# Secular Humanism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2011, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688 "2011-10-14T08:32:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/201 "2011-10-20T15:06:16Z")
> [@David42](#): > > See, this is what burns me. Science claims to be the study of the natural world, but some unbelievers wish to claim that their study of the natural world somehow has a bearing on the supernatural. Science has to remain silent, by definition, on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, or else it is no longer science. Almost all of the people who claim the existence of the supernatural, believe that this supernatural thing interacts with the natural world. People who believe in the Christian version of God universally believe this God not only created the natural world, but continues to interact with it. If something has an effect on the natural world, then it’s in the domain of science. It sounds like you’re saying that this supernatural something that _you_ believe in has no interaction with our world. Since we can only observe stuff in the natural material world, then the difficult question for you becomes: _How do you know?_ You’re saying on the one hand that you believe this thing exists, while at the same time acknowledging that there would be no way for you to know it if it does. How do you reconcile this? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/202 "2011-10-20T15:12:36Z")
> [@David42](#): > > See, Der Trihs, when Zoe says you do not listen and you clam you do, I have to shake my head. > > The comment concerned THE POSITIONS ON THIS BOARD and then you claimed you’re not the extreme and asked us to consider people setting off bombs. > > Perhaps you’d care to point out who the bomber is on this board? > > You DO often represent the most extreme views on this board, but you seem to have some kind of denial about it. I’m almost certain **DT** is taking exception to the semantic baggage that might accompany the term ‘extreme’. He’s _at_ the extreme of the spectrum here, but he’s not an extremist. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/203 "2011-10-20T15:26:23Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Why does your brand of silliness deserve any more respect or care than any other fiction? I didn’t say it did. That’s up to each and every person for whatever reasons they may find make sense to them. I do take issue with labeling it fiction. The disregard of some for the evidences recorded in the scripture has no weight of proof to me. You can claim it to be fiction, but I see it as ignoring evidence. You got some proof that Moses was a liar? Or will you talk about “extraordinary evidence” while ignoring that the record we have is the best possible proof of what happened, meaning, Moses didn’t have a camcorder and had no better means to record the events he wrote of? Yet you lack any counter-evidence, period–there are no records from another person along the lines of, “hey I was there and this Moses fella was making it up.” Or will you give me Ockham’s razor and tell me that this reasoning device dealing with presumptions where evidence is lacking is instead a device to replace evidence when you choose to deny evidence? Nevertheless, I’d like for you to address my point about morals. Do you value truth, or make up false claims about the claims of people you debate with? If you do make up those strawmen I think you have moral issues. I would like to clarify that neither here nor in my earlier post do I mean to claim any specific poster on this board is a liar, I just mean to convey a generality about morals and telling the truth. Not directed at anyone specific. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/204 "2011-10-20T15:28:24Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Of course I can. One has nothing to do with each other. The Soviet Union wasn’t formed so all the secularist could gather in one place. Secularism was dictated in order to keep people in line. You’re putting the horse before the cart. :rolleyes: Nobody said the USSR was formed so that all secularists could gather together in one country. I have no idea how you got that out of anything I wrote. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Secularism was dictated in order to keep people in line. You’re putting the horse before the cart. 😕 Seriously, dude, WTF? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/205 "2011-10-20T15:28:28Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m almost certain **DT** is taking exception to the semantic baggage that might accompany the term ‘extreme’. He’s _at_ the extreme of the spectrum here, but he’s not an extremist. I agree. My point is more to his claim that he reads and responds carefully, which I find to be in error time and again and agree with Zoe about. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/206 "2011-10-20T15:31:58Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > 😕 Seriously, dude, WTF? Yes, I know you’re confused. No reason to swear. Communists used secularism to advance communism. Secualarists didn’t use communisim to advance secularism. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/207 "2011-10-20T15:33:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > What in the world are you babbling about? Ain’t babbling, dude. Just pointing out that most of the crazies ranting in public aren’t religious these days, they’re mostly political, and they’re on your end of the political spectrum. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/208 "2011-10-20T15:39:25Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I didn’t say it did. That’s up to each and every person for whatever reasons they may find make sense to them. > > I do take issue with labeling it fiction. The disregard of some for the evidences recorded in the scripture has no weight of proof to me. You can claim it to be fiction, but I see it as ignoring evidence. You got some proof that Moses was a liar? Or will you talk about “extraordinary evidence” while ignoring that the record we have is the best possible proof of what happened, meaning, Moses didn’t have a camcorder and had no better means to record the events he wrote of? Yet you lack any counter-evidence, period–there are no records from another person along the lines of, “hey I was there and this Moses fella was making it up.” > > Or will you give me Ockham’s razor and tell me that this reasoning device dealing with presumptions where evidence is lacking is instead a device to replace evidence when you choose to deny evidence? > > Nevertheless, I’d like for you to address my point about morals. Do you value truth, or make up false claims about the claims of people you debate with? If you do make up those strawmen I think you have moral issues. > > I would like to clarify that neither here nor in my earlier post do I mean to claim any specific poster on this board is a liar, I just mean to convey a generality about morals and telling the truth. Not directed at anyone specific. I don’t need _counter_ evidence because you don’t have anything to counter in the first place. Science approaches things with little to no assumptions. It records evidence as impartially as possible and draws conclusions based upon testing that can be repeated. There is no more evidence for the veracity of Moses’ accounts than there is for Sumerian myths. Hell, we have more “evidence” of ghosts, bigfoot, and UFO’s than we do to corroborate _anything_ supernatural in biblical scripture. Extraordinary evidence, Occam’s razor and the like aren’t old canards trotted out to protect the debater. They are simply problems that the religious opposition cannot overcome, but normal everyday reality has no issues with. As to your strawman question, the answer is: “No, we aren’t lying or making up strawmen to knock over.” From a scientific perspective there is exactly as much evidence for gods as there is for leprechauns; and they should be treated the same. ETA: I’m off to work shortly and will check in after 5 EST. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/209 "2011-10-20T15:43:08Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I’m almost certain **DT** is taking exception to the semantic baggage that might accompany the term ‘extreme’. He’s _at_ the extreme of the spectrum here, but he’s not an extremist. Exactly. > [@David42](#): > > I do take issue with labeling it fiction. Well, too bad; calling it “fiction” is being polite about it. “Delusion” or “fraud” would be more accurate; which of those two it is would depend on whether or not the person claiming it believes it of course. > [@David42](#): > > You got some proof that Moses was a liar? In a sense. His story makes impossible claims that are contradicted by the historical records and archaeological facts. But he probably never existed, so was technically not a liar. > [@David42](#): > > Yet you lack any counter-evidence, period–there are no records from another person along the lines of, “hey I was there and this Moses fella was making it up.” We have the records left by the Egyptians, we have the archaeological evidence - or in this case a _lack_ of evidence that _would_ be left by so many people in a desert - showing that the whole Moses story never happened. No slavery in Egypt, nothing. And of course the various claims of miracles are contradicted by known physical laws. > [@David42](#): > > Nevertheless, I’d like for you to address my point about morals. Do you value truth, or make up flase claims about the claims of people you debate with? If you do make up those strawmen I think you have moral issues. Mockery or humor isn’t the same as a straw man. We don’t compare Jesus to a zombie because we think you believe he was. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/210 "2011-10-20T15:45:22Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Ain’t babbling, dude. Just pointing out that most of the crazies ranting in public aren’t religious these days, they’re mostly political, and they’re on your end of the political spectrum. Nonsense. Most of the crazies ranting in public these days are religious _and_ political, and are what passes for the Republican mainstream. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/211 "2011-10-20T15:52:41Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I do take issue with labeling it fiction. It’s fiction. > [@](#): > > You can claim it to be fiction, but I see it as ignoring evidence. Stories aren’t “evidence.” > [@](#): > > You got some proof that Moses was a liar? From Victor Stenger’s _God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist_: > [@](#): > > According to the biblical account, six hundred thousand Jews participated in the escape from Egypt. Even if this is wildly exagerated, Finkelstein and Silberman argue that some archaeological traces of their wandering should have been found by now. Despite extensive searching, “not a single campsite or sign of occupation from of Ramses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has ever been identified in Sinai.” > > Finkelstein and Silberman note that modern archaeological techniques are capable of tracing even the very meager remains of small bands of far more ancient hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. They say, “The conclusion - that the Exodus did not happen at the time and manner described in the Bible - seems irrefutable.” > > Finkelstein and Silberman are part of a school of biblical archaeologists called “minimalists,” who argue that many biblical accounts of early Israel have little, if any basis in factual data. They are opposed by the “maximalists,” who still claim that Bible accounts are generally confirmed by archaeology. One highly respected scholar, William Dever, has tried to straddle the two positions. But he has to agree with the minimalists on the questions of Moses. “Absolutely no trace of Moses or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the exodus and the wandering in the wilderness — events so crucial in the Biblical recitation of the ‘mighty acts of God’ — we have no evidence whatsoever… Recent Israeli excavations at Kadesh- Barnea, the Sinai oasis where the Israelites are said to have encamped for forty years, have revealed an extensive settlement, but not so much as a potsherd earlier than the tenth century B.C.” > > The minimalists also cast considerable doubt that the great battles in Canaan, which the Bible describes as happening after the death of Moses, actually occurred. The cities in the region were poor and unfortified at the time, and the excavations show no signs of destruction. Jericho had no walls to come tumbling down at the blast of Joshua’s trumpet. In fact, it was not even settled at the time, having been destroyed around 2400 BCE, some nine hundred years before Joshua’s alleged conquest. > > In short, the stories of Moses and his immediate successors are surely myths. In science the absence of evidence that is required by a constitutes a falsification of the hypothesis. The hypothesis of a God who selected out a small desert tribe as his chosen people and communicated the law to them while they wandered the the Sinai Desert is is falsified by the absence of evidence required by that hypothesis. > > After Moses and Abraham (who is also probably a mythological figure), the next most important personages in the Old Testament are David and Solomon. They are described in the Bible as rulers of great wealth, presiding over the Golden Age of the briefly united kingdoms of Israel and Judea. Yet there is no mention of either king in Egyptian or Mesopotamian texts. No physical evidence has been found for David’s conquests or his empire. Archaeological support for Solomon’s great temple in Jerusalem or other building projects there and in other locales is nonexistent. > > At a recent meeting in Rome, archaeologist Niels Peter Lemche declared, “Archaeological data have now definitely confirmed that the empire of David and Solomon never existed.” ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/212 "2011-10-20T15:54:29Z")
> [@David42](#): > > You got some proof that Moses was a liar? Or will you talk about “extraordinary evidence” while ignoring that the record we have is the best possible proof of what happened, meaning, Moses didn’t have a camcorder and had no better means to record the events he wrote of? Yet you lack any counter-evidence, period–there are no records from another person along the lines of, “hey I was there and this Moses fella was making it up.” David, you are aware that, to be charitable, the jury’s out on whether or not Moses of the bible actually existed, with recent archeological evidence suggesting he probably didn’t, right? ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/213 "2011-10-20T15:55:25Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Yes, I know you’re confused. No reason to swear. > > Communists used secularism to advance communism. > Secualarists didn’t use communisim to advance secularism. And does that have to do with anything I said? Communism is a secularist movement. The movement’s ideology is distinctly secularist. It is, of course, only one form of secularism among many. Secularism is the set, Communism is a subset of the set. Got that? Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, all that bunch were sincere secularists. For that matter, most Communists before about 1960 or 1970 were entirley sincere about their ideology. This leaves both you and Der Trihs in a very awkward position. You guys claim that secularists have never committed massive crimes against humanity; yet it its quite clear that a secularist political movement killed a hundred million people in Eurasia. Your response has been to pretend that movement was somehow not really secularist. And that pretense is every bit as silly as insisting that the Nazis somehow weren’t really anti-Semitic. I am not blaming all secularists for the massive atrocities of the Communists. I am disputing the claim that secularists have never committed large scale atrocities, as the historical record makes it quite clear that some secularists did indeed commit large scale crimes against humanity. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/214 "2011-10-20T15:57:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense. Most of the crazies ranting in public these days are religious _and_ political, and are what passes for the Republican mainstream. I have yet to see anybody in the Republican mainstream take a crap on a police car. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/215 "2011-10-20T16:08:25Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > This leaves both you and Der Trihs in a very awkward position. You guys claim that secularists have never committed massive crimes against humanity; yet it its quite clear that a secularist political movement killed a hundred million people in Eurasia. No; we said secular humanists never did. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I am not blaming all secularists for the massive atrocities of the Communists. I am disputing the claim that secularists have never committed large scale atrocities, as the historical record makes it quite clear that some secularists did indeed commit large scale crimes against humanity. The Communists did. Specifically. That’s why the defenders of religion keep bringing them up and trying to equate them with unbelievers in general. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > I have yet to see anybody in the Republican mainstream take a crap on a police car. No, they just threaten people and attack them. The Republican party is overwhelmingly composed of thugs, fanatics, bigots and lunatics. The Democrats aren’t. There’s no comparison between the two. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/216 "2011-10-20T16:08:36Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Stories aren’t “evidence.” Yet our secular courts put people to death on the testimony of one person alone and call it evidence. If what people write in books cannot be evidence, we’re gonna have to reexamine our entire paradigm of knowledge. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > From Victor Stenger’s _God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist_: So, is your claim “The failure to find evidence is certain proof that no such evidence can ever be found in the future?” It’s the absolute certainty that the scripture is false that I take issue with. Seems to me, if I recall correctly, that certain archeologists have made fools of themselves before by claiming, for instance, that “Troy is a myth” despite having received evidence to the contrary from Homer. True, Homer also made some fantastic claims. But he also claimed the existence of ancient Greece which no-one ever doubted. It’s obvious that some of what Homer claimed is true. Now, which parts can you PROVE are true and untrue? Part of the problem here is that many people fail to employ cultural relevancy when viewing ancient documents and pretend that the writers are invalid for the reason that their viewpoint doesn’t jibe with our modern sensibilities. You have to read the documents on the terms of the author, not your own. If you do not you will fail to grasp what the author meant. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/217 "2011-10-20T16:10:42Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Proof does destroy faith, because once something is proven it becames fact and is no longer faith! And only in religion is this considered a bad thing. Story from a guy: There was this beautiful woman who hung around where I did. I liked her, a lot, and while I had no proof she liked me, or even evidence, I had faith she did because it made me feel better. One day she told me that she loved me, and we went out to dinner, and it was great, and we went to her place, and it was fantastic. Other guy: So, you’re going out with her? Guy. No. She destroyed my faith by proving it, so I split. In life, the guy’s a schmuck. In religion, he’s devout. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/218 "2011-10-20T16:13:43Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I don’t believe a person who wants to believe in a God want’s convincing,just like a spouse who doesn’t want to know if it’s partener is cheating. Faith is just that faith. Some people need it to get through life. We can prove all written, taught,thought or read things, were of human origin and it depends on what human one chooses to believe. Your example is solidifying a bad thing. I can see religious people refusing to believe evidence that there is no life after death, that gives hope. But not wanting evidence that their greatest dream is true? That’s like refusing to believe you’ve won the lottery because you enjoy the dreams of winning more. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/219 "2011-10-20T16:21:19Z")
> [@David42](#): > > It’s the absolute certainty that the scripture is false that I take issue with. It claims impossibilities, contradicts known facts, and is internally contradictory. So yes, it’s false. Of course not _every single word_ is false but so what? No one is claiming that anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/220 "2011-10-20T16:33:27Z")
> [@David42](#): > > See, this is what burns me. Science claims to be the study of the natural world, but some unbelievers wish to claim that their study of the natural world somehow has a bearing on the supernatural. Science has to remain silent, by definition, on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, or else it is no longer science. > > if you disagree, I challenge you to describe what scientific process you have devised to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of the supernatural in general, or of God specifically. > > Please explain how that can be done. Since you asked. Now, it is clearly impossible to prove or even demonstrate the non-existence of the supernatural, since it is so poorly defined. But, are you familiar with J. Rhine? He was a professor at Duke who believe in ESP, certainly something supernatural, and conducted many experiments with the deck of five types of cards to see if he could detect it in anyone. He was not trying to explain this supernatural thing, he was just trying to demonstrate its existence. There are some issues with his experiments, but he more or less was doing the right thing, and he was enough of a scientist to not try to create a theory about something before its existence was demonstrated. People have also done all sorts of experiments testing the predictions of astrology. As for God, you need to give us a definition of your god. If you like the deist god who create the universe and then vanished, we can’t demonstrate him by definition, but he might as well not exist. If your God created the universe 6,000 years ago, we have plenty of contradictory evidence. If your God initiated the Exodus, and spoke to Moses, we have no indication that any large number of people in the Sinai, not even any dried out mummified Hebrew poop. There are certain cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence if the evidence should be found. Similarly, no one in Jerusalem in 32 CE seems to have heard about someone getting resurrected, and no one noticed an earthquake or marauding zombie saints. In fact, the people living there seemed more immune to recruitment in the new cult than the boobs in the sticks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688.md?page=12)