Fanatical Secularism can be viewed as its own sort of religion whereby the "state/media" replaces the church / mosque / temple and, despite claims otherwise, also assumes the role of the "higher power".Man is God. Well … certain men. Christian love is replaced with "tolerance" and sex.
It can be safely assumed that most secularists are on the political left and have a tendency toward moral relativism, which is the belief that we all live by our own moral code and "whose to say one is better than the other" blah blah blah. However, in truth, secularists do believe in a set of moral truths: those that THEY determine.
Some may refer to it as the spirit of the anti-christ. After all it is indeed against Christ. The secularists are not theists since their belief system does not include a diety per se. Although they abhor the notion of dogma they nevertheless rigidly espouse the strict adherence to the fundamentals of their faith.
Fanatical Secularism even has basic Commandments and a few prophets.
(1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) The Prophets Kurzweil, Dawkins, and Hawkins.
20 comments:
Dawkins is blameless putting work into fools and hypocrites such as this one....,
I see only one fanatic in that video, and it ain't Dawkins!
I watched the video brother CNu.
I'm not certain the straw-man Haggard is any less fanatical than the secular High Priest Jon Stewart.
Who, hidden behind a thin veil of snide cynicism, manages to regurgitate the secular dogma that promotes gayness as something one cannot escape.
But DV,
I wasn't talking about the pop culture icon Jon Stewart, I was talking very specifically about the pop science icon Richard Dawkins. It appears to me that in your haste to condemn moral relativism, you've conflated scientific method with radical secularism and THAT's on about the same wavelength as saying that anybody called white as a matter of social custom is by default a "white supremacist".
One of these things is not like the other one, one of these things, doesn't belong...,
Interesting:
"you've conflated scientific method with radical secularism".
Where have I done that? I'd like to address it.
Jesus was a young and stupid person (a Jewish rabbi) with no intention of starting a 'religion'.
He got in over his head and then came down with a complex about sacrifice.
He was what we refer to as bi-polar today.
Secular means 'without looking through a biased `lens of religion'.
Religion is based on belief. It is not supported by fact. Belief is enforced to promote sheepish behavior desired by Political system to control and brainwash humans(democracy).
"you've conflated scientific method with radical secularism".
Where have I done that?
Why DV, you madcap...,
I hadn't fully appreciated your flair for taking propagandistic liberties until just now.
Fanatical Secularism - The Official Government Religion
We begin with the title of your post. Surely you're not contending that this government has a pro-scientific bent?
Fanatical Secularism can be viewed as its own sort of religion whereby the "state/media" replaces the church / mosque / temple and, despite claims otherwise, also assumes the role of the "higher power".
Where oh where have you encountered either Dawkins, Hawking, or Kurzweil schlepping as pundits on Faux News or other explicitly state serving media entities?
It can be safely assumed that most secularists are on the political left and have a tendency toward moral relativism, which is the belief that we all live by our own moral code and "whose to say one is better than the other" blah blah blah. However, in truth, secularists do believe in a set of moral truths: those that THEY determine.
Nonsense.
The beauty of science inhere's precisely in its default falsifiability. It is after all, the quest for truth, peer reviewed and rigorously consensus approved.
Fanatical Secularism even has basic Commandments and a few prophets.
(1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) The Prophets Kurzweil, Dawkins, and Hawkins.
Slapping these three popular scientific icons onto the end of this rant against moral relativism is purely gratuitous. While you may have beef with Hawkins cause he's put so much shoe leather to dumbass fundamentalists and other hateful deductivist morons peddling unfalsifiable rubbish, you could hardly contend in good faith and with reference to provable commentary that he or any of the others you've named have anything whatsoever to do with what you're on about in this post.
I'd like to address it.
Please, by all means, address that shit brah. Having come to expect your game to function in accordance with the highest level precepts - I am shocked, shocked and disappointed to step squarely into this hot steaming pile of pungent colon-blow more reminiscent of Bill O'Reilly than Denmark Vesey!
Dang, Skip, Jesus was bi-polar?
You seem to have a life with absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
I wonder if you realize that "fanatical secularism" is what permitted you to post compromising photos of Kim Kardashian.
Oh Lawd!!!!!
nothing left on this one but a fused glass field of logical and moral devastation......,
“We begin with the title of your post. Surely you're not contending that this government has a pro-scientific bent?” CNu
CNu!
My fault man. Apologies for the delay.
This government? Pro-scientific? Nah. I suggest no such thing. I would find this government much mor pro-satanic than pro-scientific.
“Where oh where have you encountered either Dawkins, Hawking, or Kurzweil schlepping as pundits on Faux News or other explicitly state serving media entities?” CNu
Nah. You miss understand the God game CNu.
God figures don’t sell themselves. Like ho’s choose pimps, worshippers choose deities. While the religious call upon the Gods of scripture and lore to affirm morality and law, secular fanatics site the “authority” (author: to father) of scientists and experts like Dawkins, Hawking and Kurzweil.
Jesus said … vs. Hawking said …
Pick.
"The beauty of science inhere's precisely in its default falsifiability. It is after all, the quest for truth, peer reviewed and rigorously consensus approved.” CNu
Worshipping at the temple of consensus is also a religious act.
Science is full of faith. Each time a masked medical technician plunges a hypodermic needle of some grayish fluid in an infants arm - it's a parental act of faith and sign of allegiance.
Submariner said...
I wonder if you realize that "fanatical secularism" is what permitted you to post compromising photos of Kim Kardashian.
Brother Sub!
Man. Nothing "permits me", but me.
Kim Kardashian compromised herself.
Sub, the reason a conscientious brother like you wouldn't dare park in a space marked with a handicap sign is a "religious" event.
The reason you wouldn't wear a "Free Palestine" T shirt among your colleagues is a religious event.
The reason why more people question the myth of Creation than question the mythology of the Holocaust - is a religious event.
I'm not tauting religion over secularism - I'm simply pointing out this is a contest of competing religions and not religion vs. 'no religion'.
Worshipping at the temple of consensus is also a religious act.
I said RIGOROUS consensus - i.e., where the issues get factually, empirically, logically and quantitatively hashed out prior to arriving at a temporary consensus. (until the next round of rigorous interrogation gets underway)
Science is full of faith. Each time a masked medical technician plunges a hypodermic needle of some grayish fluid in an infants arm - it's a parental act of faith and sign of allegiance.
The doctor-patient relationship depends in part on transference as our brother Submariner has pointed out in prior discussion;
All public figures are objects of mass transference. As an emergency physician I am regularly the subject of transference issues on a tiny scale. However, this is an essential part of the therapeutic process. Patients imbue me with qualities and values that I have in short supply in my personal life. Although years of intense study and training have made me competent, my modest power as a healer ascends from the patient to me through this mechanism.
To invest a either a public figure or a scientist with this type of authority would be highly erroneous. To engage the latter on his own terms and according to universally agreed upon rules would, OTOH, be in keeping with the scientific method. There is no such comparable method for engaging the politician, fundamentalist or theologian whose doctrine or platform does not evolve and is ultimately rooted in unfalsifiable systems of belief.
That said, I understand what you're driving at, I just wish you hadn't co-mingled the practice of science with the erroneous authority that the public outside of scientific practice sometimes invests in popular or outspoken scientific figures.
“The doctor-patient relationship depends in part on transference as our brother Submariner has pointed out in prior discussion;
All public figures are objects of mass transference. As an emergency physician I am regularly the subject of transference issues on a tiny scale. However, this is an essential part of the therapeutic process. Patients imbue me with qualities and values that I have in short supply in my personal life. Although years of intense study and training have made me competent, my modest power as a healer ascends from the patient to me through this mechanism.” CNu / Submariner
Are we describing a doctor or a shaman, a man of science of a man of the cloth? Substitute “priest” for “physician” and the postulate still works.
Didn’t Jesus’ power as a healer ‘ascend from the seeker to him’ through a similar mechanism?
Hospitals are temples, doctors are high priests and science is a religion.
"Kim Kardashian compromised herself."
Ha ha. No she didn`t.
Eating and screwing is perfectly natural.
Old male control freaks that want to control the female pussy is not really so natural.
It is a big part of religion though.
DV, I understand where you're coming from. The distinctions between religion and science are not as rigid as many would presume, but I think you're off the mark.
Nothing "permits me", but me.
That's what I like about you: Powerhouse conviction and defiance, the most striking qualities of any martyr. As usual, you and Craig force me to confront something I may not be ready for but I'll tag along for the ride.
Sub baby you must know by now that even though we like D.V. he is a backward looking dude who is hung up on Babylonian values.
Thas right you heard me right.
At least Craig knows a little something.
D.V. is our esteemed template provider with a for him real but nonsense based sense of history and value and has not been able to transcend culture.
By the way, vigorous adherents to religious faith look scornfully upon the vitality and flair which characterizes your style, DV.
"By the way, vigorous adherents to religious faith look scornfully upon the vitality and flair which characterizes your style, DV." Submariner
As the vigorous adherents to the secular faith look scornfully upon the vitality and flair which characterizes my spiritual style.
I submit the arrogantly ignorant secular fanaticism of my favorite white boy, Skip Sievert, in the above post, as evidence of the increasingly intolerant dogma of the Holy Church of No God.
Some could argue that abortionists and pornographers and money changers are nothing more than temporal Jihadists.
Well, there is no accounting for belief nor should there be.
Religious people are easy targets.
There is something comical about taking religious values seriously when they were invented to control the mass with lies.
If there is a god it ain't connected to the nasty Babylon one except by lying humans.
Post a Comment