Secularism Hurts Humanity

As part of their culture war, Gnu atheists seek to convince the general public that religion is bad. Very bad. One of the weapons in their propaganda is to continually portray religion in a bad light. So anytime there is news of some religious people doing something bad or saying something bad, the Gnus like to showcase this. A steady diet of such cherry picking then becomes part of the propagandistic confirmation bias campaign. For example, this tactic is one of the major themes of Hemant Mehta’s blog (along with his “atheist as victim” stories”). Every month, the Gnu activist likes to post a video that compiles all the sensational news stories that put religion in a bad light. The videos are put together by one of his fans who runs a FB site called “Religion Hurts Humanity.”

But why judge religion in a vacuum? Why not instead balance the Gnu approach by showcasing the opposite of religion – secularism? Secular is defined as follows:

denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

If someone is not religious, they are secular. A secular person leads a life where God and religion are simply not relevant. So the opposite of a religious lifestyle is a secular lifestyle. Behavior which does not involve religion or religious belief is secular behavior. That being said, in an attempt to further balance the discussion, why not borrow from the Gnu approach and focus on news that involves secular people and secular behavior?

So I will start a new on-going series that learns from the Gnu approach and showcases examples of secular behavior, secular thinking, and secular lifestyles to see if it truly represents a superior approach to life than the religious way.

Today, let’s begin with this recent news story that describes some rather horrific secular behavior.

Activists like Mehta ignore secular stories like this because they don’t have a religious angle.

This entry was posted in New Atheism, Secularism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Secularism Hurts Humanity

  1. mechanar says:

    please michael you are way to smart to put yourself down to gnu low level

  2. Ilíon says:

    Yeah! You should never answer/expose the dishonesty of ‘atheists’; that would be so beneath you!

  3. mechanar says:

    @Ilíon thats not what I meant

  4. It’s not what you meant, but you’re still wrong.

    This blog is a consistently excellent example of holding the Gnus to their own standards. As someone previously inclined to accept criticisms humbly, even when they weren’t fair and even when they didn’t apply to me, it takes people of Michael’s intelligence to flip the lens.
    I thought I could win them over with Herculean virtue. But I couldn’t. They don’t care. They just want to insult you and shame you until you give in.
    And if you really are virtuous, that will show when the scales are balanced.

  5. Ilíon says:

    Doesn’t matter, the *result* is the same.

  6. Crude says:

    Mike’s hitting on a point I’ve mentioned before, and which even Christians don’t seem to ‘get’.

    CoG atheists treat ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ and (basically) everything nice and cheery as ‘secular values’ or the like.

    All the bad, horrible stuff people do for no or even anti-religious reasons? Good luck having them call that ‘secular’.

  7. TFBW says:

    At the risk of stating the obvious, I predict that the response will be along the lines of, “those bad things don’t happen because they are secular, whereas religion is responsible for the bad things associated with it.” This is merely a slight variation on “atheism is a lack of belief in gods”. Secularism is a lack of religion, and anything characterised as an absence of something else can posture as though it is causally inert, absolving itself of all responsibility for anything. A cheap rhetorical trick, perhaps, but New Atheist propaganda thrives on such nonsense.

  8. Crude says:


    I don’t think that will work this time. At least, not against informed opposition. ‘Secular values’ are supposed to be a motivating factor – the cost of saying ‘secularism is just a lack of religion, and thus can’t motivate anything’ is high. It’s part of the reason that ‘atheism is just a lack of belief in gods’ is enabled as a move to begin with – because ‘secularism’ exists as a fallback for talking about the “good things” promoted by non-religion. I don’t think they’re going to excuse ‘rape is a secular act’ or ‘racism is a secular value’ lightly.

  9. whiskeybucks says:

    I think this is wide of the mark, but not absurdly wide. I would instead posit a critique of, say, someone like Amanda Marcotte’s writings as an example of secularism not being a guarantee of elevated virtue. Her writings on abortion, specifically from the viewpoint of an ardent secularist, openly admit to being selfish and hedonistic, with no apologies, flying in the face of virtually all of humanity’s lasting moral canon.

    It so often happens that whenever I hear someone say *as a point of argument* that OF COURSE people can, nay, WILL be “good without God” it’s simply a matter of time before either they themselves or one of their polemical allies will claim some serious vice as their own, with pride. I’m not so much saying that secularism qua secularism and vice are axiomatic partners as I am waiting for secularism to even start to cash in on its own unique and exclusive promises. I’m also not holding my breath.

  10. Truth2Freedom says:

    Reblogged this on Truth2Freedom's Blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.