For something that’s supposedly not an ideology that nothing ever happens in the name of, it gets defended a lot by those who aren’t following this ideology that isn’t an ideology.
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
I consider myself agnostic. Now I shall watch and see if people try to convert me to either Atheism or Theism. This should be fun.
Secular institutions are by definition atheist institutions.
I happen to be a fan of secularism but not atheism as it is expressed currently.
Secular is attitudes and activities that have no religious or spiritual basis. *I’d* consider it agnostic but it could just as easily be considered atheist… since atheism isn’t an ideology.
He’s an evangelist. [so was Hitchens] – Let me provide an analogy why I’d like to see other source material:
Just yesterday, someone pointed me to a youtube talk to try to convince me why the new Mayor of London was an example of how Europe will fall in 15 years.
I couldn’t listen to 2 minutes of it. It’s from a conservative Christian POV. Very biased. I didn’t care enough about the topic to weed out the bias.
So, instead, I went to less biased sources that I trust:
Christian Science monitor,
[not that RT is unbiased; when they talk about Russia they’re definitely not unbiased… but when they talk about problems in OTHER countries, they love making EVERYBODY look equally stupid. Somehow that balances it out for me]
He’s an evangelist for a cause. Doesn’t matter what the cause is: It becomes the lens through which he views and explains things.
On matters of history, he will see things through the lens of his cause, and argue his points through that lens.
Of course all historical accounts have bias: but his bias is very clear becomes his historicism.