Ahh secularism...

[Diogenes]

Let me try again. "Secularity" is not a natural condition for humans. It provides no basis for an inherent system of morality, and as a result it will fall apart if it should ever managed to attain any significant degree of influence.

You can embrace a concept of morality without reference to religion. Secularism doesn't imply amorality.

In theory, no. In practice, yes. How do you convince the next generation that YOUR ideas about morality are correct? If they rebel, for example, against the idea that people should be regarded as having been created equal, how are you going to anchor them?

If you don't tie morality to a compelling and instinctive argument, it becomes entirely subjective, with the next generation feeling no compunction about loosening YOUR standards of morality.

I think all these attempts are a little too surface to be useful. In general though, Christianity is what gave rise to both secularism and Humanism. Neither could ever have been created in a world without Christianity.

While that is the path history has taken, I think assuming that there could not have been any other path to Humanism shows a certain lack of imagination.

I make this argument too. Christianity is the only religion in history that is tolerant enough to allow people to express Atheistic or Secular opinions. All others would have simply beaten, imprisoned, and/or killed troublemakers. Denounce the gods in Ancient Greece, or Rome, or Scandinavia? You wouldn't survive the day. Try it in Islam. Again, you wouldn't survive the day.

[Diogenes]

Let me try again. "Secularity" is not a natural condition for humans. It provides no basis for an inherent system of morality, and as a result it will fall apart if it should ever managed to attain any significant degree of influence.

That is a totally baseless claim. Give examples of where that happened!

To my knowledge, there are no examples of a secular society surviving. This lack of examples is perfectly consistent with my belief that such a system is completely unstable.

The onus is upon you to show where a secular system was created and continued. If secularism is superior, examples of it's thriving should abound, yet all I see is a vast and desolate plain with the legs of a broken statue before me.

People are obviously not equal. That is just a pervasive Christian doctrine. Throw out the doctrine, and the Strong will see no reason not to oppress the weak.

I absolutely hate it when our left wing brings the "all people are equal" quote which is utter nonsense! It is a lazy missrepresentation of the humanistic principle that all people should have equal rights (regardless of their standing/class/wealth etc). This is a humanist principle, not a christian one.

That is obviously not true. Humanists may CLAIM that it is one of their principles, but it is a left-over of Christian Doctrine that they wish to adopt as theirs. From a strictly logical and scientific perspective, it is quite obvious that people are NOT equal. They are not equal in intelligence, they are not equal in strength or speed, or talent or attractiveness.

Isn't secularism and humanism supposed to be based on scientific facts and analysis? If so, where are you getting this "people are equal" stuff? It is not demonstrated by any evidence of which I am aware.

Suppose I am a second generation citizen of a Humanist utopian revolution. How do I recreate your secular beliefs from the available information? I see no evidence at all that people are equal, or that they should be treated equal. What is your logical scientific argument to convince me that people ought to be treated equal?

Do I have to remind you that until humanism cought on in Europe, we had a feudal system with things like Leibeigenschaft (basically slavery) that was very much supported by the powerful churches. All the emperors were crowned by the pope and kings had to answer to the pope or face extradition.

And oddly enough, the stability of this system led to modern developments. Funny how that worked out, isn't it?

[Diogenes]

I'm not appealing to popularity.

I'm appealing to voters.

http://www.theweedblog.com/oregon-canna ... er-ballot/

Oh yes. They aren't the same thing at all.



If your argument is that you are correct because the people agree with you, then you are indeed invoking the fallacy of popularity. You might as well just concede that you don't have a logical argument.


Nowadays, I would be seriously worried if the stupid half of the voting population was agreeing with me.

[Diogenes]

There is nothing like sending jackbooted thugs after your own children to convince them that your policy prescriptions have no merit.

Brilliant move on your part I must say. Keep up the good work.

Prohibition is the very best recruiting tool the libertarians have. It has got to smart to be outplayed by a bunch of lazy dopers.

The harder you fight the more I win. Keep fighting. Then I don't have to work so hard. The laziness factor kicking in I guess.

You must be working on behalf of the queer agenda as well. It is also currently on the upswing in social popularity. On the other hand, what is it they say about correlation not equaling causation?

Social fads come and go. Nature/Evolution decides what stays. I think that I am looking at a bigger picture than do you.

Yes. I am working on behalf of queers to end the persecutions of queers. Proud of it too. I have a few good friends who are queers. Once had a queer girlfriend. Also her girlfriend. Tasty.

Care to accuse me of something else? I enjoy it. Immensely.

It's even funnier than you realize, because you thought you were being accused of something! My point was that you were the rooster taking credit for the sunrise! You obviously have been having no impact on the waxing of popular sentiment in support of homosexuality, but I was pretending to give you credit for it none the less. (In an effort to compare it to your taking credit for the surge of drug friendly attitudes.)

No, the credit for the promotion of Homosexuality into the mainstream is mostly the work of the film, news and entertainment industries.

At the launch of the 2010-2011 television season, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) examined the five broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, and NBC) and found that 41 characters on 84 programs were homosexual. An additional 53 homosexual characters appeared on 30 scripted cable programs. That’s a total of 94 characters on the 114 shows that were counted.

Wow. Almost 50% representation for 2% of the population?They are doing better than Blacks. (13% of the population.)

You do realize that Prohibition of Drugs is a Progressive Social Fad that has run its course. We never had such ideas in America until Progressives gained sway. I never knew you were a Progressive. Learn something new every day.

No, you aren't learning anything new, you are simply using an old tactic of constantly repeating something which isn't true in the hopes that it will stick in the mind of the ignorant and foolish and eventually will be regarded as true. Opposition to drugs have nothing to do with "progressive" philosophy, drugs represent a REAL threat to the survival of society, the proof of which you just always ignore.

I think crime families have more to do with the current situation than nature. Drug warriors Pelosi and Biden are friends with the Genovese and Gambinos respectively.

I never knew you were aligned with the mobsters and Pelosi/Biden. Learn something new every day.

"No. " Said Lincoln. "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so. "

Did you know that the Republicans of 1914 opposed the Harrison Narcotics act because they believed the Federal government had no such power. So what did the Progressives do? Passed it as a tax. Heh.

And that is not a bad argument in 1914. Prior to the discover of just how dangerous drugs were from a national security perspective, the argument that the Federal government did not have the right to prohibit substances was an accurate observation.

But again, I would not cite the commerce clause as the authority to ban drugs, I would cite the requirement to defend the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. It is a national security issue from my perspective, and based on what drugs did to destroy China, that is the best argument against them.

Constitutionalist Timothy Leary took it to the Supreme Court and got it declared invalid. So what did the politicians do? Passed another law using the Commerce Clause excuse.

Sound familiar?

Did he get that one invalidated as well? Apparently not, because the drug ban seems to have stuck. I think the Supreme court was correct in this instance. In 1914, banning drugs would not have been regarded as a federal issue because at that time no one realized just how dangerous they were.

[GIThruster]

I have used OTO methods to obtain certain states of mind. They work. This fact is used to get people to think they have special power and thus follow their goals. But any religious organization does the same. If you are a rebel like me you resist any such conclusion. There are many paths. They all ultimately use the same methods. They then say, "See. We were right. So we must be right about everything else." Well that is a siren song that will take you into the rocks.

At some point you have to choose between the Dark and the Light. The OTO method encourages Darkness. However, when the Devil calls you are not required to listen.

I believe all religions at their very highest levels are followers of darkness. Without exception. I generally avoid organized religion except for the experience. But I have no interest in hierarchy. Notice? I reject authoritarianism. Totally.

How can you ultimately make every thread here all about you?

OKay, so you're not just an out of work, drugged up pseudo-intellectual ex-hippie living on the dole who is constantly in everyone's face about how they need to join you in your madness, but you're an occult practitioner too. Tell me again why anyone would care?

None of your points make any sense and none of them come to the issue. The issue was, back before you made everything all about you (isn't this diagnosable?) that things like Nazism come from secularism, not the phony occult religion Hitler made for himself. That form of occultism never affected the masses, yet the masses went to war behind the madman. You're saying they went to war because of an occult religion they didn't share, which is nonsensical even on the face of it.

The salient force that allowed people to do these monstrous things was that their politics and religion had been separated. There were no moral moorings. Diogenes is arguing that secularism can't sustain over time because it has this lack of moral moorings. This is the same argument that Rousseau makes in The Social Contract, and why France didn't make the same choice as regards a state religion. (Much later they did and are now regretting it.)

But seriously Simone, you need to see a psychologist for some real help. yet one more thread where you'll explaining how really evil you are or can be, peppered with posts about what books you want to recommend, all about how to be as crazy as you. You need help.

[Diogenes]

It's forcing things to say Hitler had his own religion. That's pretty preposterous. It's much more fair to call his outrageous antics the result of secularism as it was a separation between the powers of state and religion that promoted the Nazis takeover of Germany.

Sorry, but I dont agree. National Socialism is an ideology with a very strong mythological base. It made use of a broad range of religious believes and combined them in order to get people to do what they wanted. You dont want to say that any of the believes of the Nazis were based on science and fact, would you (because that is what true secularism would be about)?

Yeah, it's a branch of Science called "Eugenics" and it is responsible for the WORST acts of the National SOCIALISTS.

[Teahive]

You can embrace a concept of morality without reference to religion. Secularism doesn't imply amorality.

In theory, no. In practice, yes.

Experience disagrees. I know many moral people who don't base their morality on any belief in the supernatural.

How do you convince the next generation that YOUR ideas about morality are correct? If they rebel, for example, against the idea that people should be regarded as having been created equal, how are you going to anchor them?

If you don't tie morality to a compelling and instinctive argument, it becomes entirely subjective, with the next generation feeling no compunction about loosening YOUR standards of morality.

That's your problem then, as your argument is apparently neither compelling nor instinctive to many. Try reciprocity without all the useless fluff.

[Diogenes]

Now D. you say that many of the things I would allow will fail on their own. If that is so why do you need government guns to enforce your position. Isn't that a waste? .

Because I don't want me or my family riding along for the descent into hell. Why use guns to oppose Communism when it's going to collapse anyway? Get real.

You will probably say that we can't afford it. I would respond that we can't afford all those enforcers. And my proposition is currently self evident.

The 25 billion dollar per year cost of the drug war is not what is bankrupting us. It is the all too predictable consequences of Democrat ideas since Woodrow Wilson to the Present which is bankrupting us.

Did you know that since Drug Prohibition was ramped up the clearance rates for murder and theft have declined precipitously? I'd say that Prohibition has had a negative effect on personal safety. Same thing happened in that other Prohibition. Evidently the Party supposedly most informed by history is not.

Yet it is but a pittance compared to the deaths which would occur were we not to do it. You keep trying to sell us a very unbalanced equation. The way you tell it, all the deaths and misery are on the Drug Prohibition side, but the drug indulgence side would be as sweet as sugar candy mountain.

Also, Moses the Raven is always telling the animals about an animal’s paradise called Sugarcandy Mountain, where the animals go when they die. Many of the animals believe in Sugarcandy Mountain, and the pigs have to keep on persuading them that no such place exists.

[Teahive]

No, the credit for the promotion of Homosexuality into the mainstream is mostly the work of the film, news and entertainment industries.

At the launch of the 2010-2011 television season, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) examined the five broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, and NBC) and found that 41 characters on 84 programs were homosexual. An additional 53 homosexual characters appeared on 30 scripted cable programs. That’s a total of 94 characters on the 114 shows that were counted.

Wow. Almost 50% representation for 2% of the population?They are doing better than Blacks. (13% of the population.)

Wow. The author can't even copy numbers from the page he linked to.

It’s shaping up to be a record season for inclusivity on television, with LGBT characters making up 3.9% of all series regulars on broadcast TV. GLAAD counted 587 different characters across 84 scripted primetime programs on the broadcast networks, and found that 23 of them will be lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Over on the cable networks, regular LGBT characters have made a healthy rebound after a two year decline, up to 35 characters this year.

As the Gallup articles points out, demographer Gary Gates recently released a review of population-based surveys on the topic which found 1.7% of Americans identify as lesbian or gay and another 1.8% (mostly women) identify as bisexual.

So, 3.9% compared to 3.5%. Yep, that's almost like 50% to 2%.

[Diogenes]

You can embrace a concept of morality without reference to religion. Secularism doesn't imply amorality.

In theory, no. In practice, yes.

Experience disagrees. I know many moral people who don't base their morality on any belief in the supernatural.

You know them now because they exist NOW. How will they secure their moral constraints on the next generation? That is where the whole idea breaks down, Not in the present. If it can't last in subsequent generations, what good is it?


Besides that, they are only moral now because they inherited their morals from the culture which was dominant during the time their minds were first grasping for answers. They are secularists who grew up floating in an Ocean of Christian doctrine.

How would secularists behave that grew up floating in an ocean of secularism? Not very well I think.

How do you convince the next generation that YOUR ideas about morality are correct? If they rebel, for example, against the idea that people should be regarded as having been created equal, how are you going to anchor them?

If you don't tie morality to a compelling and instinctive argument, it becomes entirely subjective, with the next generation feeling no compunction about loosening YOUR standards of morality.

That's your problem then, as your argument is apparently neither compelling nor instinctive to many.

You error in thinking is that you are applying my arguments to yourself, and not to a blank slate. (A young child.) You have let yourself become convinced of your current infallibility, so naturally my arguments are neither compelling nor instinctive to you.

You on the other hand are a prime example of what I am talking about. By your very comment you demonstrate that you cannot think from an unbiased perspective. You cannot empathize with the perspective of a young child. What is your answer to a young child who asks you why they should not steal?

Saying there is a mighty father who lives above, but watches over you and punishes you when you are bad is pretty d@mn instinctive if you ask me. What is your instinctive argument which a child can understand?

Try reciprocity without all the useless fluff.

The problem with Atheists/Humanists is that they think social structures are "useless fluff." The notion that they don't understand the purpose of such social structures simply never occurs to them.

[Diogenes]

The first Star Wars Trilogy is an excellent exposition of the occult journey. It struck a chord in the popular imagination.

Hmm... The first one was magnificent, the second okay, and all sequels thereafter sucked horribly. The sequels sucked so bad that I simply refuse to watch any more of them.

This critics review is more entertaining than the movies.

It all begins with the search for a father who abandoned the child. Typical for those who suffered child abuse at the hand of the father. Crowley definitely had that problem. Hitler's early life was obscured but seems similar.

All the above is one of the reasons I keep harping on the issue of child abuse and its dangers. It darkens the spirit.

So creating conditions whereby a woman can have babies without the need for a father is a bad thing in your opinion? Maybe you will eventually see what I am talking about when I bitch about Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty". His policies created millions of fatherless children, and he did it for one reason. To get votes from people to whom he was giving stuff.

[GIThruster]

It all begins with the search for a father who abandoned the child.

You need to stop projecting your own troubles onto the world. It obviously did not begin thus, since Luke thought his father dead until the end of the second movie. It's only the last third of the third film that Luke looks for and finds his father, and if you watched the movie you can see he was not really even looking for his father, but stumbled across him while busy with other issues. Additionally, nowhere in the Star Wars storylines does this notion you project find itself, that Luke was "abandoned". Rather, he was hidden by Obi-wan from his father.

This narcissistic need you have to see all of life as a reflection of your own sad state is again, diagnosable.

[Diogenes]

No, the credit for the promotion of Homosexuality into the mainstream is mostly the work of the film, news and entertainment industries.

At the launch of the 2010-2011 television season, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) examined the five broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, and NBC) and found that 41 characters on 84 programs were homosexual. An additional 53 homosexual characters appeared on 30 scripted cable programs. That’s a total of 94 characters on the 114 shows that were counted.

Wow. Almost 50% representation for 2% of the population?They are doing better than Blacks. (13% of the population.)

Wow. The author can't even copy numbers from the page he linked to.

Not sure how you do your math, but in the segment I quoted it said that 41 characters on 84 programs were homosexual. 41/84 = 48.4 %. which is nearly 50%. Since we seem to feel like we want to act like a little punk, I'll further point out that:

GLAAD’s numbers don’t even include other types of programming on which openly homosexual characters appear, such as daytime dramas (As the World Turns, One Life to Live, The Young and the Restless, All My Children), daytime talk shows (Oprah, Ellen DeGeneres, The Talk), or reality programming (Dancing With the Stars, So You Think You Can Dance, America’s Next Top Model, Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List, Flipping Out, Work of Art, The Rachel Zoe Project, Thintervention with Jackie Warner, Million Dollar Listing, Top Chef, The Real L Word, Project Runway, The Real World, Circus, The Fabulous Beekman Boys, Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys, TRANSform Me ).

Of these 138 shows, 86% include at least one gay character. How many do you think include evangelicals or Catholics? Even though 76% of Americans identify as Christians I doubt you could find 90 openly Christian characters on all of television, much less on these 138 shows.

Wow. 86% ? In case you are having trouble with the math, that's even more than 50%.


Even using the numbers you seemed to think were important, they are nearly 200% more represented than is their percentage of the population. (Which is 2%. I don't buy troop strength numbers from sources pushing the gay agenda.)

It’s shaping up to be a record season for inclusivity on television, with LGBT characters making up 3.9% of all series regulars on broadcast TV.

The exact numbers aren't really relevant to my point which is: Because the G*dd@mn Media/Entertainment industries are pushing this sh*t on the stupid and ignorant, Homosexuality is becoming increasingly mainstream.


Do you actually have anything to say which addresses this point?

[Skipjack]

To my knowledge, there are no examples of a secular society surviving.

Uhm, ost democracies in Europe since WW2, some even before that... Almost all of them are handled as being secular, though some of them are not secular by their constitution. E.g. I am very annoyed by the fact that Austria and Germany dont have it in their constitution. That could bite them in the butt once the muslims in the countries reach a certain critical mass.
England is still a monarchy and as such not secular.
Actually I have a hard time thinking of a truly secular system (that does not replace religion with some ideology of sorts) that actually did not survive...

That is obviously not true. Humanists may CLAIM that it is one of their principles, but it is a left-over of Christian Doctrine that they wish to adopt as theirs. From a strictly logical and scientific perspective, it is quite obvious that people are NOT equal. They are not equal in intelligence, they are not equal in strength or speed, or talent or attractiveness.

Can you read?!
Read again what I said! I said that the humanist principle is that "all people should have equal rights and should be treated equally by the law regardless of their origin and standing".
That is NOT the same as "all people were created equal". The latter is pure nonsense and a result of lazy reading skills (like yours) mostly employed the our left wing.
The Christian society of the middle ages and thereafter never cared about either interpretation, btw. The standing of a person was pretty much defined by their births "of gods mercy". The clerics had a simillar standing to the nobles and often the clerus tried to control the noble families.
Anyway, back then it was that if you were born into the gutter, you had less rights than a cleric or a noble person. You should read that up!
It was not until humanistic ideas emerged that laws changed and people slowly got towards having equal rights. In Austria, this was mostly done by the worldly leaders like Maria Theresia and her son Joseph... against the will of the church, btw.

Wow. Almost 50% representation for 2% of the population?They are doing better than Blacks. (13% of the population.)

I can not congratulate you on your math skills.

Yeah, it's a branch of Science called "Eugenics" and it is responsible for the WORST acts of the National SOCIALISTS.

Oh please!
Calling Eugenics science is like calling Intelligent Design a science...

How will they secure their moral constraints on the next generation? That is where the whole idea breaks down, Not in the present. If it can't last in subsequent generations, what good is it?

I can only shake my head at that question...

How would secularists behave that grew up floating in an ocean of secularism? Not very well I think.

Shakes head again...

1. You can be for secularism and still be religious.
2. You can be an atheist and still have high moral standards. I know a lot of people who that applies to. In fact most atheists I know have very high moral standards and would never spew hate at people for being different (like Christians do against gays, e.g.).

Secularism has NOTHING to do with morals. It does not even mean that the people employing it are not religious.

What is your answer to a young child who asks you why they should not steal?

By bringing up things like "you would not want someone to steal from you, either, would you?"
or by bringing up the concept of honor which is not tied to religion at all.
You do not have to have a god to be a moral authority to a child. you know. Parents can be that as well to some extent. By being an example to your child and by showing how you live the morals that you teach, you can go a long way.
Of course that would require you to spend time with your children. That is rare in todays society, especially in the US...

[Diogenes]

To my knowledge, there are no examples of a secular society surviving.

Uhm, ost democracies in Europe since WW2, some even before that... Almost all of them are handled as being secular, though some of them are not secular by their constitution. E.g. I am very annoyed by the fact that Austria and Germany dont have it in their constitution. That could bite them in the butt once the muslims in the countries reach a certain critical mass.
England is still a monarchy and as such not secular.
Actually I have a hard time thinking of a truly secular system (that does not replace religion with some ideology of sorts) that actually did not survive...

You and I have very different understandings of what it means to say "a society is surviving." From where I sit, the more Europe embraces secularism, the closer to destruction it seems to be heading. A Society's ability to survive must cross a subsequent generation. i.e. must last longer than at least a normal human lifetime.

All I see in Europe is a slowly occurring collapse.

That is obviously not true. Humanists may CLAIM that it is one of their principles, but it is a left-over of Christian Doctrine that they wish to adopt as theirs. From a strictly logical and scientific perspective, it is quite obvious that people are NOT equal. They are not equal in intelligence, they are not equal in strength or speed, or talent or attractiveness.

Can you read?!
Read again what I said! I said that the humanist principle is that "all people should have equal rights and should be treated equally by the law regardless of their origin and standing".
That is NOT the same as "all people were created equal". The latter is pure nonsense and a result of lazy reading skills (like yours) mostly employed the our left wing.

Yes, I can read just find, but you apparently have difficulty in understanding what you read. WHY should people be treated equally by the law? WHY? Explain this.

The Christian society of the middle ages and thereafter never cared about either interpretation, btw. The standing of a person was pretty much defined by their births "of gods mercy". The clerics had a simillar standing to the nobles and often the clerus tried to control the noble families.

A lot of people pin further advances in this regard on the Protestant reformation.

Anyway, back then it was that if you were born into the gutter, you had less rights than a cleric or a noble person. You should read that up!
It was not until humanistic ideas emerged that laws changed and people slowly got towards having equal rights. In Austria, this was mostly done by the worldly leaders like Maria Theresia and her son Joseph... against the will of the church, btw.

Which Church was that?

Wow. Almost 50% representation for 2% of the population?They are doing better than Blacks. (13% of the population.)

I can not congratulate you on your math skills.

Really? Do you find an error somewhere? 41 "gay" characters in 84 television programs equals 41/84 = 48.4% . That is nearly 50 % representation for 1.8% of the overall population.

One of us is certainly having a math skills problem, but i'm not seeing as how it is me.

Yeah, it's a branch of Science called "Eugenics" and it is responsible for the WORST acts of the National SOCIALISTS.

Oh please!
Calling Eugenics science is like calling Intelligent Design a science...

That's funny, because back in the 1930s-1940s, some of the Best Scientific minds in Germany were all over it. Did they do the same thing for intelligent design? I don't think so.

How will they secure their moral constraints on the next generation? That is where the whole idea breaks down, Not in the present. If it can't last in subsequent generations, what good is it?

I can only shake my head at that question...

And I can only shake my head at someone who is so foolish as to not comprehend the question, but I find that a common enough event where you are concerned.

How would secularists behave that grew up floating in an ocean of secularism? Not very well I think.

Shakes head again...

Easier than answering the question, no doubt.

1. You can be for secularism and still be religious.

So you believe, though the logic doesn't work.

2. You can be an atheist and still have high moral standards.

How? What is the basis for moral standards for Atheists? Where do they get the notion that the strong are not better than the weak?

I know a lot of people who that applies to.

No doubt you do, and how many of them grew up in an entire Atheist society?

In fact most atheists I know have very high moral standards and would never spew hate at people for being different (like Christians do against gays, e.g.).

Two mistakes in one sentence. An atheist demonstrating high moral standards (according to the Christian standards of morality) and an accusation that someone is spewing hate when they say that homosexuals are psychologically disturbed. Is it spewing hate when you point out the same thing about autistic or down's syndrome people?

How do you know atheists will exhibit high moral standards if they are raised in a completely atheist environment. (And don't cite an Atheist family within the Ocean of Christianity. They are still constrained in their beliefs by the customs of the larger society. )

The closest examples we have to an actual atheist society are the pieces of the former Soviet Union. How does the population fair over there?

Secularism has NOTHING to do with morals.

That is a point I am hoping you will eventually grasp.

What is your answer to a young child who asks you why they should not steal?

By bringing up things like "you would not want someone to steal from you, either, would you?"

You are expecting empathy from a young child. They will reject that argument because temptation will eventually come which they cannot resist simply on that basis. They may argue, "I have nothing to steal, therefore nothing to worry about. " Which indeed, is a powerful motivation for socialist revolutionaries.

Only those with something to lose need fear theft.

or by bringing up the concept of honor which is not tied to religion at all.

Yes, every young child understands the concept of "Honor" far better than the notion that an invisible guardian will punish them if they behave badly.

You do not have to have a god to be a moral authority to a child. you know. Parents can be that as well to some extent. By being an example to your child and by showing how you live the morals that you teach, you can go a long way.

As far as the next door neighbor's house. What use is there for parental examples when the boy next door can get all sorts of things just by stealing them?

The diabolic beauty of the "Santa Claus effect" is that it obligates people to watch themselves, even when no one else is watching.