is zero reward for singling out theists as if they are the only ones. Its closing one eye.

I offer this olive branch: Yes, bibles are abused and I have explained how this comes about. I don't know whether you have read any of my posts about it, and I don't expect you to read through my posts. I'm not trying to say bibles can't be abused. No. Absolutely they can, but its not only theists and bible people that abuse scripture.

 

[F1fan]

You don't understand how secularism is an ideological preference? Seriously?

What do you think it is?

Secularism can be advocated for by any range of people, from those who don't like religion to fervent theists. It's just a standard for a social activity, that being that religion is left out of it. It's not saying religion is good or bad, it just defines a way of doing things.

 

[F1fan]

Don't single out theists as if they are somehow less intelligent or somehow more prone to manipulation. People have to use our feelings and brain together, both to feel and think, and anybody who says otherwise becomes the pawn of other people. The works of Carl Marx are scripture, too, and no one can deny that they are abused and used to oppress and cherry picked. They are as dangerous as any scripture. So there is zero reward for singling out theists as if they are the only ones. Its closing one eye.

I offer this olive branch: Yes, bibles are abused and I have explained how this comes about. I don't know whether you have read any of my posts about it, and I don't expect you to read through my posts. I'm not trying to say bibles can't be abused. No. Absolutely they can, but its not only theists and bible people that abuse scripture.

This just illustrates that good people make good believers, bad people make bad believers, but religion doesn't make bad people good. The Bible is a buffet of ideas where the consumer can pick whatever looks tasty. Christianity is the religion of: anything goes. Most Nazis were good Lutherans. Most slave owners were good Baptists. Belief guarantees nothing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This just illustrates that good people make good believers, bad people make bad believers, but religion doesn't make bad people good. The Bible is a buffet of ideas where the consumer can pick whatever looks tasty. Christianity is the religion of: anything goes. Most Nazis were good Lutherans. Most slave owners were good Baptists. Belief guarantees nothing.

It seems unfortunate that many people think belief is the heart of religion, but this is part of what protects religion from government interference. If politicals think it is about belief then they dismiss it instead of opposing it -- which can be a good thing. In particular its good when good people are laboring beneath an evil government to accomplish something good, but its bad when people begin to live like its about belief, like its just about putting teeth under their pillow. So I think.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The reason creationism doesn't belong in any classroom is because the classrooms are Atheist territory. Naturally, you see it as an "of course"

Its important that the church and state are separate, but that wasn't enough for the (Atheists, Humanists or Secularist). They seek to separate religion, religious values and religionists from having a voice in society.

As pointed out by another poster, I specifically said creationism doesn't belong in any science classroom. Social studies and religious studies I have no problem with having a variety of creationist stories (not just Christian ones though.)

As far as religious voice in society, I have no problem with that either. Provided their voice doesn't override other voices in civil law. E.g. I don't care if individual churches ban gay marriage within their church, but it shouldn't be civil law because fundamentalist Christian values shouldn't override the values of others, including non-fundamnetalist Christians and other religions.

Many Christians are upset that they don't get sole control over society anymore. And they view it as oppression.

 

[ecco]

Don't single out theists So there is zero reward for singling out theists as if they are the only ones. Its closing one eye. Absolutely they can, but its not only theists and bible people that abuse scripture.

I was responding this...

@Brickjectivity said: ↑
The slave trade in the USA is gradually undermined because of people who care, many of whom are bible students and enthusiasts and who use the bible's many scriptures to argue against slavery. It certainly is not the bible which creates and causes the slave trade.​

Please note that he talks about "bible students and enthusiasts" and those "who use the bible's many scriptures to argue against slavery".

That is why I replied as I did.

When you read a comment, it's a good idea to understand the context in which it is written.

 

[oldbadger]

So not all theists would have a problem with it. Why are they cool with secularism while your "some" would not be? What is the latter group wanting if they see secular approaches as oppression?

Easy.
Not all theists would have a problem with a secular society.
Not all secularists would have a problem with a theistic society.
Why? Because those ones could be less extremist?

If the theocracy forced compliance to some ideological authority that would otherwise not occur in a secular nation, then yes.

Just look at Afghanistan today.......... Now how do you think that, say, an secular family would get on there?

What freedoms can't they have?

This is so obvious......
Seculars in a Theocracy would not like the compulsory prayers, the education system, any dietary laws, etc etc
Theists in a Secular would not like a standard curriculum in schools, certain equality laws, etc etc

And even other forms of theism, so vastly less tolerant and free as a society, yes? Which offers more to an open society?

And now you're off your own thread, which was not asking for a comparison, simply asking 'could secularism be oppressive to a theist?'
And it could.
Easy.

Depends on your answers.

The answer is/was that 'Yes, a secular could be oppressive to theists.' Easy.

Surely you can see that?
Where I live our authorities are withdrawing funding from, and even closing down theistic schools which don't stick to the standard secular educational curriculum.
Theists are not allowed to wear religious badges or pendants etc when in some jobs.
etc etc etc.

I answered your question.
What do I think? You didn't ask for my thoughts, you asked for an answer to your question.

 

[Colt]

As pointed out by another poster, I specifically said creationism doesn't belong in any science classroom. Social studies and religious studies I have no problem with having a variety of creationist stories (not just Christian ones though.)

As far as religious voice in society, I have no problem with that either. Provided their voice doesn't override other voices in civil law. E.g. I don't care if individual churches ban gay marriage within their church, but it shouldn't be civil law because fundamentalist Christian values shouldn't override the values of others, including non-fundamnetalist Christians and other religions.

Many Christians are upset that they don't get sole control over society anymore. And they view it as oppression.

To my point, the secularists control society now.

 

[danieldemol]

To my point, the secularists control society now.

Good thing too.

Abiogenesis is separate to evolution.

And why do you think Abiogenesis need be Godless? I don't see it as being different to evolution.

If you can believe God guided random gene mutation or that God controls other random events such as the roll of a dice I see no reason you can't believe Abiogenesis was controlled by God.

God beliefs simply can't be taught in science class because you have to sort out which version of God you are going to teach, and none of them are falsifiable, hence not science.

In my opinion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I was responding this...
@Brickjectivity said: ↑
The slave trade in the USA is gradually undermined because of people who care, many of whom are bible students and enthusiasts and who use the bible's many scriptures to argue against slavery. It certainly is not the bible which creates and causes the slave trade.

Please note that he talks about "bible students and enthusiasts" and those "who use the bible's many scriptures to argue against slavery".

That is why I replied as I did.

When you read a comment, it's a good idea to understand the context in which it is written.

Thanks for explaining that. I was in that comment replying to another user who had just finished blaming the bible as the sole main cause of slavery in the US, and that is why I presumed your post to be in the same context when you pointed out "All theists cherry pick." Its easy in a meandering conversation to misunderstand.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

To my point, the secularists control society now.

If you mean that the law of the land held up by both irreligious and religious (with far more the latter majority) strive to keep religious law separate from civil law, then yes. As it should.