I ended the previous post making the following point, "…generally speaking, once secularism removes undesired theistic authoritarianism and superstitious ignorance from the realm of science they somehow manage to end up with many of the same scientific conclusions as theists (I mean hard science and not speculation and interpretation of evidence)." Now, let me offer a few of these points of agreement. I will specifically comment with regard to the Judeo-Christian Bible:
"American Atheists works for freedom from theism, the freedom from dependency on god theories…We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them."1
We state that we are dealing with the issue of "ethics/morals" as homage to a young man who, with his secular chest puffed up, told me that he was not into morals. No indeed! He informed me that he was into ethics. Yes, I had to be the one to inform him that ethics is a body of morals. The issue is that considering just how many sects of secularism there are, which of their ethics/morals are we to follow? Let us look at some of their statements on the issue.
I tend to forget to mention here when I post relevant essays elsewhere.
In case anyone is interested, I am posting a five part essay which serves as a, from the horse's mouth, introduction to Atheism, Brights, Freethinkers, Humanism, Naturalism, Rationalism, Skepticism, Philosophical, Skepticism and Universism.
The posts will consist of a basic introduction, definitions, ethics/morals, science and concluding musings.
This is part one of a five part essay which takes into consideration Atheism, Brights, Freethinkers, Humanism, Secular Humanism, Naturalism, Rationalism, Skepticism, Philosophical Skepticism and Universism. This will consist mostly of from the horse's mouth information (the post on atheist symbols may be of interest).