#Secularism and Freedom

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Enlightenment

The philosophy of Enlightenment refers to an intellectual movement in 17th and 18th-century Europe that emphasized reason, science, individualism, and the pursuit of knowledge as the means to challenge traditional authority and improve society. The Enlightenment thinkers, known as “philosophes,” believed in the capacity of human reason to understand and reshape the natural world, human behavior, and social structures, seeking to cultivate human rights, progress, and freedom.

Key Concepts in Enlightenment Philosophy

Reason and Rationality: Enlightenment thinkers believed that human reason could understand the universe and uncover truths about nature, humanity, and society. Rational inquiry and empirical evidence became central to developing knowledge, opposing the uncritical acceptance of tradition, superstition, and dogma.

Scientific Inquiry: The Enlightenment emphasized the scientific method, which applied empirical observation, experimentation, and analysis to uncover natural laws. Influenced by figures like Isaac Newton, Enlightenment thinkers saw science as a tool to demystify the universe and unlock practical knowledge for human betterment.

Human Rights and Individual Freedom: Philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that individuals have inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and property. They advocated for a society where government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, promoting individual freedom as essential to a just society.

Secularism and Skepticism of Authority: Enlightenment philosophy sought to separate church and state, emphasizing secular governance and questioning religious authority. Philosophers like Voltaire and David Hume criticized organized religion’s influence over politics and its discouragement of independent thought.

Progress and Perfectibility: Enlightenment thinkers believed that humans and societies were capable of continuous improvement. They emphasized education, social reform, and moral development, seeing each as pathways toward a more just, knowledgeable, and equitable society.

Social Contract: Building on ideas of individual rights and justice, thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories of the social contract. This theory posits that people consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to form governments that protect their rights in exchange for certain responsibilities, providing a framework for democratic governance.

Equality and Democracy: Many Enlightenment thinkers advocated for greater equality and democratic ideals. Rousseau, for instance, emphasized that legitimate government represents the “general will” of the people, an idea foundational to modern democracy. Thinkers promoted the idea that social and political structures should not be based on birth or privilege but on merit and rational principles.

Prominent Figures and Their Contributions

Immanuel Kant: Known for his essay "What Is Enlightenment?" Kant argued that enlightenment is the process of an individual’s release from self-imposed intellectual immaturity, encouraging people to "dare to know" and think for themselves.

Voltaire: An advocate for freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and social reform, Voltaire was a vocal critic of religious dogma and the absolute power of monarchies.

John Locke: Locke’s theory of government based on natural rights influenced the American and French revolutions. His social contract emphasized individual liberty, limited government, and the right to property.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Rousseau’s ideas about the social contract and direct democracy influenced political thought, promoting the concept that government authority should represent the collective will.

Baron de Montesquieu: Montesquieu’s idea of the separation of powers provided a blueprint for modern democratic governance and the prevention of tyranny.

Enlightenment’s Impact on Society

Political Revolutions: The Enlightenment laid the intellectual groundwork for the American and French revolutions, promoting the ideas of individual rights, self-governance, and the rejection of absolute monarchy.

Education and Literacy: Enlightenment thought encouraged education as a means for personal and social improvement, leading to an increase in literacy rates and the spread of ideas through pamphlets, books, and public debates.

Development of Modern Democracy: Enlightenment principles contributed to the establishment of democratic institutions and legal systems based on equality, justice, and respect for individual rights, setting the foundation for many modern governments.

Advances in Science and Medicine: The scientific approach of the Enlightenment fostered progress in areas such as medicine, physics, and technology, setting the stage for the Industrial Revolution and improving human understanding of health and the natural world.

Human Rights and Social Reforms: Enlightenment ideas advanced the causes of social reform, including the abolition of slavery, prison reform, and gender equality, based on the belief in universal human rights and dignity.

Criticisms and Limitations

Over-reliance on Reason: Critics argue that the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason undervalued emotions, intuition, and cultural diversity, leading to an overly rationalistic worldview that can neglect the complexities of human nature.

Colonialism and Eurocentrism: Some Enlightenment ideas were used to justify colonialism and the spread of European dominance, as the values of "civilization" and "progress" were often imposed on other cultures.

Environmental Impact: The Enlightenment’s focus on mastering nature contributed to the view of the environment as a resource to be exploited, laying the groundwork for environmental degradation.

Legacy of the Enlightenment

The Enlightenment continues to influence contemporary society, shaping democratic governance, human rights, scientific progress, and secular ethics. While it has faced criticism, Enlightenment philosophy remains central to modern values and institutions. The movement’s call for rational inquiry, individual liberty, and social progress endures in efforts to address global challenges and strive for an informed, just, and progressive society.

[its-terf-or-nothin]

Anti-Choicers are so hypocritical they should be ashamed of themselves. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a group of people advocate in favor of killing people more than Anti-Choicers. When they’re not outright advocating for murdering people they disagree with all they do is complain about children receiving free school lunches and about how free healthcare shouldn’t be a thing because “muh tax dollars” yet will happily fork over some money to pay those Trump tariffs and are the most war hungry people on the planet.

[secular-jew]

Celebrating International Women's day in Iran

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H.L. Mencken

==

You're entitled to be as delusional as you want, but you're not entitled to demand that I be the same.

[thepersonalwords]

Your life is an opportunity to question, discover, and explore.

Janice Anderson

[bli-o]

I dunno i just feel like social justice movements have completely left behind atheists and agnostics and just secular people generally ESPECIALLY apostates

[sofiaflorina2021]

"A modern State cannot make atheism or religion one of its political ordinances. The State, while distancing itself from all extremes of fanaticism or secularism, should encourage a harmonious social climate and a suitable legislation which enables every person and every religious confession to live their faith freely, to express that faith in the context of public life and to count on adequate resources and opportunities to bring its spiritual, moral and civic benefits to bear on the life of the nation."

~ Pope John Paul II

[fiddles-ifs]

don't know if you've talked about this before but if nazeri is a Muslim and mc is an Atheist, is that something that could ever cause problems in their relationship? do you think any characters could have some type of strain in their relationship when one believes in a god/s and their partner doesn't? I've seen a lot of problems with this stuff in real life especially when it's a christian/atheist relationship because the religious person will get stressed and feel like they need to "save" their partner by converting them or else they'll go to hell, so from what I've seen a lot of those relationships break up in real life. I was curious on how similar/different it would be with your characters and the mc. How well do they deal with the differences I guess.

Btw I was not trying to be disrespectful with this question at all, and if it made you uncomfortable, I'm really sorry.

It doesn't particularly cause a lot of friction? Nazeri is content to stay in their lane when it comes to personal beliefs like religion. Obviously if you have a Gentlemens' Discussion about it, they're going to bring up what makes them happy about being Shi'a, and occasionally they might encourage their partner to attend ṣalāh just to see if they like it or not. Nazeri themself is pretty loosey goosey about their own beliefs, and some of the more religiously inclined consider them. Kind of a "bad" Muslim?? To their dismay.

Religion is a tough subject in a world where monsters exist but you can't tell anybody about them. In a lot of ways, Nazeri is using theirs as a crutch to stay sane. They try not to bother with anyone else.

One area that would grate on Nazeri would be alcohol, especially functional alcoholic Trackers. This has less to do with religion and more to do with the MC's overall health, but they also don't like the stuff in their house.

[the-levantine]

Sharia is the tool that imperialists use to destroy the middle east. It's easier to control people and repress actual resistance and socialism if the people are radical. Sectarianism is our weakness. We need to get rid of Sharia if we want to gain our freedom and our countries to prosper.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Satanism

The philosophy of Satanism, particularly in modern interpretations, is often grounded in individualism, self-empowerment, and a rejection of traditional religious dogma. There are various branches of Satanism, each with its own approach and interpretation. While early portrayals in history associated Satanism with anti-Christian and occultist ideas, contemporary movements largely emphasize philosophical, symbolic, and sometimes atheistic elements.

Core Branches of Satanism

LaVeyan Satanism: Founded by Anton LaVey in 1966, LaVeyan Satanism is one of the most well-known and structured forms. LaVey’s Satanic Bible outlines Satanism as an atheistic philosophy that emphasizes rational self-interest, individuality, and personal freedom. LaVeyan Satanism doesn’t worship a literal Satan but uses "Satan" as a symbol of rebellion against conformity, self-denial, and oppressive moral codes. Core principles include self-reliance, pursuit of pleasure, and rejection of guilt or shame for natural human desires.

Theistic Satanism: In contrast to LaVeyan Satanism, theistic Satanism involves the belief in and veneration of Satan as a deity or supernatural being. Followers may view Satan as a force representing wisdom, self-empowerment, or the spirit of rebellion against unjust authority. They typically emphasize spirituality, ritual, and a personalized relationship with their deity.

The Satanic Temple: Founded in 2013, The Satanic Temple is a non-theistic, socio-political organization that advocates for secularism, religious freedom, and separation of church and state. Its use of Satanic imagery and symbolism is often satirical, serving as a critique of authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, and hypocrisy. The Satanic Temple’s guiding principles prioritize compassion, rational inquiry, and individual sovereignty.

Other Forms of Satanic Philosophy: Other branches, including Luciferianism, focus on the figure of Lucifer as a symbol of enlightenment, knowledge, and self-discovery. Unlike traditional Satanic archetypes, Luciferianism often associates Lucifer with wisdom, learning, and the search for truth.

Key Philosophical Concepts in Satanism

Individualism and Self-Empowerment: Many forms of Satanism prioritize the individual as the center of moral authority, encouraging followers to take personal responsibility and to live according to their own principles and desires. Self-reliance and self-empowerment are celebrated, often rejecting dependence on external authority for moral guidance.

Rebellion and Nonconformity: Satanism often embraces the symbol of Satan as a figure of rebellion against oppressive norms or restrictive moral frameworks. This aspect resonates with the desire for freedom from traditional dogmas and the encouragement to think critically and independently.

Pleasure and Self-Interest: Satanism frequently rejects asceticism and self-denial, advocating for the pursuit of pleasure, self-gratification, and enjoyment of life. This philosophy is rooted in a materialist understanding of existence, where one’s current life is seen as the primary focus rather than preparation for an afterlife.

Critical Thinking and Skepticism: Modern Satanism, especially within The Satanic Temple, emphasizes scientific skepticism and rationalism. It challenges superstitions, encourages questioning, and critiques traditional religious dogmas that demand faith without evidence.

Ethics and Morality: Satanic philosophies often propose alternative ethics rooted in individual responsibility rather than divine commands. LaVeyan Satanism’s “Nine Satanic Statements,” for instance, outline an ethos that prioritizes self-respect, personal boundaries, and retributive justice, but they reject traditional moral frameworks as rigid or unnatural.

Satanism in Cultural and Social Context

Satanism’s popularity and influence are, in part, responses to societal structures, particularly within heavily religious cultures. By challenging the norms, it presents a counterpoint to dominant religious narratives, emphasizing secularism and religious pluralism.

In modern contexts, Satanism also serves as a vehicle for social critique and protest. Organizations like The Satanic Temple advocate for political issues like freedom of expression and the separation of church and state, often using provocative imagery to challenge established social orders and protect minority rights.

Controversies and Misconceptions

Satanism often faces misunderstanding due to historical associations with evil and media portrayals of occult rituals. While some forms of Satanism are theistic, most modern movements are symbolic, emphasizing reason and autonomy rather than supernatural beliefs. Contemporary Satanists typically do not believe in or worship an actual Satan as defined in Christian theology.

Philosophical Influence and Modern Appeal

Satanism resonates with existentialist themes, particularly the focus on creating one’s own meaning in a seemingly indifferent universe. Its principles align with certain elements of Nietzschean philosophy, like the rejection of imposed moral codes and celebration of life and personal strength. It appeals to those who value self-expression, secularism, and an individual-centered approach to ethics.

Summary

Satanism, particularly in its modern forms, challenges traditional moral structures and advocates for individuality, self-empowerment, and a critical, skeptical outlook on life. It exists both as a personal philosophy and a social commentary, reshaping the symbol of Satan from a figure of evil to one of liberation, reason, and humanism.

[infinitysisters]

“It’s about internalizing correct thought. Orwell understood very well the relationship between language and thought and how control of the former permits control of the latter: “[If] thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

He devoted much of “1984” to exploring how the exercise of power over what may be said makes it easier to enjoy dominion over what can be thought, over how individuals understand themselves and their place in society. “Don’t you see,” says Syme, a lexicographer at the Ministry of Truth, “that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it.”

The real-world version of that fictional effort to overhaul man’s inner life through controlling the language he is allowed to use in society is expressed more softly, though no less sinisterly. “New language… can become a useful tool for changing how people deal with each other,” say the Symes of today.

Allowing the subjective beliefs of people in the present to override the objective recording of events in the past would be extraordinary – a testament to the extent to which political correctness had overpowered reality entirely.

We now know the price of not speaking back, of letting others instruct us on what we may utter and how we must think. We now know the cost of allowing incursions into our inner lives. Man must be “master of his own thoughts,” said Spinoza. He must never be “compelled to speak only according to the diktats of the supreme power.” That is the first task of the heretic, then: to resist compulsion. To speak as he sees. To never fear to express the truth.”

———

Brendan O’Neill 𝘈 𝘏𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤'𝘴 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰: 𝘌𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Mar 27, 2025

The University of Oxford is at it again. Somehow forgetting that its function is the pursuit and production of knowledge rather than ideological propagandising, its authorities have decided to modify the Latin passages of the degree ceremony to be gender-neutral. Bye bye, magistri (masters) and doctores (doctors); instead, graduates will be referred to as vos (you). One presumes this is to avoid causing offence to ‘non-binary’ students who happen to specialise in the classics.

On a purely theatrical basis, this stripping away of grandeur is disappointing. One of the most enjoyable aspects of matriculating at Oxford was that we had an excuse to dress up in black capes, and when I later graduated I was permitted to wear the flowing bright red garb of the doctor philosophiae. If I had climbed up to the top of the cupola of the Sheldonian Theatre on that day, I might have been mistaken for an activist from Fathers for Justice.

These anachronistic touches are surely part of the appeal of studying at Oxford. And although a slight modification to the Latin won’t harm anyone – let’s face it, barely anyone would have noticed – it does point to a deeper societal malaise. Like asking someone for one’s pronouns, it’s a little reminder that we are expected to truckle to this intolerant, regressive and identity-obsessed new state religion.

And let’s not forget that the entire notion of ‘non-binary’ is, for the most part, a status symbol for middle-class narcissists. Why should an 800-year-old ceremony be tweaked to satisfy the demands of these little Veruca Salts who wants the whole world to contort in accordance with their preferences? At the time of my graduation at Oxford I was a huge fan of Madonna, but I didn’t insist that the Vice-Chancellor intone: Modo virginis. Tum primum tactae.

Up until relatively recently, ‘coming out’ as ‘non-binary’ was a means by which uber-privileged celebrities could claim some degree of oppression. It was this generation’s most fashionable label, and was embraced by the likes of Same Smith and Demi Lovato. It was only marginally less ridiculous than Danni Minogue claiming she was ‘queer’ and then later clarifying that she wasn’t interested in women sexually, or Michaela Kennedy-Cuomo – daughter of the former governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo – announcing that she was ‘demisexual’. This is defined as someone who only feels sexually attracted to someone if they have an emotional bond, which means that Cuomo had effectively ‘come out’ as an old-fashioned heterosexual.

One cannot ‘come out’ as non-binary. The metaphor of ‘coming out’ is specifically related to the revelation of an innate characteristic that one has kept hidden due to societal disapproval. Up until the 1990s, coming out as gay involved a degree of personal risk; gay people were disowned, disinherited, fired, and sometime physically attacked or killed. Coming out as non-binary, a fashionable and celebrated identity, bears no such risks.

Moreover, homosexuality is a verifiably innate characteristic. It is remarkably easy to determine someone’s sexual orientation by scientific means, and to measure degrees of arousal on the basis of erotic stimuli. There is no apparatus in the world that could measure ‘gender identity’ any more than one could hope to measure where someone falls on the spectrum of mods to rockers. And yet we are expected to treat belief in this will-o’-the-wisp as the equivalent of an inherent sexual orientation or racial group. It’s remarkably insulting to minorities who have been persecuted throughout history.

For the sake of the literal-minded, I should point out that when I say that to be non-binary isn’t real, I do not mean to imply that people who call themselves non-binary do not exist. I am pointing out that identity is not the same as material reality; it is all about self-perception. The claim of being non-binary is not even synonymous with ‘intersex’ (not a third sex or evidence of a ‘spectrum’, but rather a developmental condition that results in sexual ambiguity in males and females).

The identity of ‘non-binary’ is based on the notion that one does not feel aligned with stereotypes of male or female. And so it amounts to a reinforcement of traditional ideals of maleness and femaleness. Rather than acknowledging that men and women can behave and dress as they like, to claim to be ‘non-binary’ implies that if men don’t behave like ‘real men’ and women don’t behave like ‘real women’, they are somewhere in between. It’s an oddly conservative form of rebellion.

This is why the Globe Theatre’s 2022 production of I, Joan, based on the life of Joan of Arc, was so reactionary. It presented Joan as ‘non-binary’ because she was powerful, courageous and wore men’s armour. For the woke, female strength and independence is not to be celebrated, but to be explained away. The same goes for the essay on Queen Elizabeth I that appeared around this time on the Globe’s website, referring to the monarch with ‘they/them’ pronouns on the basis that she rhetorically claimed to have ‘the heart and stomach of a king’.

So when former Coronation Street star Shobna Gulati last week claimed to be ‘non-binary’, she was not ‘coming out’; she was simply declaring her belief in a quasi-supernatural creed. Of course she is entitled to do that, but that doesn’t magically stop her from being a woman. But just as a friturier may announce his fealty to Ukobach, the demon in charge of frying souls in the underworld, there’s no reason for the rest of us to play along.

--

If this was the 90s, they'd be goths. If this was the 00s, they'd be emos.

I don't believe you're "non-binary" anymore than I believe that Xians are "covered by the blood of Jesus," or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a grotesque mutant donkey.

I don't believe in a biology-independent disembodied sexed essense "gender identity" anymore than I believe in an eternal Xian soul or Xenu and his thetans.

And I don't have to. That's what secularism means.

If your "identity" is invalidated by me not believing in it, then it was never real in the first place.

What I do believe is that nobody believes more strongly in enforcing narrow, rigid sex stereotypes than the people pretending they're breaking them.

[mzavros]

SOCAS, baby.

[pebblegalaxy]

European Union Court's Rulings on Headscarves: A Comprehensive Look at Bans on Burqa, Hijab, and Niqab in Europe and Other Parts of World

European Union Court's Rulings on Headscarves: A Comprehensive Look at Bans on Burqa, Hijab, and Niqab in Europe and Other Parts of World #EUCourt #HeadscarfBan #EuropeanLegislation #GenderEquality #Cultural Norms #Secularism

Embarking on a journey through the diverse landscape of headscarf bans in Europe unveils a complex tapestry of cultural dynamics, legal intricacies, and societal debates. The European Union’s top court, in a series of rulings, has shaped the narrative surrounding the wearing of headscarves, setting precedents that ripple across the continent. From Belgium’s landmark decision in 2011 to the…

[theshedding]

On this day of the gutting of #AffirmativeAction, advocacy and a few other things-here's a thought about the Atheist "Community" as I've experienced it:

(1) "Community” is not having a few drinks and laughs together at a conference or rally. (2) When a person is perceived as “useful”, people will cover-up for them. When they are not, they will be treated with indifference. (3) The George Floyd & "BLM" social justice wave provided non-profits everywhere a platform of opportunism disguised as care.

____________

So many thoughts worth comment on regarding blatant hypocrisy of the formalized Secular Humanist & Atheist Community-especially concerning its use of Black people for #DEI bona fides. However in general, this one resonates with me the most:

-> Opportunism disguised as "care" is not "community".