Can the Secularists be Trusted?

[Gary Childress]

If I owned a shop and two people both equally suited to the job I need one of them for, i'd employ the one that is Christian over an atheist (for obvious reasons).

Like any good slave driver, I suppose.

Oh no, owning a shop and employing people (* paying them) is really not a nice thing for people to do, is that it?

If you employ people, then you shouldn't discriminate between people based on their religious affiliations or not. Otherwise, Christians are easily manipulated into thinking they will be punished by God if they don't serve your needs.

[Immanuel Can]

Christians are easily manipulated into thinking they will be punished by God if they don't serve your needs.

I know thousands and thousands of Christians. I've never met one of which this would be true. Gary, Gary, Gary...

[Gary Childress]

Christians are easily manipulated into thinking they will be punished by God if they don't serve your needs.

I know thousands and thousands of Christians. I've never met one of which this would be true. Gary, Gary, Gary...

Then maybe Atto is wrong. They are no more hard working than anyone else. It's still discriminating against others based on Religion.

[Gary Childress]

Christians are easily manipulated into thinking they will be punished by God if they don't serve your needs.

I know thousands and thousands of Christians. I've never met one of which this would be true. Gary, Gary, Gary...

Then maybe Atto is wrong. They are no more hard working than anyone else. It's still discriminating against others based on Religion.

By the way, IC. I prefer to be called Mr. Childress by you. You talking down to me is very insulting.

[BigMike]

Part of the problem is that "secular" simply means "non-sacred." It's a negation with no positive content entailed. Somebody who's a "secularist," then, would be somebody who thinks nothing should be privileged as "sacred."

But then, secularists still want various things to be treated as sacred. They still believe in human rights, for example, or in their own autonomy, or in the responsibility of the state to remain non-religious, or in moral duties, or the liberty to terminate their own life, or the right of law, or social justice, or a life they have created...some are even environmentalists or vegans, treating animals or the planet itself as sacred.

The only way one can maintain such beliefs turns out to be not to think very hard about the warrant for regarding any of those things as sacred; because once you've declared NOTHING sacred, there isn't a road back to justifying those values. So secularism can only be maintained by the expedient of not thinking, of not being consistent, of not trying to ground one's beliefs in reason.

Instead, secularism tends to expend all its energies on deploring the religious, as if insulting others was somehow the same thing as proving and rationally grounding one's own beliefs. But of course, it's not. Even if, say, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, paganism and Theosophy are wrong in their entirety, that realization would not go one step in the direction of showing that a secularist's own preferred values were justified.

If secularism behaved genuinely secularly, it would amount to Nihilism. There's no other logical resting place for it.

Fortunately for us all, secularism is never logically followed to its own natural conclusions. If it were, we would not be living in societies, but in a permanent state of confusion and strife...for no values at all would be justifiable. So we may all thank our lucky stars that secularism is not self-aware.

You trumpet your personal take on “the sacred” as though it were some universal principle

Look above. I've only spoken about secularism, and not a word about "my own personal take on the sacred". I've done nothing of what you claim.

Aren't you interested in speaking truth at all?

Immanuel, your response is a classic example of dodging accountability while projecting false claims onto others. You’ve written a verbose diatribe dripping with disdain for secularism, yet now you feign neutrality, pretending you were merely "speaking about secularism" without imposing your own perspective. That’s an impressive pivot, but it doesn’t hold water.

Let’s break this down: Your original post was riddled with value judgments about secularism, describing it as "a negation with no positive content," accusing secularists of "not thinking very hard," and concluding that secularism logically leads to nihilism. These are not neutral observations—they're attacks steeped in your personal worldview. So, spare us the pretense of impartiality.

And when someone calls out your baseless generalizations, you deflect by accusing them of dishonesty instead of addressing their points. That’s not an argument—it’s a weak rhetorical smokescreen. If you’re genuinely interested in speaking truth, start by owning your own biases instead of pretending they don’t exist.

[Immanuel Can]

I know thousands and thousands of Christians. I've never met one of which this would be true. Gary, Gary, Gary...

Then maybe Atto is wrong. They are no more hard working than anyone else. It's still discriminating against others based on Religion.

By the way, IC. I prefer to be called Mr. Childress by you. You talking down to me is very insulting.

You post your name as "Gary Childress." If you want to change it to "Mr.," go ahead. And see if anybody takes to it, if you like. And if you find your own posted first name "very insulting," then stop posting it, I guess.

But it's irrelevant to the point, of course, which is that you simply don't know much about Christians, obviously.

[Immanuel Can]

You trumpet your personal take on “the sacred” as though it were some universal principle

Look above. I've only spoken about secularism, and not a word about "my own personal take on the sacred". I've done nothing of what you claim.

Aren't you interested in speaking truth at all?

Immanuel, your response is a classic example of dodging accountability while projecting false claims onto others.

Actually, that's obviously projection on your part. It was exactly what you did to me: you said I was writing about my views of the sacred, whereas I said nothing at all about them, and stuck to the subject of secularism.

Nobody's fooled, Mikey. Try again.

You’ve written a verbose diatribe dripping with disdain for secularism,

Not at all. What I've written is just the simple truth. And you can verify it for me, which I will let you do right now. Here's the question: Which value can secularism ground?

Let's see what you've got.

[Gary Childress]

Then maybe Atto is wrong. They are no more hard working than anyone else. It's still discriminating against others based on Religion.

By the way, IC. I prefer to be called Mr. Childress by you. You talking down to me is very insulting.

You post your name as "Gary Childress." If you want to change it to "Mr.," go ahead. And see if anybody takes to it, if you like. And if you find your own posted first name "very insulting," then stop posting it, I guess.

But it's irrelevant to the point, of course, which is that you simply don't know much about Christians, obviously.

I don't go by "Gary, Gary, Gary." It's what adults say to children and it's offensive to the mentally ill who are often treated like infants by others whether we like it or not.

[Immanuel Can]

By the way, IC. I prefer to be called Mr. Childress by you. You talking down to me is very insulting.

You post your name as "Gary Childress." If you want to change it to "Mr.," go ahead. And see if anybody takes to it, if you like. And if you find your own posted first name "very insulting," then stop posting it, I guess.

But it's irrelevant to the point, of course, which is that you simply don't know much about Christians, obviously.

I don't go by "Gary, Gary, Gary." It's what adults say to children and it's offensive to the mentally ill who are often treated like infants by others whether we like it or not.

It's your name. You post it. I don't know why you're crabbing now. And I'm really not all that concerned.

[Gary Childress]

You post your name as "Gary Childress." If you want to change it to "Mr.," go ahead. And see if anybody takes to it, if you like. And if you find your own posted first name "very insulting," then stop posting it, I guess.

But it's irrelevant to the point, of course, which is that you simply don't know much about Christians, obviously.

I don't go by "Gary, Gary, Gary." It's what adults say to children and it's offensive to the mentally ill who are often treated like infants by others whether we like it or not.

It's your name. You post it. I don't know why you're crabbing now. And I'm really not all that concerned.

Fair enough. I expect nothing less from the likes of you.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't go by "Gary, Gary, Gary." It's what adults say to children and it's offensive to the mentally ill who are often treated like infants by others whether we like it or not.

It's your name. You post it. I don't know why you're crabbing now. And I'm really not all that concerned.

Fair enough. I expect nothing less from the likes of you.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Gary. It's your name: you should be proud to own it. If you're not, nobody can help that.

[Gary Childress]

It's your name. You post it. I don't know why you're crabbing now. And I'm really not all that concerned.

Fair enough. I expect nothing less from the likes of you.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Gary. It's your name: you should be proud to own it. If you're not, nobody can help that.

Then you only need to say it once instead of pretending to pander to me like a child.

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough. I expect nothing less from the likes of you.

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Gary. It's your name: you should be proud to own it. If you're not, nobody can help that.

Then you only need to say it once instead of pretending to pander to me like a child.

Don't say totally goofy and absurdly untrue things about Christians, and I won't have to say, "Gary, Gary, Gary..." Fair deal?

[Gary Childress]

Don't get your knickers in a twist, Gary. It's your name: you should be proud to own it. If you're not, nobody can help that.

Then you only need to say it once instead of pretending to pander to me like a child.

Don't say totally goofy and absurdly untrue things about Christians, and I won't have to say, "Gary, Gary, Gary..." Fair deal?

Fair enough. I'll just pretend to be a 'heathen' for you. Will that make you happy?

[BigMike]

Look above. I've only spoken about secularism, and not a word about "my own personal take on the sacred". I've done nothing of what you claim.

Aren't you interested in speaking truth at all?

Immanuel, your response is a classic example of dodging accountability while projecting false claims onto others.

Actually, that's obviously projection on your part. It was exactly what you did to me: you said I was writing about my views of the sacred, whereas I said nothing at all about them, and stuck to the subject of secularism.

Nobody's fooled, Mikey. Try again.

You’ve written a verbose diatribe dripping with disdain for secularism,

Not at all. What I've written is just the simple truth. And you can verify it for me, which I will let you do right now. Here's the question: Which value can secularism ground?

Let's see what you've got.

Immanuel, your attempt to wriggle out of critique by reframing the discussion is, at best, a transparent distraction. You accuse others of projection while engaging in it yourself, all the while pretending to stand on some moral or intellectual high ground. It’s a hollow act.

Your so-called "simple truth" about secularism is anything but simple or truthful. It’s a deeply biased caricature built on the false premise that values must be “grounded” in something sacred, as defined by you. Secularism doesn’t need to claim divine authority or metaphysical absolutes to ground values—it grounds them in shared human experience, empathy, reason, and a commitment to minimizing harm. It’s neither incoherent nor nihilistic; it simply refuses to outsource morality to unverifiable metaphysical constructs.

But here’s the real issue: You’re not interested in exploring the actual grounding of secular values. You’re looking for an opening to reinforce your own worldview. Posing a rhetorical question like "Which value can secularism ground?" isn’t a genuine inquiry—it’s a thinly veiled setup to dismiss any response as inadequate by your predetermined criteria.

The irony, of course, is that while you demand secularism justify its values, you never hold your own theistic framework to the same standard. What grounds your sacred values, Immanuel? A deity? Then explain why your deity’s pronouncements deserve moral authority. What grounds that authority? Circular reasoning about divine omniscience? Faith? If you truly cared about intellectual consistency, you’d address that glaring double standard before wagging your finger at secularism.

So here’s a suggestion: Before demanding answers, perhaps reflect on whether your own framework withstands the scrutiny you so eagerly apply to others. If it doesn’t, then perhaps it’s time to rethink your own "simple truth."