# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/101 "2011-10-16T09:03:05Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > I forgot to add ( a failing, my brain goes a lot faster than my fingers, so important stuff sometimes get put aside for future use, then misplaced) one benefit I find from having faith is some music moves me more strongly, and on different levels than it probably does to others who don’t share that particular ‘affliction’ > Ave Maria, Amazing Grace, Adeste Fideles, the Halleluiah Chorus, etc To a believer they are more than just a pretty tune (or organized noise, if you prefer) they have power to set the soul soaring into what faith CAN be… Yes, secular or popular music can be quite beautiful too, almost but not quite… Honestly, it’s something hard to describe. And much would probably be lost in translation, anyway… Much like the difference between experiencing a mind blowing orgasm and reading about one. And isn’t this just dripping with mealy-mouthed disdain? You’ve made sure to wrap your imagined superiority with terms of plausible deniability (as you did when you listed all those dictators. Chose them very, very carefully didn’t you?) but your true feelings shine through anyway. I don’t know if you’ve read this forum widely but honestly, your arguments are tired, repetitive and unimaginative. It has all been said and heard before and we see though your many words to the emptiness of your position. Seriously, just admit that you believe because you believe and leave it at that. Because any claims you make beyond that are philosophical hand-waving that doesn’t, and never did, stand up to scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/102 "2011-10-16T09:18:30Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > Here’s where your answer fails: you assume that there is a certain number of genocides that a group can get away with and still be ok. You also assume that that number is higher than one. > > How many genocides must be committed by atheistic groups before they become “bad?” And why do you not believe that “one” is not that number? “Atheists” is not a meaningful group, “Non-stamp collectors” is not a meaningful group “Non-cheese and pickle sandwich eaters” is not a meaningful group. “Secular Humanists”, now that\* is \*a meaningful group but of course none of that illustrious group of madmen subscribed to that. So atheism did not drive the group behaviour. It was not the organising principle behind them, it did not provide a framework for those societies or a backdrop to those atrocities…because it CAN’T. You can’t derive any coherent worldview simply from being an atheist. It is a starting point. It was merely a default position that had to be assumed so that one source of ideological authority (religion) could be supplanted by another (communism). ---
**Author:** ![Da\_Mikster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Da\_Mikster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Da_Mikster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/103 "2011-10-16T10:31:45Z")
Der Trihs, I don’t always have the best words, and my temper sometimes gets the best of me, so I’ll let a man who\*\* lived\*\* his faith to the best of his ability answer for me. Intolerance betrays want of faith in one’s cause. God is, even though the whole world deny him. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained. Religion is more than life. Remember that his own religion is the truest to every man even if it stands low in the scales of philosophical comparison. The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problem. One’s own religion is after all a matter between oneself and one’s Maker and no one else’s. We do not need to proselytise either by our speech or by our writing. We can only do so really with our lives. Let our lives be open books for all to study. There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread. Where love is, there God is also. Mohandas Gandhi I choose to see good. I do not accept your condemnation of entire faiths upon the acts of a few hypocrites a hundred years ago, or today. Nor do I choose to respond any longer to your small minded hatred of things you choose not to understand, not because of their failures, but your own… May you someday find happiness so that you no longer feel the need to spread poisoned words. For the rest, Gandhi as well: You must be the change you wish to see in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/104 "2011-10-16T10:34:26Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > Secular humanism is a religion… It’s not, but it’s close enough. Cosmological Reality – CR ™ – supersedes any theory that attempts to explain the universe. Everything that exists is independent of the human experience. ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/105 "2011-10-16T10:41:18Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > Okay, you nice folks demand objective proof of a subjective experience… shall we get existential? > > First, before I describe God to you. Will you please perform a much simpler task? Describe red to a blind person. Or if you prefer, describe the song of a nightingale to a deaf child. > > Now… On to God > > You demand tangible proof of God. Something you can sense, measure and quantify. What are your senses? Touch, vision, hearing, taste, smell, time are basic ones. But how do you prove what you sense is “objective”? Can the senses be fooled? Magicians do it all the time with vision, so does the simple movie. Can I mix inert chemicals together and have you taste a banana? How about touch or any of the others? Yes, all can be fooled, separately or together… this objective thing is getting rather complicated, isn’t it? > > Ration? Reason? They can be trusted. Right? But would a person intuitively know if theirs was flawed? The Sociopath, the Psychopath, the Schitzophrenic all experience a reality and thought patterns that differs from what many people consider “normal”. Does a shared delusion make it “real”? Does a rejected truth make it false? Is a belief in “nothing” quite possibly actually just a belief in an alternate something? > > And what about all those other people out there? Do they really exist? Or is it everything a construct of our easily fooled senses. Perhaps you are - to call up that old Chinese fellow - in fact a butterfly simply dreaming of being a man? Or a string of advanced computer code simulating self-awareness. Can you ‘prove’ otherwise? How? > > Can you actually **prove** that none of your possibly illusory experiences aren’t affecting your possibly irrational judgement, and those who agree with you are not, in fact, figments of your own imagination? Perhaps you are, in fact, just a figment of mine? > > Or perhaps are your entire existence is simply but a brief thought of God himself? Would you know that either? No, I can’t prove it, but can you disprove it? > > “Objectivity” then probably is pretty much an artificial construct of your questionable subjectivity bent into a pretzel by a flawed logic. No? How would you really know? > > Perhaps you’ll respond to this with the classic, “I think, therefore I am.” but is that truly any more “provable” than “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” You may choose to believe it, but you can’t really prove it either. > > So, you choose to believe, based upon all those possibly faulty subjective things, that there is no God. While I see the hand of God in everything. Which is truth? Perhaps God ( if you will temporarily allow for the sake of argument to assume he exists) is the only one that really knows. Perhaps he’s even willing to tell… eventually. — Anyone with what we call common sense doesn’t trust a small child with a sharp knife - because they aren’t ready to judge how to safely use it, or really comprehend the consequences of using it incorrectly. Can you truthfully say with conviction that mankind is ‘ready’ to hear the “ultimate truth” …whatever it may be? > > Meanwhile we comfort ourselves with what we **think** the truth might be. And my “security blanket” is no more stupid than yours. About the only difference is mine has a satin binding, and yours does not Post #64 was intriguingly clever, this one jumps the shark. To be brutally short, there is such a thing as objective truth. ---
**Author:** ![Da\_Mikster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Da\_Mikster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Da_Mikster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/106 "2011-10-16T11:41:40Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I don’t know if you’ve read this forum widely but honestly, your arguments are tired, repetitive and unimaginative. It has all been said and heard before and we see though your many words to the emptiness of your position. > Seriously, just admit that you believe because you believe and leave it at that. Because any claims you make beyond that are philosophical hand-waving that doesn’t, and never did, stand up to scrutiny. Can’t you see the delightful absurdity in what you just said? Boiled to it’s essence “There is a consensus among atheists that God doesn’t exist” Would you get the same consensus it you polled Catholic Priests? What if you asked a large group of Hindus? Perhaps if you instead asked a troupe of Baboons if they they are wiser than Chimpanzees you’d get just as objective an answer? If I polled a large group of rednecks I might well come to the “objective” conclusion that Pabst is good beer. What is “tiresome” is the smug superiority many of you have in your own infallibility. Just because you can play word games well doesn’t mean you are wise. Just because you dismiss what others see as proof, doesn’t mean there is no proof. It’s called Hubris. This board overflows with it. But that doesn’t make it ‘objective’. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/107 "2011-10-16T11:48:15Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > Just because you dismiss what others see as proof, doesn’t mean there is no proof. Are we talking about (a) proof that your faith brings you benefits, or (b) proof that the god you have faith in exists? ---
**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 16, 2011, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/108 "2011-10-16T11:57:10Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > Here’s where your answer fails: you assume that there is a certain number of genocides that a group can get away with and still be ok. You also assume that that number is higher than one. > > How many genocides must be committed by atheistic groups before they become “bad?” And why do you not believe that “one” is not that number? Once again, the good old attempt to smear atheists by equating them with Communists. > [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > Intolerance betrays want of faith in one’s cause. Arguing with someone on the internet isn’t “intolerance”. Your persecution complex is showing. > [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > God is, even though the whole world deny him. Sauron is, even though the whole world denies him. That’s a statement with just as much evidence for it as yours. > [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > Religion is more than life. An attitude which has produced an awful lot of dead people. > [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > One’s own religion is after all a matter between oneself and one’s Maker and no one else’s. Except that the believers never leave the rest of us alone. > [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > I do not accept your condemnation of entire faiths upon the acts of a few hypocrites a hundred years ago, or today. Please; the effect of religion is and always has been overwhelmingly an evil one. > [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > What is “tiresome” is the smug superiority many of you have in your own infallibility. Now _there’s_ an outright Freudian example of psychological projection. It’s not a matter of “smug certainty”; it’s that your position is just that blatantly baseless and ridiculous. You are in a worse position than someone trying to argue for the genuine existence of Santa Claus or Gandalf. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/109 "2011-10-16T12:23:29Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > What is “tiresome” is the smug superiority many of you have in your own infallibility. Pot, Kettle. I believe you two haven’t met. …I’m very disappointed in you, Pot. That was an insensitive thing to say. ---
**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 16, 2011, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/110 "2011-10-16T12:48:36Z")
Since I’m fairly certain I’m being ignored now, I’ll leave aside the snark and just address the meat of the last arguments. Reality as determined by reason and science is not based upon shared consensus. It is based upon _results_. The consensus is formed _after_ any number of people all perform the same experiment, and return with the same result. We cannot be certain that everyone experiences the color red in the same way, but we do know that “red” can be taught and identified. Since color is a function of light, then the fact that everyone but the color-blind, (who also can be defined with a specific set of tests), will agree that “red” is “red” (IE a specific set of wavelengths processed by the human eye and brain) we can be certain of the reality of the experience. At some point, the numbers game must win out in our perception of reality. The personal and wildly varying realities of the schitzophrenic do not reveal a higher truth or deeper reality. They cannot be shared by others. They cannot be shown to have any objective worth, or physical resemblance to the shared reality. They do not then have validity as truth. The consensus stems from the proof, not the other way around. _Religion_ makes the mistake that you are accusing us of. It presupposes the answer and then shoe-horns everything else into position; no matter how much we have to twist, cram, or torture the logic to get there. Just because I can make something taste like a banana through a complex series of chemical compositions does not make that flavor less tasty or enjoyable. Just because I can fool my eye with a rapid series of still images into the illusion of motion does not discredit my ability to use my eyes. The fact that I and millions of other people drive cars about everyday and do not crash through illusory buildings is a pretty good demonstration of that. I can look at a picture of a plant in a book and then identify it from among others in the nursery. As to your point about art and music, I cannot help but take some small level of offense at your assertion that secular art or music is lacking because of it’s nature. As a classically trained artist, I can tell you with great conviction that art is perhaps the most subjective experience in the human condition. We all experience each piece differently, and it is the triumph of the creator if their message is clear enough to generate a shared experience across a great many people. Indeed not all art and music is created equally nor meant to be. At best your position is a personal preference, at worst it is nothing more than shallow-mindedness. Where you see the hand of god, I see the elevation of the hand of man to it’s highest purpose. Where you see divine inspiration, I see the craftsman’s touch. The years of training, practice, refinement, and attention to minute detail. You might hear the voice of angels; but how much more meaningful, how much more triumphant to hear instead the voice of man raised in song, putting aside his baser, meaner nature to revel instead in melody, harmony, beat, color, line, mass, and form! To a divine being this accomplishment means nothing. As an achievement of man, it is monumental. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/111 "2011-10-16T14:09:52Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > Here’s where your answer fails: you assume that there is a certain number of genocides that a group can get away with and still be ok. You also assume that that number is higher than one. > > How many genocides must be committed by atheistic groups before they become “bad?” And why do you not believe that “one” is not that number? You’ve got to be kidding. If the actions of any one set of people can be attributable to any other group of people that share at least one element of belief or circumstance, then every person is part of a ‘group’ that has committed some kind of atrocity. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, atheists, clock makers, wiccans, mailmen, school teachers, firefighters, park rangers, babysitters, tuba players, Democrats, Bull Moose Party members, cat lovers, bakers, pick a group any group. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/112 "2011-10-16T14:15:15Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > Can’t you see the delightful absurdity in what you just said? Boiled to it’s essence “There is a consensus among atheists that God doesn’t exist” Nothing that I said was absurd. I criticised _your_ arguments specifically as uninteresting. There may be interesting, novel and useful arguments out there but you don’t seem to have them. As for your pithy summary of the atheist position. Again, you are wrong. As has been helpfully pointed out in this thread time and time again, an atheist simply lacks a belief in a god or gods. That is it. We (not that there is an actual “we”) do not claim to know that there is \*no \*god. Glad I could clear that up for you. > [@](#): > > Would you get the same consensus it you polled Catholic Priests? What if you asked a large group of Hindus? Perhaps if you instead asked a troupe of Baboons if they they are wiser than Chimpanzees you’d get just as objective an answer? If I polled a large group of rednecks I might well come to the “objective” conclusion that Pabst is good beer. Well I don’t know about the Baboons but I am certainly none the wiser as what your point is here. > [@](#): > > What is “tiresome” is the smug superiority many of you have in your own infallibility. Just because you can play word games well doesn’t mean you are wise. Just because you dismiss what others see as proof, doesn’t mean there is no proof. It’s called Hubris. This board overflows with it. > > But that doesn’t make it ‘objective’. Word games??? Theology is\* the \*supreme word game. I know full well that I am fallible Coming from a scientific and technology background I know just how wrong I can be and how best to guard against it. You do it through rational inquiry and testing your hypothesis. If it works you keep it and refine it, if it fails you lick your wounds and start again. So that’s me, but I’d suggest the same is true for many, if not all of the people posting in this thread. I’m sure you don’t need reminding where the true source or supposed infallibility lies. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/113 "2011-10-16T14:24:56Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > Here’s where your answer fails: you assume that there is a certain number of genocides that a group can get away with and still be ok. You also assume that that number is higher than one. > > How many genocides must be committed by atheistic groups before they become “bad?” And why do you not believe that “one” is not that number? I’m pretty sure hat none of the groups you are thinking of believed in unicorns, why is their non-belief in God responsible for genocide and not their non-belief in unicorns? I know you religious people don’t want to accept it, but there are no canons of atheism, no rituals associated with it, no tithes, no people paid to spread its teachings, no head of atheism to start pogroms for conversion. We don’t send out missionaries to knock on doors, let alone try and convert whole continents. We don’t stone to death apostates or have wars among rival factions. As a whole, those countries that are less religious fare better in terms of crime and wealth. Inside of the United States, the parts that are less religious show the same trend. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/114 "2011-10-16T14:43:00Z")
[quote=“Da\_Mikster, post:97, topic:599688”] > [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > If you’re going to tag team me, then you’ll have to patiently stand in line for response > > How about a CLARIFICATION instead?----Too many people today have NO moral compass whatsoever religious or otherwise. Bored kids roll an old guy for kicks. Or join a gang and terrorize neighborhoods. People think it’s OK to steal from their boss, do drugs, sell drugs, insult, beat up, or even shoot people simply for being “not like them”. Too many folks have NO empathy either. They don’t give a crap how bad someone else is screwed as long as they get theirs. If they claim a religion it’s just LIP SERVICE, not a living faith. If they truly believed in ANY god (except maybe Mars), or even in humanism, they would NOT behave that way. THAT is what I tried to condense into THAT sentence. You folks CHOSE to get your knickers in a twist due to YOUR misunderstanding what was actually **said** , YOUR prejudices and YOUR lack of “objectivity”, not mine. I’ll accept penance only my own sins, not for yours. > > Now, you were saying? I was saying “Some sort of objective/statistical evidence for your assertion”..Right there in the last line. About the 4th itme I asked, actually. Not rhetoric, fact. Never mind, you FAIL. If a person who professes belief acts poorly, he/she didn’t really believe, it was only lip service. Your hypothesis has become unverifiable. All those pedophilic priests? Just not true believers… ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/115 "2011-10-16T14:54:01Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > We don’t […] have wars among rival factions. As long as they don’t diss fat people, hate on cats or leave the toilet seat up. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/116 "2011-10-16T15:18:52Z")
> [@Da Mikster\[/quote](#): > > Secular humanism is a religion. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Why do you hate religion? Apparently this just whooshed on by, so I’ll clarify that it’s not intended as a random snark. **Da Mikster** obviously has great contempt for what he views as “secular humanism” and on the other hand views religion as a marvelous and soul-transforming thing. So why does he think the most devastating insult he can level at “secular humanism” is to label it a religion? I see this tactic employed commonly by devotees of alternative medicine and other woo, who seem to believe that those involved in evidence-based medicine and other scientific endeavors are, at their core, atheists (false in many if not most cases). Wooists frequently try to get the goat of their rational opponents by sneering about how science is actually a religion. Beyond their profound misunderstanding of scientific principles, their taunts indicate a belief that religion is something to be embarrassed about. They can’t be happy with the implication of self-hatred piled atop ignorance, but that’s precisely the impression that is left. **Da Mikster** would be better off sticking with the John Sebastian defense in arguing religion’s benefits to the non-devout (“it’s like trying to tell a stranger about rock n’ roll”) than attempting to claim atheists as fellow believers. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/117 "2011-10-16T15:31:07Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > First, before I describe God to you. Will you please perform a much simpler task? Describe red to a blind person. Or if you prefer, describe the song of a nightingale to a deaf child. I can’t describe my _subjective experience_, but I can describe red or a nightingale’s song in terms like wavelength or amplitude fluctuations that would allow a blind or deaf person to verify that they _exist_. Can you do that with God? As to the rest of your post. When you reach the point in an argument where the only way to sustain your position is to deny rationality itself … that’s called “losing”. You’ve actually provided a nice object lesson in the toxic effects of religion. You’re unwilling to confront the uncomfortable truth that observation and logic lead you to – that there is no God. So you reject them. But if you throw away they only tools you have for distinguishing truth from falsehood, how can you hope to know anything about the world? ---
**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 16, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/118 "2011-10-16T16:20:01Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > If they claim a religion it’s just LIP SERVICE, not a living faith. If they truly believed in ANY god (except maybe Mars), or even in humanism, they would NOT behave that way. THAT is what I tried to condense into THAT sentence. You folks CHOSE to get your knickers in a twist due to YOUR misunderstanding what was actually **said** , YOUR prejudices and YOUR lack of “objectivity”, not mine. I’ll accept penance only my own sins, not for yours. > > Now, you were saying? So, the members of the Westboro Baptist Church don’t really believe? The Crusaders didn’t really believe? I hear the sound of bagpipes, methinks. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/119 "2011-10-17T01:04:57Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > As to the rest of your post. When you reach the point in an argument where the only way to sustain your position is to deny rationality itself … that’s called “losing”. Actually, I kinda like that he started with “I know God exists because I see him everywhere in everything”, and in the same breath advises that one can’t trust one’s senses. Very dada. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688/120 "2011-10-17T01:48:35Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > Too many people today have NO moral compass whatsoever religious or otherwise. Bored kids roll an old guy for kicks. Or join a gang and terrorize neighborhoods. People think it’s OK to steal from their boss, **do drugs** , sell drugs, insult, beat up, or even shoot people simply for being “not like them”. Too many folks have NO empathy either. Hmmm. Did your god tell you that using drugs is immoral? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-humanism/599688.md?page=7)