Why Is It That Athiests Talk So Much About Religion

philologos

Imposition has to do with law. We've already agreed that secular governance is the most pragmatic way of dealing with government in pluralistic societies.

Whether or not societies are or can be secular is what I'm discussing. I don't think societies actually can be. I do think governance can be to a large degree though.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

Imposition has to do with law. We've already agreed that secular governance is the most pragmatic way of dealing with government in pluralistic societies.

Whether or not societies are or can be secular is what I'm discussing. I don't think societies actually can be. I do think governance can be to a large degree though.

You have already stated that the USA has a secular government. Is there a difference on a societal level between Mississippi and Massachusetts in treatment of religion in the public sphere. Is it not easy to recognize that in Massachusetts religion is freer from social constraints than Mississippi and so could be described as more secular on a societal level.

Galvasean

Dougla2 wrote: »

dude ive got pics of nip slip *pm's*

sink

To put it simply, I want religion to be treated more like it is in Massachusetts and less like it is in Mississippi. I call that secularism on a societal level, or a secular society. You can call it whatever you like.

philologos

The people determine the society. That's the difference. Personally, as a Christian I believe people should be free to influence their society (N.B - distinct from government) as much as they can for Christ. Other groups can argue the same.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

The people determine the society. That's the difference. Personally, as a Christian I believe people should be free to influence their society (N.B - distinct from government) as much as they can for Christ. Other groups can argue the same.

It's a subtle thing. It's separate from the governmental/legal aspect. I want to be able to walk down the street with 'proud to be an atheist' on my t-shirt and not to be scorned, just as you should be free to wear a cross free from public scorn, just as a Muslim should be able to wear a Taqiyah, a Jew should be able to wear a Kippah a Hindu should be able to wear whatever it is that Hindus wear all without reproach.

philologos

Without reproach can only be to a limited degree I think. If people articulate viewpoints people should be 100% welcome to challenge what is expressed in the open, of course in a cordial and friendly manner (on an off-boards level I'm talking about at the minute). I've been on the receiving end of this, and I find it's more positive than not for generating discussion, and of course I've also challenged people on their views.

Indeed, I used to wear a crucifix, I don't really any more, and I had questions on the basis of it. I wouldn't see it as a big deal. When things move from questions to hostility that's when it should be regarded as unacceptable.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

Without reproach can only be to a limited degree I think. If people articulate viewpoints people should be 100% welcome to challenge what is expressed in the open, of course in a cordial and friendly manner (on an off-boards level I'm talking about at the minute). I've been on the receiving end of this, and I find it's more positive than not for generating discussion, and of course I've also challenged people on their views.

Of course one should be able to articulate their viewpoints, but if one doesn't want to engage in such a discussion one shouldn't have to. I have no problem with evangelizing in public but people should be free to ignore it. A polite 'no thanks' is all that should be necessary to be left alone.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

Your definition is more ambiguous. Personally, I would consider the best available evidence to point to Christianity, not to atheism.

Hmm, would that hold up in court?

"Well the DNA and fingerprints place you at the scene of the murder."

"Yes but my evidence shows otherwise."

It's a good thing society and laws are based on ACTUAL evidence isn't it?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

The above would seems to refer to secularism at a government level

Yes, that is what secularism means - the state staying out of religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

rather than a societal level which is what we are trying to distinguish between.

I don't believe that English has a word which refers to the act of keeping religion out of society.

Skepticism or rationalism might be close -- the belief that reason and evidence should be used to come to conclusions -- but that encompasses far more things than just religion and it'll be a cold day in Khartoum before people ditch their religion, astrology, homeopathy etc, etc.

One could perhaps call it "rejection of selfish memes" or, to coin a word, "dememing", and it would have much the same effect upon untenable and irrational belief systems, but have the added advantage that unhelpful things like trade unions, political parties and armies would disappear, along with religions.

Actually, that'd be quite nice. Imagine a world without the exclusivist rantings of trade unions, armies, political parties, religions?

Peace would descend like warm sunshine.

jayzusb.christ

Actually, that'd be quite nice. Imagine a world without the exclusivist rantings of trade unions, armies, political parties, religions?

Peace would descend like warm sunshine.

Anarchy in the R.O.I.! Hmmm, it's a nice idea. At least it would be, but i suspect there'd be too many unfulfilled megalomaniacs who would froth with excitement at the idea of so many welcoming power-vacuums.

edit: However, you are of course envisaging a world where people have let go of selfish memes, so my hypothesis doesn't hold up.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty_T wrote: »

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?*...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.

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.

So do you have statistics or not? As that last reply above was merely personal experience. Either produce the statistics to back up your claim or retract the point. So, I'll ask you again can you quantify how much of proportion of atheists are these "removal of faith from public sphere" kind?

Malty wrote:

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?

So, can you please provide an example of why an argument from a religious text is better than secular one?

Malty wrote:

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.[/U][/I][/B]

Again,
Can you please explain how the "because the holy book says so" is an argument that establishes a common ground? Because, frankly, I think it's awful.

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, MSNBC

My Apologies, on first glance I'd have to say that 50% seems ridiculously high, but hey I'll do more research and get back you. Either way though the stuff I said about Catholicism predicted to become the largest religion is true.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

So do you have statistics or not? As that last reply above was merely personal experience. Either produce the statistics to back up your claim or retract the point. So, I'll ask you again can you quantify how much of proportion of atheists are these "removal of faith from public sphere" kind?

I don't need statistics, I can anecdotally look at the activity of activist groups within society.

Malty_T wrote: »

So, can you please provide an example of why an argument from a religious text is better than secular one?

I'm not arguing for a theocracy. There couldn't be much worse of a distortion of what I was saying.

I believe if everyone were Christian, this would be the only way that this would work. Christianity itself from the New Testament doesn't seem to want to rule, but it wants to inform peoples consciences and to help people live more and more for Jesus. As a societal model, I think the Christian one is excellent, better than secular alternatives. Grassroots Christianity is best.

Malty_T wrote: »

Again,
Can you please explain how the "because the holy book says so" is an argument that establishes a common ground? Because, frankly, I think it's awful.

I believe in freedom of speech. People can say what they wish. Personally as long as the law secures my freedom of belief, and the freedom to live by them that's most of what I would be looking for.

Because the Bible says so isn't the only argument that Christians put across, and often people can explain arguments with Biblical origins in a context that is understandable by non-Christians. I'd encourage this.

Common ground, for me doesn't mean demolishing Christianity's role in public life in general. Standing up for God is more important than common ground which means compromising ones right to profess truth.

As I see it, I support governmental secularism in operation, but I certainly don't support societal secularism.

Malty_T wrote: »

My Apologies, on first glance I'd have to say that 50% seems ridiculously high, but hey I'll do more research and get back you. Either way though the stuff I said about Catholicism predicted to become the largest religion is true.

Indeed, do your research.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I support governmental secularism in operation

Interesting. Does this mean that you no longer believe that schools which receive their funding from the state, but which are controlled by religious organizations, should no longer be allowed to refuse entry to the kids of citizens who hold religious beliefs which are incompatible with those held by the controlling organizations?

philologos

^^ I've explained how this could be compatible in a secular system. I.E - As long as the Government does not prefer any institution above another but bases it solely on demand. I won't be getting into another argument on faith schools, I've done this numerous times before. I don't see the point of rehashing the same opinion again pretty much.

Edit: On refusing entry, I think this should have been gotten rid of years ago.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Y'know, literally every single religious debate I've ever seen in After Hours has you popping up and posting endlessly... I just honestly wonder, do you ever tire of rehashing the same arguments when there's no basis of proof behind your religious beliefs?

Without any disrespect, when I see a religious topic I'm interested until your replies go up, then I just sigh and leave it. I'm not sure if this says more about me than you, but there you go.

ColmDawson

Ah, I think Jakkass is alright!

philologos

Colm, stop scaring me. I'm meant to be the nutball in here :pac:

amacachi

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't need statistics

That's getting bookmarked.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Correction. What you perceive to lack evidence.

Meaningless to me I am afraid. If I ask for evidence and literally none is forthcoming EVER, then I am perfectly entitled to declare that I have been presented with a lack of evidence.

I asked above what is the difference between your evidence devoid idea and that of other people. What is to stop people who think there are alien abductions and immanent invasion from saying EXACTLY what you just did here? After all, it is merely our PRECEIVED lack of evidence that we are referring to is it not?

Yet perceived or not, the fact is that when we ask you, or the alien invasion advocates FOR this data… it is materially absent and is not forthcoming.

Again I have to repeat the same question. How is YOUR idea different from theirs in any way given the total lack of evidence on offer and given you can both equally validly harp on that it is just that people are only "perceiving" a lack of evidence on the matter?

I simply see no difference, nor have you offered one at all either.

Jakkass wrote: »

In many ways AI is good. In many ways AI isn't.

My post had nothing to do with AI. Do not change the subject.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears that nozzferrahtoo actually would like all expression of faith in society to end.

Not what I said at all. I simply said that in our halls of power and policy that the idea of faith in a god should be treated exactly the same as other ideas which are similarly devoid of evidence.

I have not, nor have I indicated, a problem with people in our society expressing their faith all they want. Please refrain from editing what I espouse to make it into what I never said.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can only say that the world would be a darker place if it did.

Opinion and nothing more. I see no reason to think such a claim true.

Galvasean

Of course it would be darker, without the Christians lighting all those candals...

jayzusb.christ

I can only say that the world would be a darker place if it did.

A Dark Age, perhaps? Oh wait, hang on...