Atheism IS NOT a belief system

Zombrex

This is a branch of a thread about Dawkins that went into an interesting discussion about the morality of an Atheist system such as Communism, and how it is no better than a religious morality system.

The argument goes that if we are going to hold up religion systems/countries as causing oppression, suffering in the world and blame religion, then it is hypocritical to not hold atheist system that also caused suffering in the world.

An example given was Communism. Communism forced atheism onto the people of the USSR. Religion was banned and oppressed. Basically you had to be an atheist or face trouble from the state (any history buffs, this is a gross simplication but for the purposes of the thread it will do).

My argument was that people are looking at the wrong thing. Atheism is not the same as religion. Religion is a moral belief system. If you remove religion you may become an atheist, but you do not replace your belief system with the atheist belief system since there is no such thing. You replace your belief system with something else.

In the case of the USSR atheism didn't replace religion. Communism replaced religion. Communism is a belief system. It has its own ideas on morality and society. It structures the morality of those who live under it.

One of the beliefs of Communism is that religion is bad for the state and that everyone should be athiest.

So really in the USSR you can't talk about religion being replaced with atheism because it didn't really work like that. Atheism doesn't replace anything by itself. Religion was replaced with Communism, a very flawed and dangerous (in my view) system or laws and beliefs.

To sum up atheism by itself is not a religion, its not even a belief system. So comparing the two is flawed.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Wicknight wrote:

To sum up atheism by itself is not a religion, its not even a belief system. So comparing the two is flawed.

I'd agree there, if anything it is a disbelief system, an extension of the 'Innocent until proven guilty' principle

Playboy

It really is very simple.

Ever hear of the saying 'Guns dont kill people, People kill People'. Any belief system or disbelief system can be corrupted by people. If Atheists banded together and decide to rid the world of deluded religious fools, then you are right, it would not be the fault of athiesm. But the last time I checked murder was against the 10 commandments so you cant blame religion for people who go out and murder in the name of religion.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

It really is very simple.

Ever hear of the saying 'Guns dont kill people, People kill People'. Any belief system or disbelief system can be corrupted by people. If Atheists banded together and decide to rid the world of deluded religious fools, then you are right, it would not be the fault of athiesm. But the last time I checked murder was against the 10 commandments so you cant blame religion for people who go out and murder in the name of religion.

And for every place where murder is prohibited it is justifed in 10 other places.

That is one of the major issues atheists like Dawkins (and myself) have with deriving morality from religous texts, they contradict the hell out of each other and you end up with an un-Godly mess.

You can find a passage in the Bible or Qu'ran to justify anything you like...

A right-wing Christian in the US can find a passage in the Bible to justify walking around with a "God Hates Fags" t-shirt. A judge in Nigeria can find a passage in the Qu'ran to justify stoning to death a young girl who had sex with a married man.

Do you want to try and argue using the religious belief system that both these things are wrong or immoral? You will find yourself going up against a brick wall, because as far as both these people are concerned their religion (and therefore what is right and true) justifies there actions. God justifies their actions.

Telling them they are using a corrupted version of the true morality in something like the Bible is point because there is no true morality in the Bible Just opinions and positions. It is not something to use as a basis for societies morality because it is a contradictory mess

robindch

> In the case of the USSR atheism didn't replace religion. Communism
> replaced religion. Communism is a belief system. It has its own ideas
> on morality and society. It structures the morality of those who live under it.

I would disagree slightly here -- communism operates in the same way as religions do, by providing an inerrent, unquestionable ideological support for the local administrators. Once you've managed to have one of *those* systems in place, then your position as a power-broker is secure, because you can simply liquidate anybody who disagrees with you, while having to provide no more justification than saying that the dead were guilty of "incorrect thinking" (one of the chilling phrases which was used during the period).

Communism didn't really tend to harp on about "morality" any more than other societies of the time.

In fact, some people (me, for example ) suspect that the same kind of people who make good fodder for the religious industries are quite likely to make equally good communist party members, as the same ability to accept absolute authority, willingly and unquestioningly and for one's own selfish benefit, is central to both.

Which reminds me of a joke which used to circulate in Russia during communist times, which said that there were only three virtues available to any Russian person: honesty, intelligence, and membership of the Communist party. But only two at any one time.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

And for every place where murder is prohibited it is justifed in 10 other places.

That is one of the major issues atheists like Dawkins (and myself) have with deriving morality from religous texts, they contradict the hell out of each other and you end up with an un-Godly mess.

You can find a passage in the Bible or Qu'ran to justify anything you like...

A right-wing Christian in the US can find a passage in the Bible to justify walking around with a "God Hates Fags" t-shirt. A judge in Nigeria can find a passage in the Qu'ran to justify stoning to death a young girl who had sex with a married man.

Do you want to try and argue using the religious belief system that both these things are wrong or immoral? You will find yourself going up against a brick wall, because as far as both these people are concerned their religion (and therefore what is right and true) justifies there actions. God justifies their actions.

Telling them they are using a corrupted version of the true morality in something like the Bible is point because there is no true morality in the Bible Just opinions and positions. It is not something to use as a basis for societies morality because it is a contradictory mess

There is no true morality full stop. When you wake and realise that, maybe you will see that people will find any excuse to justify the horrible acts they commit. If there was no religion there would be just as much suffering in the world today if not more considering all the humanitarian work religion inspires

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

There is no true morality full stop.

That is the whole bloody point :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Religion says there is, that their morality is the true morality full stop. And if you believe in the religion you must follow this true morality. You should not argue against it, criticise it or attempt to update or improve it because it comes from God and as such is true and infalable.

That is Dawkins objection to religion. Bloody hell, it sounds like you agree, so what are you arguing about?

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

That is the whole bloody point :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Religion says there is, that their morality is the true morality full stop. And if you believe in the religion you must follow this true morality. You should not argue against it, criticise it or attempt to update or improve it because it comes from God and as such is true and infalable.

That is Dawkins objection to religion. Bloody hell, it sounds like you agree, so what are you arguing about?

I'm arguing about the fact that Dawkins unjustly labels religion 'The Root of all Evil'. Human nature is the root of all evil and nothing else.

robindch

> you cant blame religion for people who go out and murder in the name of religion.

What a completely clueless thing to say. You admit that religion provides a justification for some people to murder others, but then go on to say that the religion can deny any responsibility for what people do in its name? What kind of "morality" is that?

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

I'm arguing about the fact that Dawkins unjustly labels religion 'The Root of all Evil'. Human nature is the root of all evil and nothing else.

Er, that is a pointless statement, everything humans do is by definition part of human nature.

Slavery is part of human nature. Does that mean slavery isn't immoral, but human nature is? Does that mean someone shouldn't argue slavery is immoral and wrong?:rolleyes:

Religion is a system of defining and controlling morality and belief. It is a very flawed and dangerous system in Dawkins opinion (and mine).

If you don't agree with that argue that point, instead of abstract jibberish.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

When you wake and realise that, maybe you will see that people will find any excuse to justify the horrible acts they commit.

Yes but these excuses should not be valid. You shouldn't be allowed stone someone to death because it says so in the Bible or Qu'ran. Thats the point.

You seem to be assuming that religion is never used as a justified excuse for immoral behavour. It is used all the time for immoral behaviour, used and justified.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

> you cant blame religion for people who go out and murder in the name of religion.

What a completely clueless thing to say. You admit that religion provides a justification for some people to murder others, but then go on to say that the religion can deny any responsibility for what people do in its name? What kind of "morality" is that?

Of course it can deny repsonibilty on the grounds that it is a corruption of what the religion actually teaches.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Er, that is a pointless statement, everything humans do is by definition part of human nature.

Slavery is part of human nature. Does that mean slavery isn't immoral, but human nature is? Does that mean someone shouldn't argue slavery is immoral and wrong?:rolleyes:

Religion is a system of defining and controlling morality and belief. It is a very flawed and dangerous system in Dawkins opinion (and mine).

If you don't agree with that argue that point, instead of abstract jibberish.

I really don't understand this. Evil originates from human beings not from religion. Labeling religion as the root of all evil is ridiculous. We are the root of all evil not some institution we have created.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

I really don't understand this. Evil originates from human beings not from religion. Labeling religion as the root of all evil is ridiculous. We are the root of all evil not some institution we have created.

And through religious dogma we put in place the systems for great evil. Do you not agree?

I mean, do you even get the objections Dawkins has with religion? You seem to be completely ignoring his (and my) points. It is getting rather annoying

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but these excuses should not be valid. You shouldn't be allowed stone someone to death because it says so in the Bible or Qu'ran. Thats the point.

You seem to be assuming that religion is never used as a justified excuse for immoral behavour. It is used all the time for immoral behaviour, used and justified.

I don't think religion is justified in killing people no more than I think the U.S Government is justified in killing people. Thats my moral perspective, obviously lots of people in religious countries and the U.S will disagree with me. On what grounds can I contradict them?

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

And through religious dogma we put in place the systems for great evil. Do you not agree?

I mean, do you even get the objections Dawkins has with religion? You seem to be completely ignoring his points

No I don't. Religion isnt all bad. It can be a great power for good too. Any system human beings put in place is going to be corrupted for immoral ends. Its just the way of the world. Call it natural selection

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

No I don't. Religion isnt all bad. It can be a great power for good too. Any system human beings put in place is going to be corrupted for immoral ends. Its just the way of the world. Call it natural selection

Ok, what about the main point then -

Moral belief systems based around religion have the concept that the morality is derived from a supernatural god, who decides what is right and wrong. This morality is fundamental and unarguable. God is not wrong. Therefore this morality must be followed and can not be challanged.

Do you think this is a good system to decide what morality systems society should use?

pH

Playboy wrote:

No I don't. Religion isnt all bad. It can be a great power for good too. Any system human beings put in place is going to be corrupted for immoral ends.

This just depends on your perspective you say :

Religion starts with good intentions but then get corrupts by evil and immoral men.

All the evidence suggests that when you scratch the pious veneer on any religous "good" (charity and selflessness) you very quickly see the self-serving motives behind it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_%28book%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Controversy
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

So you could equally argue

Religion never has any good intentions, it was invented as a cynical ploy to control the masses by making them give you goods and power in this life, against vague promises and threats for the 'next' life you never have to deliver on

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, what about the main point then -

Moral belief systems based around religion have the concept that the morality is derived from a supernatural god, who decides what is right and wrong. This morality is fundamental and unarguable. God is not wrong. Therefore this morality must be followed and can not be challanged.

Do you think this is a good system to decide what morality systems society should use?

I don't personally subscibe to it Wicknight but many people do. It's not for me to say that they are wrong.

Playboy

pH wrote:

So you could equally argue

Religion never has any good intentions, it was invented as a cynical ploy to control the masses by making them give you goods and power in this life, against vague promises and threats for the 'next' life you never have to deliver on

You could argue anything you wanted pH. Whether you can justify it is another matter entirely.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

I don't personally subscibe to it Wicknight but many people do. It's not for me to say that they are wrong.

WTF does that mean? Sounds like a cop out to avoid discussing the issue.

So you think its bad system but you don't think you should point that out?

Does that extend to other morality systems? Would you point out that slavery is wrong? Or forced marriage? Or a cast system?

Playboy

Yes i think its a bad system but people are able to make up their own minds whether they want to believe in it or not just like you and I were. You can reason with people and try to get them to see your point of view but apart from that you cant really do anything except respect the beliefs of the people.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

You can reason with people and try to get them to see your point of view

Which is exactly what everyone here is doing. Except you

Playboy wrote:

but apart from that you cant really do anything except respect the beliefs of the people.

No one was suggesting anything beyond discussion ...

Or did I miss something? I don't think anyone, including Dawkins, has done an Ann Coulter ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity")

Playboy

Wicknight wrote:

Which is exactly what everyone here is doing. Except you

Eh, why?

Wicknight wrote:

Or did I miss something? I don't think anyone, including Dawkins, has done an Ann Coulter ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity")

Dawkins doesnt discuss, he preaches. He isnt interested in anything that a religious person has to say.

Rev Hellfire

As to if atheism is a belief or not we can argue until the cows come home. The problem is that neither party view the question from the same perspective. You will never get for example a Christian to accept that Christian churches are self serving, the very argument that you use that they can’t see it due to the propaganda they receive is equally applicable to you. You see them in such a manner since you also have been indoctrinated in such a manner. And round and round we go.

To me atheism like religion is an irrelevancy to people’s daily lives. Most people simply do not care nor does it affect them that much.
To me the most worrying aspect of atheism/humanities is funnily enough the notion of the separation of church and state. While I agree it’s certainly something people should campaign for if they feel strongly for, I disagree that it is a right. True, a non-religious education should be available, but while the majority wish to see religion as part of the state education system certain advocates would simply argue that they know better and its for the better good that their opinion stands before those of the common whole. A mirror in my mind to most extreme religious groupings and their thinking on such subjects. They both work on the belief that they know best and the rest of the herd just haven't seen the light.

Rev Hellfire

opps double post sry.

robindch

> [Playboy] Yes i think its a bad system but people are able to make up their own
> minds whether they want to believe in it or not just like you and I were.

You are assuming that people are able to make up their minds in the first place, or even realise that there's anything to make up their minds about. For myself, I had a traditional irish education in the 70's and 80's and don't recall one person saying throughout the lot that I had any choice in the matter of belief. I was either in, or I was out and on my own in the cold, and ultimately damned.

> you cant really do anything except respect the beliefs of the people.

Wrong. One must respect the rights of people to hold whatever beliefs they want, but there is no call, nor should there be, to respecting the belief itself, whether it's something benign like the existence of an immortal sky-pixie, or the malign conviction that "unbelievers" can be murdered at will.

> He isnt interested in anything that a religious person has to say.

Completely wrong again. He, like many here, is very interested in what religious people have to say because what they -- Ted Haggard, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and that nutty jewish-islamic convert spring to mind -- say is frequently threatening, usually intransigent, and in the era of the technological means to commit mass murder without too much trouble, can ultimately be fatal to a great number of people, as New York found out on the bright morning of 11th September, 2001.

Playboy

robindch wrote:

You are assuming that people are able to make up their minds in the first place, or even realise that there's anything to make up their minds about. For myself, I had a traditional irish education in the 70's and 80's and don't recall one person saying throughout the lot that I had any choice in the matter of belief. I was either in, or I was out and on my own in the cold, and ultimately damned.

You eventually grew up and managed to make up your own mind didnt you? Most religous people are adults and afaik it is a persons right to bring up their child religiously if they choose.

robindch wrote:

Wrong. One must respect the rights of people to hold whatever beliefs they want, but there is no call, nor should there be, to respecting the belief itself, whether it's something benign like the existence of an immortal sky-pixie, or the malign conviction that "unbelievers" can be murdered at will.

What about respecting the fact that religous people for the most part are sane rational adults. How about us respecting them by not calling them deluded and their belief system 'The Root of all Evil'.

robindch wrote:

Completely wrong again. He, like many here, is very interested in what religious people have to say because what they -- Ted Haggard, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and that nutty jewish-islamic convert spring to mind -- say is frequently threatening, usually intransigent, and in the era of the technological means to commit mass murder without too much trouble, can ultimately be fatal to a great number of people, as New York found out on the bright morning of 11th September, 2001.

Oh this is fun .... I'm completely wrong becuase you quote me out of context.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Eh, why?

Why? I've no idea you will have to ask yourself that.

Playboy wrote:

Dawkins doesnt discuss, he preaches. He isnt interested in anything that a religious person has to say.

What do you base that on? I seem to remember him listening to everything that teh religous people were saying, even the crazy ones.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

the very argument that you use that they can’t see it due to the propaganda they receive is equally applicable to you.

Which propaganda would that be? Seriously, i'm asking. I am not aware of the atheist propagranda, but then I'm sure you will say that is because I'm indoctroned. Please explain

Rev Hellfire wrote:

True, a non-religious education should be available, but while the majority wish to see religion as part of the state education system certain advocates would simply argue that they know better and its for the better good that their opinion stands before those of the common whole.

If that is what you think then you have missed the entire point of the principle of seperation of church and state.

It is not to raise God-less atheists in school. It is not because people believe that having no religion is better than having religion.

It is because of a very simple question :- Which religion does the state support?.

Might seem like a no brainer in Ireland, the answer would be Catholism. But what do the children who are Islamic, or Hindu, or Jews do in a Catholic state run school? Are they supposed to just shut up and take it?

The concept of seperation of church and state came not from atheists but from religious followers who felt the state was being unfair to them. They decided that the only fair way to allow all religions equal freedom is to say that the state cannot sponsor any of them.

The principle behind sepeartion of church and state is that the state cannot, and should not, pick a religion to offically support. Religion should be a personal choice, and no state body should support one religion over the other.

The only way to achieve this is to seperate church and state completely. The alternative is to have the state sponsor every religion which is completely unworkable since there are hundreds.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote:

Most religous people are adults and afaik it is a persons right to bring up their child religiously if they choose.

Please tell me you get the irony of that statement.

Playboy it is a persons "right" only in countries that have seperated the church from the moral and civil rights of the individual.

The right to practice any religion you want is only guaranteed because we as a society don't draw our legal and civil rights from any particular religion. That is a damn good thing too. If we did you would have the right to follow the religion you are told to follow.

If you lived in a a fundamentalist country that did draw its legal moral and civil rights from a particular religion you probably would have no such right to. The Christian being sentenced to death in Afganistan springs to mind.

robindch

> You eventually grew up and managed to make up your own mind didnt you?

Yes, I did. But most don't because fear has been drilled into them since childhood about what will happen to them if they do decide to abandon the church and all its ways.

Remember how bookies operate -- they're not interested in the odds one way or another, but simply in manipulating them so that regardless of the outcome, they'll be out in front when the dust has settled. Religion is the same -- creating enough hopes and fears in enough people so that they'll indoctrinate enough kids (or convert enough friends) to keep the whole ragtag show on the road. It's worked so far and I've little doubt that in people who aren't aware of, or don't care, how it all this happens, it'll continue to work.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote:

Which propaganda would that be? Seriously, i'm asking. I am not aware of the atheist propagranda, but then I'm sure you will say that is because I'm indoctroned. Please explain

The point was one robinach made “You are assuming that people are able to make up their minds in the first place, or even realise that there's anything to make up their minds about.”, but in hindsight I may be misreading that it implied that people don't know what to think since they're indoctrinated. Its a nonsense and is equally applicable to either side when it comes to mud slinging.

If that is what you think then you have missed the entire point of the principle of seperation of church and state.

No I totally understand the idea behind church and state. Its just I feel that if a society as a whole wishes to pursue religious education, then it is their democratic right to do so. Maybe you'd explain why it should be separate when at the moment the majority either want or are not bothered about the current education climate. I am assuming in this case people still are allowed to purse whatever religion or non-religion they wish and would have the option to ‘opt-out’ of the class if it was not a general one on religions.

Which religion does the state support?

It endeavours to supports all, but may naturally concentrate its resources on the religion that are practised by the majority. Which is the case at present.

Might seem like a no brainer in Ireland, the answer would be Catholism. But what do the children who are Islamic, or Hindu, or Jews do in a Catholic state run school? Are they supposed to just shut up and take it?

Certainly not, which why state funding is available to schools of different faiths and where not applicable they may receive alternative religious education where religious differences occur. I attended a state school in the 80’s and people had the option to opt-out of catholic orientated classes.

The only way to achieve this is to seperate church and state completely. The alternative is to have the state sponsor every religion which is completely unworkable since there are hundreds.

The state doesn’t have support everyone, it just has to support those, which is realistically can on a practical and financial basis.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Its a nonsense and is equally applicable to either side when it comes to mud slinging.

Yes, I got that, I'm asking what dogma or propaganda is being used to indoctrine atheists (I assume atheists are the otherside).

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Its just I feel that if a society as a whole wishes to pursue religious education, then it is their democratic right to do so.

Well assuming they live in a democracy, yes it is.

But the the whole point of democracy is the expression of ideas. We don't live in a country with proper seperation of church and state. I don't like this fact. A lot of people don't like this fact. It is therefore my responsibility, and the responsibility of others, to convince the general masses that living in a society that does have proper seperation of church and state is a better system to live in.

That is kinda hard to do without discussion and the expression of new ideas isn't it?

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Maybe you'd explain why it should be separate when at the moment the majority either want or are not bothered about the current education climate.

The logic is that it should be seperate for the reason that an individuals right to religious freedom, no matter what the religion, should be gurrenteed by the state, and that this cannot be done if the state picks one religon, even the religon of the majority, over another to offically support.

Every citizen in a state should be equal. If the state is bias to one religion in particular over the rest it is unfair on followers of the other religions or people who have no religion.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I am assuming in this case people still are allowed to purse whatever religion or non-religion they wish and would have the option to ‘opt-out’ of the class if it was not a general one on religions.

That is the argument used by the religious right in the States, that anyone who doesn't like something like prayer in school can simply "opt-out".

But that again is unfair. Why should anyone have to opt-out, have to exclude themselves from something they are supposed to be guarenteed by the state? Every child should be given the same education, have the same education as their friends and class-mates. Forcing a child to remove themselves from the majority group in a situation like the "opt-out" class is considered by many to be damaging and unfair. You are singling out those who are not part of the majority religon as different, and making them remove themselves. Now one the grand scheme its not going to lead to mass suicide from depressed kids, but it is still unfair, and still oppressing the rights of the individual to education free from religoius dogma.

Making someone removed themselves from the rest of a group or be forced to participate in a religous act they do not believe in is not something that should be sanctioned by the state. It is the state forcing a particular religion onto another person. The state is the state of all people, not just those who follow a particular religion.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It endeavours to supports all, but may naturally concentrate its resources on the religion that are practised by the majority.

Firstly, it doesn't and it can't endeavour to support all religions, that is nonsense. There are simply too many The only way to support all religons fairly is to support no religion.

Secondly, why concentrate any "resources" on any religon in the first place. Why should the majority religion be force on the minority? Just because Catholics are a majority in Ireland that is no reason why Hindus should have to go to Catholic schools. The fairest way is to make schools have no religon then anyone can go to any school without it interfering with their religion.

The majority had no right to force, through the state, its religion on the minority even if they are the majority. It is unnecessary and unfair.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I attended a state school in the 80’s and people had the option to opt-out of catholic orientated classes.

Again, see the argument against the fairness of the "opt-out" idea.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The state doesn’t have support everyone, it just has to support those, which is realistically can on a practical and financial basis.

The state then chooses a religion to support. Even if that religon is the biggest in the country, it is still choosing a religion at the cost of all the other ones. And as I said before, just because a religion is a majority in a country doesn't mean it has the right to force that religon, through the state, onto others.

Rev Hellfire

On the topic of athiest propaganda I'll conceed the point, simply because I don't know if there is any. It was the arrogance of the the perceived statement about a believers ability to 'makeup their minds', maybe the idea that religious people are all simple lead by the nose is an example of this propaganda.

I totally agree with you that you should attempt to influence public opinion to gain a seperation of state and religion. But the rub is so to would I support those who would campaign in a the states for example to breakdown that very same seperation.

The state then chooses a religion to support. Even if that religon is the biggest in the country, it is still choosing a religion at the cost of all the other ones. And as I said before, just because a religion is a majority in a country doesn't mean it has the right to force that religon, through the state, onto others.

The state is expression of the will of the majority and as such can force its opinions on others. It does this all the time with law. I don't see the difference here. Are you saying that just because we can't support the wishes of minorities we should ignore the will of the majority ?

I suspose the difference we have is I dont believe that you have a right to a seperation of church and state, were as maybe you do.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I suspose the difference we have is I dont believe that you have a right to a seperation of church and state, were as maybe you do.

Its not that I have the right to seperation of church and state.

What I (should) have the right to is that the state is not bias against my religion, or my sex, or my race, or my culture. Just because I am in the minority doesn't change that.

The only fair way of doing this with relation to religion is that the state supports no religions. Then no religion is given unequal preference, and no religions are discriminated against by the state. The status of all religions in the state becomes equal no matter what the size

Saying that the state reflects the majority is twisting this around.

The state reflects the opinion of the majority when deciding what to do, but that doesn't mean that the majority cannot decide that the individual rights of a person are the important bit. Just because we are a very Catholic country doesn't mean we cannot or should not impliment a seperation of church and state. The USA is a very Christian country, but they have the seperation, not because the majority don't want to follow their religion, but because they believe in the principles of keeping religion equal for all people, that all civil rights matter not just those of the majority.

Of course in a democracy you have to convince the majority your theory is correct, which I what I hope will happen in Ireland sooner rather than later with relation to church and state.

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

Just because we are a very Catholic country doesn't mean we cannot or should not impliment a seperation of church and state. The USA is a very Christian country, but they have the seperation, not because the majority don't want to follow their religion, but because they believe in the principles of keeping religion equal for all people, that all civil rights matter not just those of the majority.

The US may have their seperation of church/state, but I'd take our educational system over theirs any day.

You speak about the "alienation" of students who opt-out of religion class and how it's unfair. Perhaps across large swathes of the US kids might be outcast by communities that revolve around the bible, but not here. In fact we've had numerous Irish school-goers posting here to say that religion classes are open and pressure-free. I was schooled in a catholic boys school and the day a son is born to me I'll be signing him straight up.

Unlike you, I'm threatened very rarely by religion in the Ireland of today.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

In fact we've had numerous Irish school-goers posting here to say that religion classes are open and pressure-free.

But that is a move to seperation, a move I welcome.

I think the problem here is people aren't really noticing what is happening because everything happens so slowly, not that that is a bad thing. But things are a lot better in religous schools than they were in my fathers time, or my grand-fathers, preciesely because schools have moved away from the old fashion style of R.E.

I still think more can be done. For everyone I know who had no problem with religion in school I know someone who did.

The argument against the "opt-out" system isn't that it is going to create a group of socially scared outcast or anything. It is simply that it is unfair. It might cause problem with only a handful of people, but then that isn't an argument to allow it

staple

I'm slightly confused here, said Columbo. Is it that you don't believe anything or is it that you are not systematic in your beliefs?
Judging by the vehemence of posts, the former seems unlikely. Judging by the elevation of reason as a means to knowledge, so does the latter.
If you don't belief in anything, where do you get your morals from? Are there some principles you adhere to? If so, why?

staple

staple wrote:

I'm slightly confused here, said Columbo. Is it that you don't believe anything or is it that you are not systematic in your beliefs?
Judging by the vehemence of posts, the former seems unlikely. Judging by the elevation of reason as a means to knowledge, so does the latter.
If you don't belief in anything, where do you get your morals from? Are there some principles you adhere to? If so, why?

I think it's more the idea that you can't say there's definitely one common belief among atheists as there would be for religions - there's just the lack of belief in god. Anything else is personal and can't be named as part of "atheism" really.

Dades

staple wrote:

If you don't belief in anything, where do you get your morals from? Are there some principles you adhere to? If so, why?

What does belief have to do with morals? Morals should come from compassion or conscience, not from fear of retribution from a deity.

To say that society cannot survive without morals is true, to say that morals can not exist without belief, is not.

Rev Hellfire

staple wrote:

where do you get your morals from?

From a knowledge of what is right and wrong or to be more accuracy; what is socially accepted as right and wrong.

A belief in something does not require a supernatural element.
For a change we'll use the beasts defination of the word.

staple

The Atheist wrote:

What does belief have to do with morals? Morals should come from compassion or conscience

Can you tell me what compassion and conscience are? Why should morals come from them?
Rev. Hellfire, if you could be invisible would you still obey the law? If not, would there be some other moral imperative?

Rev Hellfire

Almost certainly if I could be invisible I can say chances are I'd break the law if it suited me. But you see that doesnt effect morals, I'd know what I would be doing is wrong. Its just I wouldn't care making me and my actions immoral.

staple

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Almost certainly if I could be invisible I can say chances are I'd break the law if it suited me. But you see that doesnt effect morals, I'd know what I would be doing is wrong. Its just I wouldn't care making me and my actions immoral.

I don't understand why you say it doesn't affect morals. It sounds like you'd do me harm tomorrow if it benefitted you and you could get away with it.

Rev Hellfire

And assuming I would. How does that effect morals?

REDZ

staple wrote:

Can you tell me what compassion and conscience are? Why should morals come from them?
Rev. Hellfire, if you could be invisible would you still obey the law? If not, would there be some other moral imperative?

Compassion
an understanding of the other, empathy, the ability to put yourself in others shoes.
Conscience
how we view ourselves and our actions, gulit, pride etc, perhaps the best candidate for the soul in an athiestic worldview.
ok so i'm not Rev Hellfire but if i was invisible i would obey all the laws i agreed with. a few years ago i spent some time on a small island with no garda's at all, and everybody got on grand, cos everybody knew each other, that sense of community made random acts of crime more difficult to perpetrate, most likley because of compassion and conscience.
Morals come from these because they are a very good internal guide regarding how people want to be treated.
regarding imperatives, Kants old categorical imperative still stands, and is very similar to Jesus "do onto others" imperative.

staple

Rev Hellfire wrote:

And assuming I would. How does that effect morals?

I'd say such a person would be immoral and have to be avoided.

Rev Hellfire

exactly. I totally agree with you.
You don't need any supernatural element to tell you what is right and wrong. And it is from this knowledge that your morals are derived.

staple

REDZ wrote:

Morals come from these because they are a very good internal guide regarding how people want to be treated.
regarding imperatives, Kants old categorical imperative still stands, and is very similar to Jesus "do onto others" imperative.

Aren't these beliefs? Doesn't your morality spring from these beliefs?
How is your conscience formed? I guess from parents etc. telling you what's right and wrong. Why did your parents tell you certain things were right or wrong?
Why do you treat people the way they want to be treated? Why accept the authority of Kant with his categorical imperative?

staple

Rev Hellfire wrote:

exactly. I totally agree with you.
You don't need any supernatural element to tell you what is right and wrong. And it is from this knowledge that your morals are derived.

I'm finding you very hard to understand. By morals I mean basically a sense of right and wrong and acting accordingly: is that your understanding of the word?
Why bring in the supernatural?
Are you saying we all have an innate sense of right and wrong like we all have an innate sense of smell?