The gods of secular humanism are Lucifer & Satan. Here is proof.

https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1100&bih=634&q=fabian+society+wolf+in+sheep%27s+clothing&oq=fabian+soc&gs_l=img.1.3.0l10.2487.19797.0.31227.10.10.0.0.0.0.397.2786.0j1j6j3.10.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.10.2784.-8lO55OOalA#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=fabian+socialism+wolf+in+sheeps+clothing

Identifying devil worshippers is the easiest task in Christianity. It is NOT rocket science.

1, using Satanic imagery, see above, tick.
2, using Luciferian deceptive language tricks like the word socialism to hide your ANTI-social policies, tick.
3, performing evil acts like ritual blood sacrifice, islamic terrorism, imported by Fabian ANTI-socialists, tick.
4, grooming & abuse of children, child marriage & FGM, imported by Fabian ANTI-socialists, tick.
5, "malice aforethought" planning in advance of evil acts with evil intent, tick.
6, consistency, these evil deeds are not just done occasionally but ruthlessly, relentlessly, 24/7/365, tick.

Multiple links to further evidence if necessary.

the gods of secular humanism is very similar to the god of Islam. Truth is thrown out the window.

Thank you Peter for this great article.

It reminds me of the poem by Yehudah Halevi:

The servants of time are the slaves of slaves
The servant of God – he alone is free!
Therefore, when each man doth sue for his portion,
“My portion is God,” saith my soul.

http://www.joabcohenauthor.com/2014/02/the-best-way-to-be-slave-according-to.html

Hi Sells

As usual a thought-provoking article, and I agree with some of what you say.

I think you’re wrong, though, about the values of secular humanism. It is not committed to the religious ideal of perfectability, but to the enlightenment idea of progress. Things may never be perfect, but they are better than they used to be, and in future could be better still. This applies both materially (longer lifespans, more prosperity) and socially (we can become a ”better” society, however that is envisaged).

On the first count, the progressives are right. Our material quality of life is demonstrably far better than was typical in the pre-modern area, whether measured narrowly by lifespan and capacity to consume, or more broadly through access to education, music and the arts, leisure etc.

The second is harder to judge because it is subjective, and if we judge other times and cultures by the standards of our own, they are unlikely to measure up. The more interesting question is how they would judge ours.

But I value the social and cultural fruits of progressive values – freedom, democracy, equality before the law, gender and racial equality, safety nets to protect the poor and vulnerable, and respect for the innate dignity and worth of each individual. These are the principles that “rights” language tries to express, and in many cases they were adopted from Christianity. I agree,though, that the ideas are sometimes stretched to the point of absurdity (Target Australia’s claim that everybody “has the right” to feel good about their clothes is particularly cringe-worthy).

Rhian,
I agree. However there are some distinctions to be made. Christian theology is essentially eschatological which means that it is always in tension with the future. This, as I am sure you are aware, is where we get the idea of progress from. However, progress divorced from the kingdom of God can be an idol that can suck us into shallow living. In other words Christian eschatology, the end of the present world and the beginning of a new world "in which every tear will be wiped away" has been subverted into becoming only material progress. I think we are reaching a saturation point in the West in which new technology has become ho hum. We may die of boredom! We might begin to think "is this all there is?"

Hi Sells
On that, I agree with you completely!

"I think we are reaching a saturation point in the West in which new technology has become ho hum. We may die of boredom! We might begin to think "is this all there is?"

Perhaps the fixation with selfies, addiction to video games, and research into ways of providing us with robots to do our housework and driverless cars, are the first signs that 'progress for progress sake' is starting to reach its limit or has become devoid of common sense.

"The ultimate human demonstration of the inherent fault of "Creator-God-Religion" which Sells promotes - and of all other modes of the ego-based and ego-serving culture of "world"-idealization, and bodily idealization, and mind idealization (which are the intrinsic essentially utopian characteristics of such "Creator-God-Religion)- is its inevitable secular revisioning as a merely political, social, and economic consumer-culture".

The American prosperity "gospel" is an obvious example of this. Here in Australia the obvious example of that is the Sydney Barnumesque Hillsong outfit. There is of course nothing wrong with being prosperous.

The first paragraph was a modified version of a paragraph in an essay on praying-to-the-parental-god-for-favors prayer from the Truth telling book introduced here:

http://www.dabase.org/aletheon.htm
A book which addresses in very real terms why it is now necessary to throw or sweep away with both hands the now-archaic cultic idolatries promoted by the old-time religions.
This essay is also featured on the above reference:
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm

Also The (necessary) New Reformation (beyond the childish parental-deity)
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/chap_1_the_new_reformation.html

The origin & consequences of the politics of fear:
http://www.dabase.org/p5egoicsociety.htm

And of the intrinsic need for a radically new understanding of how everyone and everything is instantaneously inter-connected.
http://www.dabase.org/p9rightness.htm

It was written in response to the execution of the former big-time bad guy leader of Iraq - who of course we were all taught to hate, especially by the "conservative" media, e.g the Murdoch/Fox (faux) "news"

At last, I thought. Peter Sellick has written an article with which I am in - almost - full agreement. I've waited a long time for this.

"Attempts to establish jurisprudence on individual rights is fundamentally misguided. They are Utopian and sterile; Utopian, because they do not exist in real life or in law; sterile, because they cannot form the basis of a coherent jurisprudence. Rather, they are based on subjective whim with no relation to actual circumstances."

Neatly put. And extremely accurate. The entire human rights "movement" is based on a series of fundamental fallacies, and should be consigned as quickly as possible to the dustbin of history.

Fat chance, of course. But certainly worth a good old-fashioned whinge.

Mind you, Mr Sellick's belated attempt to religionize the argument falls completely flat.

"We have here three examples in which we surrender our common sense to the idea of perfection. This looks like religious behaviour."

Actually, no.

We have surrendered our common sense to the concept of democracy, not the idea of perfection. We have decided, probably faute de mieux, that living in a "democracy" consists of giving away our freedoms to a bunch of salaried bureaucrats, who display the collective imagination of a stick of rhubarb.

That isn't actually religious behaviour, but could well be a simulacrum thereof. It is manipulation of a people by means of convincing them that "it is for your own good that I do this". Much of what is dressed up as religion is based upon a similar power play, is it not.

"We may live much longer than previous generations but we are not sure what to do with the extra years; they are simply an extension of meaningless existence. We have traded lived intensity for longevity. Our inability to deal with death means that we live in fear. It is that fear that drives our obsession with the body leaving the psyche neglected."

Peter, who is the 'we' you are discussing above? Is it you and your friends?
Because I know many retirees who are having no problems deciding what to do with their latter years...whether they believe in a god or not.
I strongly believe that you don't need to believe in any old religious books written by men, or in any imaginary beings, to have a meaningful existence.

If this were not the case, then secularism would not be growing as fast in popularity and numbers as it is. Most people aren't stupid, and they are right to question what thousands of years of words given to us by mere men, not by any god, have tried to rave on about so we all do as they say.
Who says most people don't deal with death well? Having been by the side of very many dying people over the years, I can tell you that the atheists and other non-religious people died just the same as any religious ones did...they didn't appear any more scared or upset than the others at all.

Sorry, but those religion filled lives are not being lived by many very intelligent and fulfilled people. And that is just fine. No one is telling anyone else not to believe in gods.
No more hellfire and damnation for me thanks. I will leave all that 'joy' to people like Runner and Josephus.

I believe in God, a creator, and that from nothing you get nothing, I just don't believe in organised religion, or that any of it can claim an unbroken link to the apostles.

Just a link to the moral authority of the spanish inquisition and to kill in god's name, the burning at the stake of Joan of arc; and a link to warrior popes at the head of armies That engaged in all sort of barbarities, in an effort to control the population!

For mine very little has changed, church officials seem hell bent on control; and a bill of human rights, which must include a right to be different has to be included, would loosen a grip and control they simply have no right to exercise!

And because someone said something in some very old book proves nothing except bias conformation and a disturbing predilection to simply label, verbal and cast aspersion on those who just don't agree with your peculiar rigid, narrow take on reality, Sells.
Rhrosty.

Yuyutsu, slavery was ended by Christians & brought back by secular humanists.

Rhian, I think you’re right, though, about the values of secular humanism it is committed to the religious opposite of perfectability, & to the left wing endarkenment idea of regress. Things never were perfect because of corrupt, evil individuals, but they are worse than they used to be, and in future could be worse still. This applies both materially (shorter lifespans, less prosperity) and socially (we can become a ”worse” society, however that is envisaged).

On the first count, the regressives are wrong about everything. Our material quality of life is demonstrably far better than was typical in the pre-modern area, whether measured narrowly by lifespan and capacity to consume, or more broadly through access to education, music and the arts, leisure etc thanks entirely to conservative, protesting Christianity.

The second is easier to judge because it is objective, and if we judge other times and cultures by the standards of our own, they are unlikely to measure up. The more interesting question is that they judge Christianity as the best because they keep wanting to move to Christian nations like Australia & America.

I value the social and cultural fruits of Christian values – freedom, democracy, equality before the law, gender and racial equality, safety nets to protect the poor and vulnerable, and respect for the innate dignity and worth of each individual which left wing regressives are trying to kill. These are the principles that “rights” language tries to destroy. I agree, though, that the ideas are sometimes stretched to the point of absurdity (Target Australia’s claim that everybody “has the right” to feel good about their clothes is particularly cringe-worthy) thanks to the radical, extreme, left wing religious cult of secular humanism where as Orwell said:-

Progressive = regressive; socialism = ANTI-social; communism = ANTI-community; revolution = tyranny; power to the people = power from the people; freedom = slavery; safety nets = poverty creation; equality before the star chamber = discrimination; respect = hate:

ConservativeHippie, i am one of those myself & that is why i returned to the common sense church of my youth. Of course your right, the religion of secular human rights is the opposite of common sense.

Daffy Duck, "The ultimate human demonstration of the inherent fault of "religious secular humanism" which communists like you promote - and of all other modes of the ego-based and ego-serving culture of "world"-idealization, and bodily idealization, and mind idealization (which are the intrinsic essentially utopian characteristics of such "left wing Religion)- is its inevitable secular transformation into a merely political, social, and economic consumer-culture".

The American prosperity "gospel" is an obvious example of how to be better by seeking self improvement through mimicking Jesus. Here in Australia the obvious example of that is the Sydney Barnumesque Obeid/Richo outfit. There is of course nothing wrong with being prosperous within Christian common sense & reason.

The first paragraph was very sensible & addresses in very real terms why it is now necessary to throw or sweep away with both hands the now-archaic cultic idolatries promoted by the new-time left wing religions of secular humanism. Also The (UN-necessary) new Reformation (beyond the childish parental-deities of Marx & Lucifer) needs to be resisted as a poverty creation & child grooming exercise because it clearly is the origin & consequences of the politics of fear.

The intrinsic need for a radically new understanding of how everyone & everything is instantaneously inter-connected because God made it that way.

Pericles, At last, an article with which I am in full agreement. I've waited a long time for this.

"Attempts to establish jurisprudence on individual rights is fundamentally misguided. They are Utopian and sterile; Utopian, because they do not exist in real life or in law; sterile, because they cannot form the basis of a coherent jurisprudence. Rather, they are based on subjective whim with no relation to actual circumstances."

Neatly put. And extremely accurate. The entire human rights "movement" is based on a series of fundamental fallacies, and should be consigned as quickly as possible to the dustbin of history...

...Fat chance, of course. But certainly worth a good old-fashioned whinge as well as action against the evils of left wing religion.

Mind you, Mr Sellick's success in proving the 100% evil, left wing religionizing of secular humanism is perfect.

"We have here three examples in which we surrender our common sense to the idea of perfection. This looks like religious behaviour."

Yes indeed.

We have surrendered our common sense to the concept of Marxism, not the idea of perfection. We have decided, probably faute de mieux, that living in a "democracy" consists of giving away our freedoms to a bunch of left wing, salaried bureaucrats, who display the collective imagination of a stick of rhubarb.

That is actually extremely religious behaviour & is manipulation of a people by means of convincing them that "it is for your own good that I do this". Much of what is dressed up as left wing religion is based upon an evil power play, is it not.

Suseonline, "We may live much longer than previous generations but we are not sure what to do with the extra years; they are simply an extension of meaningless existence. We have traded lived intensity for longevity. Our inability to deal with death means that we live in fear. It is that fear that drives our obsession with the body leaving the psyche neglected."

Because I know many retirees who are having many problems deciding what to do with their latter years as they no longer believe anything worthwhile. We don't need to believe in any old left wing religious books written by women to have a meaningful existence.

If 100% evil secularism keeps growing as fast in popularity and numbers as it is, no child will be safe anywhere. Most men aren't stupid, and they are right to be sceptical of decades of words given to us by mere marxist women, not by any good god, as they have tried to rave on about sexism, so women all do as they say...

oh dear, yet again Peter brings up a point worth talking about, and then get's it all wrong again.
Peter the hyper individualism that the west seems to be awash with has been born out of the US protestant churches, such as Daffy Duck identified.

What is it that you actually want... is it to go back to not blaming anyone when things go wrong, just shrugging our shoulders and saying "god works in mysterious ways?"

Are you arguing with the idea of universal health care ( dentistry is a part of that), what rights do you think people have that they shouldn't?

Do you think all rights afforded to our citizens in Australia should only be based on Christian beliefs?

Which strain of Christianity should we use Runners? what a messed up world that would be?

Peter, I think the key here is your getting old, the world is far from the place it was when it was your generation moment in the sun and now your just a little grumpy.
So has been the way of things since man was about to talk and write down their thoughts.
As the world inevitably changes so those left behind by age rail against it.

oh and get another dentist the one you're using is clearly over charging you.

"Attempts to establish jurisprudence on individual rights is fundamentally misguided."

Peter, the problem in the example you cite is not establishing jurisprudence on individual rights. The problem is defining rights as whatever the state says they are. In this case, it is the government-authorised monopoly licensing body for dentists.

But that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as rights, or that a rational ethics is not possible. It just means the State has a conflict of interest with the rest of the population over what rights are, and an interest in spreading nonsense in support of its own power.

All State and statist conceptions and definitions of rights suffer from this fundamental defect, that they affirm that a right is whatever the strongest and most aggressive party - the State - says it is. It should be obvious that this is the opposite of ethics and of rights. It is nothing but the creed of 'might is right'.

But that doesn't mean it's not wrong to attack people, does it?

Peter, the need for ethics arises out of the fact of the scarcity of resources.

If there were no scarcity of resources, then A's use of resources could not conflict with B's, and there would be no need for rules of just conduct to determine whose interest should prevail.

(By the same token, if the rule for whose interest is to prevail is only "might is right" then that disposes of any question of ethics which become redundant. Ethics presupposes that might is not right.)

Even in a Garden of Eden, there is still the radical scarcity of the physical stuff of one's own body, and the physical space one occupies. So it is *not* an answer to say all these problems will be solved in Paradise, since there will still remain the possibility of conflict over the scarcity of resources.

Thus there is a need for ethics.

The reason why all ethics based on the State are defective, is because the State is itself a legal monopoly of the use of force and threats. This claim is *not* limited to repelling aggressive violence, but always includes the use of unprovoked aggression itself.

Since a "right" presupposes both a standard of just conduct, and the enforceability and enforcement of that standard, therefore there is *always* a need to justify the use of force, inherent in any definition of rights.

This is the reason why the States' definitions fail, as you remark in your article.

Contrary to popular misconception, invariably spread by the State, ethics aren't just "subjective" so that one person's view is as good as another; and they aren't just whatever the State says they are.

For if this were so, then unprovoked aggression could be a "right", which is ethical nonsense.

We see in here statists often making the claim that rights are whatever a government "democratically" decides. But this must be nonsense. Because according to that theory, if a majority vote for the oppression of a minority, or for slavery, then the escaping slave commits a crime or wrong, and the master who re-captures him is vindicating his "right".

It's nonsense.

We are able to construct a rational ethic in three steps as follows.

A right means a standard of just conduct that you are justified in using force and threats to defend.

1. Everyone has a right to the physical stuff of his own body; without which, any other talk of rights is illusory.

This is axiomatic, because one either agrees, in which case there's no issue. Or one denies it "No one doesn't!" in which case, one performs a self-contradiction by denying that one has the right to participate in the discussion.

Therefore it must be true.

2. Everyone has the right to appropriate unowned goods from nature, and transform it to his own uses, for example, the air we breathe. Again this must be true, because anyone who denies it, performs a self-contradiction, denying his right to enter the argument. So it too must be true.

3. Everyone has the right to engage in voluntary relations with others, without which, the other rights are nugatory. This also is axiomatic, since no-one can deny it, without denying his right to participate in the argument.

That's it. That's all the human rights there are, all the human rights there can be, and all the human rights we need.

How do we know? It's simple. If we have to perform a self-contradiction in order to assert the existence of a right, then it is not and cannot be a 'right'?

There's no such thing as the human right to the efforts of someone else taken without that person's consent because if we affirm that, we affirm the possibility of a right to slavery, which is ethical nonsense, and self-contradictory.

Therefore there is no such thing as a "right" to free ice-cream, or free education, or free housing, paid for by someone else under threat of imprisonment.

Most of what the State calls "rights" are actually in the latter category: assertions of a power to physically attack people in order to force them to obey and submit to having the fruits of their labour taken without their consent.

It is this legal monopoly of coercion which underlies all the state's revenue-getting, all its control of armed forces, all its control of the supply of money and credit, all its control of public spaces such as roads and rivers, all its control of the compulsory indoctrination of children.

Because the State has need of legitimisation - because its entire existence depends on violating the non-aggression principle - it forms a symbiosis with the intellectual class, the intellectual bodyguards of the State.

These make their money preaching that a "right" is whatever the State says it is.

Hence the common and complete confusion over what a right is, which is actually quite simple and easy to understand, once we put aside the clouds of nonsense propagated by the State and its crawling servants, the intellectual class.

In former times they were mainly the clergy, but now they're mainly the academics.

Peter

Notice also that this
a) demonstrates a rational ethic that is internally consistent and consistent with the outside world
b) is not inconsistent with Christianity
c) does not require a specific religion to be valid, but follows from the logic of human action, and
d) supports your critique of what is bad about secular humanism, while supporting what is good about it?