Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why Is It That Athiests Talk So Much About Religion
Options
Comments
-
Looks like it's official Atheists and Agnostics do know the most....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20560450900 -
old_aussie wrote: »Looks like it's official Atheists and Agnostics do know the most....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056045090
Meh, I got full marks in that quiz and I'm Christian :pac:0 -
I'm sure there are agnostics and deists that promote aggressive secularism, and no doubt theists too, though maybe not too many of the Christian type given it the Christian churches (in Ireland at least) that they want rid of.Ickle Magoo - You can't be serious that you can't think of any agenda particular to atheists. Aggressive secularism (taking religion out of public life, diminishing religions role in the public square) isn't really argued by any people of faith at all.
Couple that with the fact that many atheists here (myself included) would certainly not class themselves as aggressive secularists, and what are you left with? A failed concept.
Why is it so important to you (and others) to try hammer a square peg into a round hole and label atheism as something it's not, instead of just agreeing that some atheists (i.e. people) have agendas.
Is it just an inherent need to generalise?0 -
I'm not labelling "atheism". There are atheists who don't fall into this category. They tend to be ignored in comparison to that large portion who do. As those who do make the most impact. It's the same with any other demographic. Certainly this would cause me to be skeptical of what people are claiming secularism is rather than what it actually is. It means that I have to withdraw from the bandwagon and determine for myself what I think secularism is, and what impact it should have on society. I simply don't trust the definitions people apply to it anymore. I'm not going to help people find a tool to attack peoples expression of belief, and the role of church in society.
I think in some nations secularism is hugely beneficial. Allowing the churches freedom to operate, and allowing the State to operate independently is what has made church life flourish in the US for example. Wicknight and I were discussing the difference between the UK & Ireland, and the US. The difference is that people in the US are willing to keep finding a belief system that they find reasonable. Irish and British people tend to become disillusioned by one faith and never return. This is largely because of the church culture in the US, and church-state separation. From what I've seen in the UK from what churches (mainly reformed Anglican / Baptist) I went to (in Cambridge) when I was there last summer, this seems to be happening in the UK which is encouraging.
When "secularism" becomes a means to inhibit religious freedom, it isn't secularism any more. That's my gripe with France and banning religious symbols. The State has no business in how people choose to express their faith at any stage provided that it does not cause considerable harm to others around them. sponsoredwalk talked about freedom. I agree. If secularism is going to play any role in society, it should be in securing freedom rather than diminishing it.0 -
I'm finding it hard to reconcile that with this:I'm not labelling "atheism".
I only responded because you disagreed with Malty's simple statement!
Admittedly. I can't agree I'm afraid. I believe that there are groups of atheists and agnostics with an agenda, if I for example include the Humanist Association of Ireland, and Atheist Ireland.Groups of like minded peoples tend to have an agenda, but as you openly admitted that atheism itself hasn't an agenda so I'll stop there.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not labelling "atheism". There are atheists who don't fall into this category. They tend to be ignored in comparison to that large portion who do. As those who do make the most impact. It's the same with any other demographic. Certainly this would cause me to be skeptical of what people are claiming secularism is rather than what it actually is. It means that I have to withdraw from the bandwagon and determine for myself what I think secularism is, and what impact it should have on society. I simply don't trust the definitions people apply to it anymore. I'm not going to help people find a tool to attack peoples expression of belief, and the role of church in society.
I think in some nations secularism is hugely beneficial. Allowing the churches freedom to operate, and allowing the State to operate independently is what has made church life flourish in the US for example. Wicknight and I were discussing the difference between the UK & Ireland, and the US. The difference is that people in the US are willing to keep finding a belief system that they find reasonable. Irish and British people tend to become disillusioned by one faith and never return. This is largely because of the church culture in the US, and church-state separation. From what I've seen in the UK from what churches (mainly reformed Anglican / Baptist) I went to (in Cambridge) when I was there last summer, this seems to be happening in the UK which is encouraging.
When "secularism" becomes a means to inhibit religious freedom, it isn't secularism any more. That's my gripe with France and banning religious symbols. The State has no business in how people choose to express their faith at any stage provided that it does not cause considerable harm to others around them. sponsoredwalk talked about freedom. I agree. If secularism is going to play any role in society, it should be in securing freedom rather than diminishing it.
You know I could have written that myself and I'm an atheist. I'm against government impinging upon personal freedom and choice no matter what area, be that religion, sex or even drugs. Yet you're willing to stereotype atheism in such away that completely misrepresents me and many many others.0 -
As I said to Dades, it's not about generalising atheism or stereotyping. It's about recognising that there is a large enough number of atheists who do argue for such things. I believe that this should be recognised as it is likely to affect the way that I and others live if listened to on a larger scale.0
-
I think Atheist Ireland are partly to blame for this.
You can't just have an opinion and be an atheist anymore - you have to be pursuing an imagined atheist agenda.0 -
As I said to Dades, it's not about generalising atheism or stereotyping. It's about recognising that there is a large enough number of atheists who do argue for such things. I believe that this should be recognised as it is likely to affect the way that I and others live if listened to on a larger scale.
And there are a large enough number of theists who argue for such things such as those in the French government who introduced the ban. It wasn't even introduced by atheists yet you want to label it as an atheist agenda.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
You can't just have an opinion and be an atheist anymore - you have to be pursuing an imagined atheist agenda.
Also when did "having an agenda" mean you were lying or ignoring evidence or being irrational?
I have an "agenda" to promote secularism (as I see it which is different to the French and to other atheists on this forum). Is that a bad thing? Dismissing someone as agenda driven seems to be just a way to ignore their arguments.
The only time I think it is bad is when people pretend they don't have an agenda when they clearly do, such as Creationists.0 -
-
Not at all. One can recognise that not all of group X participate in Y, but that a large portion of X do. This is different than generalising.
Generalising would be the logic that because a large group or even any sized group of X do Y, that it must follow that all of group X do Y.
I don't reason this way at all. I recognise in this case that not all of X do Y, but rather that a sizeable portion of X do Y.
Hopefully that will outline the reasoning.0 -
Any ideas on religion's role in public life?0
-
Not at all. One can recognise that not all of group X participate in Y, but that a large portion of X do. This is different than generalising.
Generalising would be the logic that because a large group or even any sized group of X do Y, that it must follow that all of group X do Y.
I don't reason this way at all. I recognise in this case that not all of X do Y, but rather that a sizeable portion of X do Y.
Hopefully that will outline the reasoning.
It's more like a sizable portion of A do Y, as do a portion of B do Y, as do a portion C and then labeling any occurrence of Y as an action attributable to A, ignoring both the portion of A that don't do Y and the portions of B and C that do do Y. It's rather disingenuous.0 -
Not at all. One can recognise that not all of group X participate in Y, but that a large portion of X do. This is different than generalising.
Generalising would be the logic that because a large group or even any sized group of X do Y, that it must follow that all of group X do Y.
I don't reason this way at all. I recognise in this case that not all of X do Y, but rather that a sizeable portion of X do Y.
Do you actually have evidence for this? That a sizeable portion of atheists support this aggressive secularisation? Because the evidence suggests otherwise. I think everyone here who has already responded has said they dont support the idea of a government stepping into peoples lives and telling them what to believe and Sarkozy, who brought in the government regulations on religious attire in France, is a christian.
It seems to me like you are exaggerating some things in order to support your generalisation.0 -
In fairness to Jakkass saying that there is a movement within atheists that propose "aggressive secularism" is not the same as saying atheists propose aggressive secularism, any more than saying that there is a movement within Christianity where a lot of people are Creationists is the same as saying Christians are creationists.
Not saying I agree with him, just that there seems to be a bit of confusion as to what he is saying.
I think though while aggressive secularism as he calls it is no doubt real I don't think it is nearly as bad, or atheist, as he is making out (the French movement seems to be coming from the right wing, traditionally Christian)0 -
Not at all. One can recognise that not all of group X participate in Y, but that a large portion of X do. This is different than generalising.
Generalising would be the logic that because a large group or even any sized group of X do Y, that it must follow that all of group X do Y.
I don't reason this way at all. I recognise in this case that not all of X do Y, but rather that a sizeable portion of X do Y.
Hopefully that will outline the reasoning.
Sizeable portion? Large group? Compared with the global number of atheists, you mean? Can I have some stats please because you sound suspiciously like you are pulling numbers out your hat in a desperate attempt to bolster your point.
I don't know how many atheists are out there far less how many share a particular goal for all atheists. You may have a secular agenda, an anti-theist agenda, or whatever - but you are still failing to put forward anything that could be viewed as an atheist agenda. You have more of an agenda to class all atheists as aggressive secularists, frankly.0 -
In fairness to Jakkass saying that there is a movement within atheists that propose "aggressive secularism" is not the same as saying atheists propose aggressive secularism, any more than saying that there is a movement within Christianity where a lot of people are Creationists is the same as saying Christians are creationists.
Not saying I agree with him, just that there seems to be a bit of confusion as to what he is saying.
I think though while aggressive secularism as he calls it is no doubt real I don't think it is nearly as bad, or atheist, as he is making out (the French movement seems to be coming from the right wing, traditionally Christian)
Jackass cannot say there is a movement amongst atheists that proposes aggressive secularism, portray aggressive secularism as being atheist and then claim he isn't generalising. If the generalisation isn't that aggressive secularism is supported by all atheists, then its that its only supported by atheists.0 -
sponsoredwalk: Well done for misinterpreting my entire post! I'll keep it short.
Please read my posts properly before responding to them! :pac:
I guess I misinterpreted you when you said:Aggressive secularism (taking religion out of public life, diminishing religions role in the public square) isn't really argued by any people of faith at all.Secularism for me really ends in removing excessive influence of religious institutions from legislation.
It does not mean removing the role of religion in public life, or in society. This is what I would see as aggressive secularism rather than just secularism.
Because we seem to have diferent ideas on what secularism actuallly means.
This definition doesn't really square with what you've said and that's whySecularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist
separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.
In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule
and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of
religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief.
(See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it
refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political
ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious
influence.[1] (See also public reason.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
I said secularism never really began for you. I guess where we go from
here rests on how you answer the following questions:ColmDawson wrote: »What is the role of religion in public life?ColmDawson wrote: »I'm inquiring more as to what religion's role in public life is, rather than what you don't want to see happen to it.ColmDawson wrote: »Any ideas on religion's role in public life?No we don't. We have a reasonable law to protect the rights of the unborn in the same way as our rights are protected. Again, this is another thread. One can be pro-life and not a believer in any form of religion.
But the predominant religions explicitly condemns such an act. This goes
right in the face of secular principles - letting religious beliefs contribute
to a discussion on which they should have no part. I understand one can
be pro-choice and atheist but that has nothing to do with what I've said,
I understand that laws are in place but if you think the church has nothing
to do with that I'd be shocked.Aggressive secularism (taking religion out of public life, diminishing religions role in the public square) isn't really argued by any people of faith at all.
Are you trying to insinuate it's an atheist conspiracy? I'd love to hear how
you square that insinuation with the burka debacle in France, that was
hardly an atheist ploy. Of course, in this situation they were removing
a different religion from public life but it still applies to what you've said.
Finally, I think you know what I said about the U.S., I said christian
fundamentalism rose to prominence in the 80's but that country was
hardly founded on christian values, as wicknight said, it was founded on,
among other things, freedom of religion - especially for English people who
had to deal with kings/queens flipping between aspects of christianity
every generation or so :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
..
Jakkass,
If you think it is a perfectly valid argument that we must not open the pubs on Good Friday because Catholicism says so, that's fine. I however, think it is a rubbish one and to be perfectly honest I don’t think many non Catholics (and even many Catholics) will follow such reasoning either. I don't think you do either, I would wager that you might be tempted to argue that given how this country sees alcohol as an idol closing the pubs for one Friday isn't really a bad idea. That was of course a secular argument! It was much fairer than simply saying because the catechism says so and was on a common ground with people of every faith and no faith. Can you give one single example of where an argument for state politics invoking the bible (or any holy text for that matter) is better than a secular one based on a common ground between all religions and those of none at all?
You clearly misunderstood me when you expressed the notion that I was saying people can't have an opinion or say what they wish. So for the third time on this thread I shall reiterate that folks are perfectly entitled to form an opinion. What they should not do is argue an opinion in state legislation on the basis of a religion (or lack of it). For example, suppose there exists a secular state with a vastly overwhelming atheist majority. Even though atheists are the overwhelming majority it would not be fair for them to argue banning theistic religious services on the grounds that God is not real.At the very least, they would be expected to make a rational argument that excluded their personal religious beliefs as a means for justifying their abolishment of religion. Which, quite simply, is never going to happen.
Now I know you are going to be tempted to reply that the vocal atheists out there do seem to want to abolish religion. That may be so, but isn't the goal of nearly every religion alive today to convert everyone to their religion? I’m pretty confident that one of the central tenets of your faith is to spread the message of Jesus Christ and, in the ideal world, everyone would be Christians. So, let's be practical here, religion is never going away, nor is atheism, both of them seem to be conditions of the human mind that just emerge. Why can't we just make a compromise and allow freedom of beliefs, freedom of religion, and just ensure that our state doesn't endorse, or favour, any religious or anti-religious ideology over anything else? Secularism is the middle ground that allows all groups to discuss their viewpoints. I’m not saying it will be a peaceful middle ground there will undoubtedly be plenty of conflict, just, hopefully, non violent ones.
You mentioned that “Barring views from public speech is an awful way of dealing with issues or even for establishing common ground.” and I agree fully with you. But, you are failing to explain how a common ground is achievable if we allow arguments to be made by simply invoking the bible. You have yet to explain how the viewpoint “because the bible says so” is not an awful way of dealing with issues or establishing a common ground.
Finally, you made this extraordinary claim from personal experience .As I find that atheists tend to define "secularism" as removing all faith from the public square rather than merely separating churches from influencing Government legislation. I would say that I am skeptical of what people mean by "secularism" now.
Well, now I’m going to call you out on this one. Who? Which atheists? Are they actually a significant enough proportion for you to make the generalisation?* Nearly every single post on the topic in various threads here has been atheists mentioning how they are all for freedom of beliefs. Yet you are arguing that atheists want to use secularism as means to completely abolish religion? In fact, there have even been a number of posts made by non believers who cannot fathom why non believers would want to discuss or complain about religion. So, either you know something here about atheists that they don’t know about themselves (always a possibility) or you a making a judgement on the basis of an irrational fear that is perpetuated to theistic audience so vociferously by writers such as Dave Quinn. Secularism may compromise the role of faith in the public, I won't deny that, but that's only because faith has always enjoyed the upper hand of the uneven playing field. Secularism is trying to bring faith, lack of it and everything else under the rising sun that constitutes an ideology or belief down to a level playing field or common ground so that policies may be discuss in a manner that everyone can understand and relate to. Rest assured though, the "freedom of religion and conscience" will be defended. You only need to read my posts here on my opinions regarding the so called ground zero mosque to see that I am fully committed to the idea of freedom of religion and conscience and, of course, that freedom speech and open criticism. I'd wager the vast majority of atheists on this forum are too.
One final note: gambling is bad.
*@Rah! If you are lurking out there. Does the New Age Generalisation mentioned in some thread a while back have the attitude of getting rid of religion completely, or does it allow for folks to believe what they want but have church and state are separated?0 -
Allowing the churches freedom to operate, and allowing the State to operate independently is what has made church life flourish in the US for example. Wicknight and I were discussing the difference between the UK & Ireland, and the US. The difference is that people in the US are willing to keep finding a belief system that they find reasonable. Irish and British people tend to become disillusioned by one faith and never return. This is largely because of the church culture in the US, and church-state separation. From what I've seen in the UK from what churches (mainly reformed Anglican / Baptist) I went to (in Cambridge) when I was there last summer, this seems to be happening in the UK which is encouraging.
You made two significant errors here. Firstly the US population compared to the british and Irish one combined is HUGE. The US also has a huge cultural variety and is recognised as being more tolerant. (That may come as shock to many people here, but the argument behind such reasoning is worthy of another thread. In brief, the evidence is based on surveys done of immigrants living in the US compared to countries within the EU. In Europe, only about 10% of immigrants finally felt comfortable and accepted by society after 10 years living there. In the US that number was almost 70%.) So, you are actually comparing apples and oranges.
Second (as mentioned in my previous parenthesis) the US is a country with a huge number of annual immigrants. The two main drivers of growth of a religion in the US are the fertility of that religion and the number of immigrants who come into the US with that religion. In some cases the immigrant number is so large that it masks the actual dwindling number of members in certain faiths. For example, even though there is even a net defection year on year from Catholicism to a protestant faith, the numbers of Catholics in the US are projected to rise year on year so much so that by the 2040's Catholicism should be the majority faith in the US. Few people in the US are switching faiths, they're just being masked by folks from abroad who are adding to those faiths.0 -
sponsoredwalk: I don't see how the definition doesn't square with my view that governments should not be directly influenced by religious institutions, but that these institutions can actually say whatever they wish.
There is a difference between saying that religious institutions are free to influence society, and saying that religious institutions are free to directly decide Government affairs.
I don't believe the latter, but I do believe the former. If you believe that religious institutions aren't free to influence people in society then this is more than mere secularism.
I guess the distinction could be made in saying that although a Government may operate on a secular basis, it does not follow that a society as a whole must operate on such a basis. This seems to be my problem with aggressive secularism, they want to remove religion and its role in society rather than keep a fair distance between religion and Government.
My reasoning on secularism closely follows Kevin Rudd former PM of Australia:
I.E - All philosophical traditions welcome to contribute, none directly deciding on policy.A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.0 -
Now I know you are going to be tempted to reply that the vocal atheists out there do seem to want to abolish religion. That may be so, but isn't the goal of nearly every religion alive today to convert everyone to their religion? I’m pretty confident that one of the central tenets of your faith is to spread the message of Jesus Christ and, in the ideal world, everyone would be Christians. So, let's be practical here, religion is never going away, nor is atheism, both of them seem to be conditions of the human mind that just emerge. Why can't we just make a compromise and allow freedom of beliefs, freedom of religion, and just ensure that our state doesn't endorse, or favour, any religious or anti-religious ideology over anything else? Secularism is the middle ground that allows all groups to discuss their viewpoints. I’m not saying it will be a peaceful middle ground there will undoubtedly be plenty of conflict, just, hopefully, non violent ones.
In short. I find that a lot of efforts towards secularism that are argued by many atheists don't seek compromise at all. They seek the absolute removal of faith from the public sphere. I don't feel that this is fair.
I do feel that Kevin Rudd's solution is entirely fair however. Allow people to contribute as much or as little as they want. The Government should not be unduly influenced by any one opinion, but consider them together in making what is the most reasonable decision.Few people in the US are switching faiths, they're just being masked by folks from abroad who are adding to those faiths.
This is wrong. On average nearly 50% of American adults change their denomination or religious belief in their lifetime according to the Pew Forum.
Coverage from Boston Globe, MSNBC0 -
I wonder do they change because they've come to the conclusion that the evidence for their new religion/deity far outweighs that for their old one, or that their new religion sits better with their personal morality, lifestyle choices, peer group, etc. (Just musing...)On average nearly 50% of American adults change their denomination or religious belief in their lifetime according to the Pew Forum.0 -
So, what is religion's role in public life?0
-
In short. I find that a lot of efforts towards secularism that are argued by many atheists don't seek compromise at all. They seek the absolute removal of faith from the public sphere. I don't feel that this is fair.
Almost right, but could do with tweaking.
What we generally want is something else, but that also incorporates religion. We want the removal for our discourse ANYTHING that has no evidence supporting or substantiating it in any way.
The analogy I always use is that of the immanent alien invasion of our planet and the abduction for purposes of testing and espionage our citizens.
There is no evidence such a thing is occurring, yet people believe it anyway. There is also no evidence it is NOT occurring either.
So where does it figure in our conversations in our halls of power around education, politics, finance, law and so on? Nowhere, that is where. It is materially absent from our discourse entirely.
GIVEN therefore that the idea that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe is also similarly devoid of evidence either way, we merely wish it to be treated the same way.
Now I understand people such as yourself feel victimised and that secularists are out to get you specifically, but essentially all we are asking is for equal treatment of your idea compared to any other
What is so wrong about that? What makes you think your particular evidence devoid idea deserves special treatment over all the other evidence devoid ideas exactly? Why do you get preferential treatment? What is not "fair" here to use your word from above?0 -
I wonder do they change because they've come to the conclusion that the evidence for their new religion/deity far outweighs that for their old one, or that their new religion sits better with their personal morality, lifestyle choices, peer group, etc. (Just musing...)
I'd say spouses are a big factor. If Liz Hurley wanted to get down with me but said she'd only do it if we were married and I converted to 'insert religion here' watch me throw my atheism aside!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
I'd say spouses are a big factor. If Liz Hurley wanted to get down with me but said she'd only do it if we were married and I converted to 'insert religion here' watch me throw my atheism aside!
Even if that religion required you to accept that Triceratops was a form of primitive mammal? :eek:0
Advertisement