Secular and Non Secular Thought are Compatible

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThazzarBaal said:
I don't know. Those people who actually practice this type of elitism, I suppose.
Click to expand...
If you don’t know of such people, what was the point of post 16? You seem to be inventing an imaginary group, in order to criticise their (imagined) attitude.
 
Last edited:
C C said:
If you really want a "debate" to fall out of this (a formal or strictly umpired one seems moot now that the topic has been moved), then the focus probably needs to narrow to areas like science and philosophical naturalism (on the secular side). Because the rest of the "secular world" is pretty much hell-bent to journey down the yellow brick road to reality impairment.

Which is to say, "secular" in a general sense would include humanities scholarship. And since the latter has had a rocky road itself with the physical sciences in the past (The Two Cultures), then certainly there are schools of thought in those literary intellectual circles that would incorporate almost anything from the traditional cultural world. Due to whatever radical egalitarianism they might be sporting (not just with respect to human rights, but the equality of cultures and beliefs -- the elimination of hegemony). An exception would be when one of them is still orbiting so tightly around classic Marxism that the latter's inflexible atheism and materialism becomes a roadblock. As well as in accepting something like Christianity, that contributed to or abetted Western oppression of the globe.

IOW, you probably need to be espousing something extreme in regard to compatibility, for it to become a significantly contentious issue. More than just "can't we all just get along" in cooperative social alliances to solve community problems. Like biology textbooks accommodating creationist myths of the Māori, or whatever kind of integrity invasion of standards. IOW, contending that there is outright commensurability or that science is compelled to drop its systematic epistemological bigotry and be inclusive of the "diverse sciences" of other cultures.

We already know that some social science disciplines like anthropology are willing to patronize indigenous beliefs and practices out of Western guilt. And even science journals from a general POV allow themselves to be platforms for the de-Westernization of science: The journal NATURE calls for decolonization of modern science.

So it's not like there's an invincible wall there. If you want to jump on that bandwagon, then you could trigger a modest donnybrook. Otherwise, it's more or less an observable fact that the "secular and non-secular" can exist in harmony if each stays reliably on its own turf. And the accelerating rise of non-religious fashionable nonsense and pseudoscience potentially enables the [general] secular realm to be more receptive to violations of that boundary in the future.
_
Click to expand...
Hook, line, and sinkers, bait and the fishers of the world have progressed and limited our societies for multiple centuries throughout the millennial ages. This is nothing new, and while scholarship is a well merited aspiration, it too shapes and warps human history and the traditions of our ancestors, and to be certain, aims to in many cases. The synagogues (Universities and churches) are set up to kill paradigms in favor of a different type of acuity, the universities themselves favoring a newer more modern twist on life and our place in it, complete with new updated vocabulary and linguistic applications set up to convince and solidify its own legitimacy and curriculum. This isn't to suggest foul play, it simply illustrates the lost in translation and transition dynamic that has affected human intellect and understanding for at least as long as a written history has been documented in the many text books present on the earth, created for our guidance.

To view the standard objectively, it seems an intended separation between the scholarship created by the earths nomadic tribes and our new and improved modern societies aimed for more or less civility between our cultures and theirs. If compatibility matters at all, it matters in the connections between then and now.
 
exchemist said:
If you don’t of such people, what was the point of post 16? You seem to be inventing an imaginary group, in order to criticise their (imagined) attitude.
Click to expand...
Imaginary battle lines set before the canceled cultures of this modern age have been well documented and accepted as a valid and very real effort, so forgive my unknowing nature, I mean my ignorance, as well as my honest answer as to who the perpetrates of such a cause are, or rather who they may be. I'm guessing you're not one of them. Of course, I'm not above being in error on that specific statement.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
Imaginary battle lines set before the canceled cultures of this modern age have been well documented and accepted as a valid and very real effort, so forgive my unknowing nature, I mean my ignorance, as well as my honest answer as to who the perpetrates of such a cause are, or rather who they may be. I'm guessing you're not one of them. Of course, I'm not above being in error on that specific statement.
Click to expand...
This seems to be just waffle. I’ve no idea what your point is, in this thread, if there is one. I’ll leave you to it.
 
exchemist said:
This seems to be just waffle. I’ve no idea what your point is, in this thread, if there is one. I’ll leave you to it.
Click to expand...
Cancelled again ...

Have a nice day, Luiteneant.

Dan

I still have ice creme...

Hehe

By the way, if you ever choose to acknowledge the obvious, feel free to carry the banner, anyway.

It's expected at this point.
 
Nevermind, I should keep the Brisket for myself. I don't have any ice creme, either way. Thanks for the entertainment.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
Cancelled again ...
Click to expand...
If your posts are obscure and their points inaccessible, then it would be you who are doing the "cancellation." No one else is cancelling you, just asking for clarity. I, too, cannot discern what is your point.
 
TheVat said:
If your posts are obscure and their points inaccessible, then it would be you who are doing the "cancellation." No one else is cancelling you, just asking for clarity. I, too, cannot discern what is your point.
Click to expand...
Opening with a naturally losing proposal, I have followed the rules of engagement in formal debates to have it moved for troll input with a less serious tone. It is blatantly obvious there is no interest in debating the proposed, nor willingness to even entertain an aging man taking a loss with the opening statement.. I'm not sure what you have going here on these boards, but it's not discussion or debate. This much is evident. I feel retarded for my time here.and maybe even a little dumber for that statement. I should have known better, but that is on my shoulders and yours are in the free and clear via house rules, rule.

It's not chestnuts roasting on the open fire, after all.

 
Last edited:
ThazzarBaal said:
Opening with a naturally losing proposal, I have followed the rules of engagement in formal debates to have it moved for troll input with a less serious tone. It is blatantly obvious there is no interest in debating the proposed, nor willingness to even entertain an aging man taking a loss with the opening statement.. I'm not sure what you have going here on these boards, but it's not discussion or debate. This much is evident. I feel retarded for my time here.and maybe even a little dumber for that statement. I should have known better, but that is on my shoulders and yours are in the free and clear via house rules, rule.
Click to expand...
Good grief, did you take lessons in circumlocution and passive-aggressive evasion from Tiassa? What do you want to debate? Somewhere in there you seemed to be saying that universities were suppressing free thought and discourse - is that what you want to debate? Your posts meander all over the place.
 
TheVat said:
Good grief, did you take lessons in circumlocution and passive-aggressive evasion from Tiassa? What do you want to debate? Somewhere in there you seemed to be saying that universities were suppressing free thought and discourse - is that what you want to debate? Your posts meander all over the place.
Click to expand...
You must have missed the rest of the story. It's ok. Don't worry. Every little thing is gonna be alright. I guess I could resist and play your hand like you intend, but what fun is there in doing that? As the story goes, it's not even remotely complicated. To be daft myself, I'll ask you this: Do i.make a reasonable troll?
 
TheVat said:
Good grief, did you take lessons in circumlocution and passive-aggressive evasion from Tiassa? What do you want to debate? Somewhere in there you seemed to be saying that universities were suppressing free thought and discourse - is that what you want to debate? Your posts meander all over the place.
Click to expand...
That's funny. I thought at one point it was a criticism of secular government and a plea for government explicitly guided by religion. But now I suspect it's just psychotic rambling. The guy can't focus at all, apparently.
 
ThazzarBaal said:
Diablos, number one!

Yeah!!


Peace
Click to expand...

No, it's not just two groups (sports journalists and sports players) using different language with respect to the same thing. There are two wholly different epistemological approaches involved. One based on systematic investigation and the other resting on faith, the momentum of cultural legacy, personal revelation, and the idea that "doctrine is fact" if you were born and raised under it.

Now, that is -- again, if you narrow "secular" down to areas like science and philosophical naturalism. Otherwise, there are plenty of things brewing in the non-clerical world which -- while not being religion in a rigid sense -- are dancing about on the precipice of crazy or leaping right off into the space of that canyon. And would, in the future, due to the radical cultural egalitarianism and conspiracy-laden spirit of some of those ripples, open the gate and allow those traditional community beliefs to elevate to being on par with science (or lower the standards of the latter due to their criminal "Western" taint -- to make it inclusive of medieval and ancient rivals).
_
 
ThazzarBaal said:
Opening with a naturally losing proposal, I have followed the rules of engagement in formal debates to have it moved for troll input with a less serious tone.
Click to expand...
I already told you that you did not follow the rules of our Formal Debates subforum. That is why this thread was moved. I said nothing about trolling, previously. But, given how this thread has gone, I'm starting to have second thoughts.
ThazzarBaal said:
It is blatantly obvious there is no interest in debating the proposed, nor willingness to even entertain an aging man taking a loss with the opening statement.
Click to expand...
So, even if you did follow the rules, there appear to be no takers for participation in your debate.

Maybe you should try to be clearer about what topic you want to debate, next time. If you just want a rambling discussion about whatever thoughts spring to your mind at the time, that is not what the Formal Debates subforum is for. Try Free Thoughts or somewhere else, instead.

The clue is in the title of the Formal Debates subforum. FORMAL. That means the rules there are stricter than elsewhere on sciforums.
ThazzarBaal said:
I'm not sure what you have going here on these boards, but it's not discussion or debate.
Click to expand...
Now you want to have a general whine about the forum? Look, if this place gets your goat, you can always go somewhere else. It's a big interweb out there.
ThazzarBaal said:
I feel retarded for my time here.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a shame. I wish you better luck on your next forum, then.

I think we're done with this thread, now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top