Leaving the church aside...

wylo

Would you care if people beleived in God?
Supposing the Catholic Church or whatever church never existed, and it was just people simply believing in an almighty being, would you care? Would you take the time to argue with someone who beleived in God?

UDP

If the Religious beliefs did not have a say in my life or organisations/services in Ireland or Europe etc then I would have no issue. I would debate the belief in dieties etc in a philosophical way but I would be happy to leave someone with their beliefs since I think its a interesting subject.

whatdoicare

Noone (by that I mean me) would care who believed in what so long as it didn't interfere with anyone else (ie: me)
At the moment other peoples (ie:family and friends) beliefs via the catholic church interfere with my life in a major way and that's what bothers me.
Generally, those who make use of the church (ie: the people in my life) find it very hard to understand that I want no part in it and insist on forcing it on me on a daily basis and quite often make decisions/assumptions for me based on their following of said church.
This, as you can imagine makes life quite awkward and causes many arguments which I would prefer to avoid.

I would like to believe that there being no church would put an end to it...but I doubt it.

Roger Hassenforder

take witches and wicca, as far as i know, they arent doing me any harm dancing around in bare feet with flowers in their hair making potions. they dont bother me, so i'm not bothered by them. Ditto with kids that believe in santa.
but if they attempt to influence how i should live, how my kids are educated, the lows i must abide by or risk sanction then we have a problem.

ISAW

Based on the responses let me put the original question another way.
It seems people whant to go about their individual lives and want others be let go about their individual lives without interference from anyone else as long as the actions of others or their own actions don't cause any harm.

1. How do we assess "harm"?
2. Are you saying "there should be no laws" i.e. anarchy. If not what is the difference between absence of laws and " being let go about my own business without interference"
I mean for example you might well think parking on a double yellow line is doing no harm at all or drinking a few pints before driving is okay but society believes these things are illegal and you should be regulated for doing them, even if you don't actually do any harm.

People make such laws based on personal values which in turn are based on natural law or religious belief. How can you then separate "what people want~ the right thing " from "my own business"?

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

It seems people whant to go about their individual lives and want others be let go about their individual lives without interference from anyone else as long as the actions of others or their own actions don't cause any harm.

1. How do we assess "harm"?
2. Are you saying "there should be no laws" i.e. anarchy. If not what is the difference between absence of laws and " being let go about my own business without interference"
I mean for example you might well think parking on a double yellow line is doing no harm at all or drinking a few pints before driving is okay but society believes these things are illegal and you should be regulated for doing them, even if you don't actually do any harm.

People make such laws based on personal values which in turn are based on natural law or religious belief. How can you then separate "what people want~ the right thing " from "my own business"?

How did you get that from what other people have posted?

UDP

ISAW wrote: »

I mean for example you might well think parking on a double yellow line is doing no harm at all or drinking a few pints before driving is okay but society believes these things are illegal and you should be regulated for doing them, even if you don't actually do any harm.

But they do harm and it is easy to quantify the harm they do based on sciencific evidence. We have parking regulations in place to improve the flow of traffic and drinking before driving increases the risk of being involved in a collision. I dont want anything interfering with me that is based on religious belief.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

2. Are you saying "there should be no laws" i.e. anarchy.

ISAW - consider this an early warning.

If you continue creating straw-men like the above in this thread I will remove you from it. I won't sit by and watch this thread degenerate into an exercise in debating spurious points that were never made.

Shenshen

wylo wrote: »

Would you care if people beleived in God?
Supposing the Catholic Church or whatever church never existed, and it was just people simply believing in an almighty being, would you care? Would you take the time to argue with someone who beleived in God?

I don't, even if you don't leave the church aside.
I honestly couldn't care less what other people believe in.

My problems usually arise when other people want me to behave a certain way because of what THEY believe. That's when I start getting defensive, much like most people would I'd imagine.

I might have a chat with people who do believe, more for information's sake and out of curiosity than anything else. It may or may not turn agrumental, that would probably depend on the person I'm talking to and the topic.

Shenshen

ISAW wrote: »

Based on the responses let me put the original question another way.
It seems people whant to go about their individual lives and want others be let go about their individual lives without interference from anyone else as long as the actions of others or their own actions don't cause any harm.

1. How do we assess "harm"?
2. Are you saying "there should be no laws" i.e. anarchy. If not what is the difference between absence of laws and " being let go about my own business without interference"
I mean for example you might well think parking on a double yellow line is doing no harm at all or drinking a few pints before driving is okay but society believes these things are illegal and you should be regulated for doing them, even if you don't actually do any harm.

People make such laws based on personal values which in turn are based on natural law or religious belief. How can you then separate "what people want~ the right thing " from "my own business"?

Do we really need laws to prevent one group of people from harassing another?
That is very sad indeed...

I should think that existing laws are sufficient, as is their definition of "harm". The only thing I might want changed is the way they are applied differently in a religious setting... It should be the same law for all.

Galvasean

UDP wrote: »

If the Religious beliefs did not have a say in my life or organisations/services in Ireland or Europe etc then I would have no issue. I would debate the belief in dieties etc in a philosophical way but I would be happy to leave someone with their beliefs since I think its a interesting subject.

I love it when the first reply in a thread sums up my opinion perfectly

wylo

Fair enough, I guess that answers my question , was just curious tbh.

Just one other question...

For those who were baptized, would you prefer not have been baptized? Or do you give a crap?

(im honestly just curious here as to what the general consensus of non believers are)

robindch

wylo wrote: »

would you prefer not have been baptized? Or do you give a crap?

I was a week old, so frankly, I didn't give a crap at the time.

While I'm happy that my parents + the rest of the crowd probably had a good time and felt better about it all, I'm pissed off that the church pretended to acquire ownership of me when I was too young to understand what it was all about. And now that I wish to dissociate myself from it, I'm unhappy that the church refuses to let go.

Still, I'm hoping to be down the country next week and I'm dropping by the place where all this happened to see whether the church is willing to accept that I wish to have nothing to do with it.

Knasher

wylo wrote: »

For those who were baptized, would you prefer not have been baptized? Or do you give a crap?

The fact that I was baptised isn't something that really bothers me, as in the ceremony itself, what does worry me slightly though is the potential for my name on a register somewhere to be used to help justify viewpoints I no longer hold.

If I could change one thing about my upbringing though (and assuming I was young enough to avail of this option), it would be to attend schools that were less interested in indoctranating me into the catholic faith. Thinking back it surprises me how much time was wasted being devoted to that in primary school.

Shenshen

wylo wrote: »

Fair enough, I guess that answers my question , was just curious tbh.

Just one other question...

For those who were baptized, would you prefer not have been baptized? Or do you give a crap?

(im honestly just curious here as to what the general consensus of non believers are)

Personally, I couldn't care less.
But I sincerely dislike my baptism being regarded by the church as membership, and the church's claiming legitimacy by numbers based those memberships of people who never had a say in the matter.
It's dishonest and bordering on fraud.

Galvasean

wylo wrote: »

For those who were baptized, would you prefer not have been baptized? Or do you give a crap?

I'm going to echo what has already been said in that I would have preferred not to have been baptized since the RCC still counts me among it's numbers for statistical (and indeed political lobbying) purposes and there is really nothing I can do about that.

wylo

ah right, yea, fair enough, im with you lot so, to an extent.

I dont believe in God,

But I REALLY dont care that I was baptized, its a bit of water over my head, means nothing, church can claim what they want , it doesnt affect me. If anything it helped my youth a little, you know, confirmation money and what not.

But really, I dont care either way.

I used be a bit more extreme, really wanted nothing to do with the church, then I realised ,by doing that , im giving it respect. I prefer to take the line "ignore it and itll go away".
I also started having second thoughts, my Aunt is a Nun who has helped many people in Zimbabwe with church money.
And my Dad runs a charity where half their money comes from the church.

Not defending it really, just pointing out what happened that made me think slightly differently (only very slightly mind you)

ShooterSF

One truely hopes charity is an ingrained part of humanity though rather than a by product of religion, just so one could still have some respect for our species.

ISAW

Barrington wrote: »

How did you get that from what other people have posted?

See post 3 above where the poster says

1: Noone (by that I mean me) would care who believed in what so long as it didn't interfere with anyone else (ie: me)
2: At the moment other peoples (ie:family and friends) beliefs via the catholic church interfere with my life in a major way and that's what bothers me.
3: Generally, those who make use of the church (ie: the people in my life) find it very hard to understand that I want no part in it and insist on forcing it on me on a daily basis and quite often make decisions/assumptions for me based on their following of said church.

The claim in 1 is about the individual wanting to do as they liked as long as it didn't interfere with others.

The point made in 2 is that "church going people" i.e. religious believers happen to make laws which interfere with individuals who don't believe in the same values as the church goers.

Now either we make it all up as we go along and have anarchy or we respect the law of the land as made by the people

The law of the land as made by the people isn't made to placate the individual whim of people who " want no part in it" and view the opinions of these religious people "insisting on forcing it on me on a daily basis and quite often make decisions/assumptions for me based on their following of said church"

Yes people make laws and vote for laws based on their religious belief and the values they the religion imparts on them.

either you don't accept this and you option is to suggest we ignore the law altogether and should have anarchy or you respect the law which is made by people based on their religious views. Well either that or you wait (possibly forever given the low single digit percentage of those who are anti church and fundamentalist atheist until people who want to declare they are not influenced in any way by God or god(s) or spiritual metaphysical elements or you accept the system we have i.e. that people make laws about drink driving, public morality, speeding or whatever based on their adherence to a belief in something above them and not a subjective belief in "Me".

That is how I get from people suggesting that religious adherents making the laws based on what they view as an informed conscience and leaving religion aside and a "there is no God" society and there options for making rules or abandoning rules altogether i.e anarchy.

ISAW

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm going to echo what has already been said in that I would have preferred not to have been baptized since the RCC still counts me among it's numbers for statistical (and indeed political lobbying) purposes and there is really nothing I can do about that.

The thread on this is locked but as I have atated I dont agree with this point.
We know one diocese Dublin uses the CSO figures since it says so.
http://www.technomancy.org/catholic-defection/

It may be of interest for you to note that the Archdiocese does not make use of baptismal registers for calculating the Catholic population of the Archdiocese of Dublin. It relies solely on the data from the Central Statistics Office, obtained through teh census, by which citzens themselves choose to record, or not, their religious affiliation.

We don't know if this applies for the entire world but a single counter example is all that is necessary to logically disprove the suggestion that number of adherents is only done as a result of counting baptismal records. It certainly in Ireland applies to about a third of all the Catholics in the republic.

Doctor DooM

ShooterSF wrote: »

One truely hopes charity is an ingrained part of humanity though rather than a by product of religion, just so one could still have some respect for our species.

Doctors without Borders is one such example. I hope you have some respect restored

ISAW

UDP wrote: »

But they do harm and it is easy to quantify the harm they do based on sciencific evidence. We have parking regulations in place to improve the flow of traffic and drinking before driving increases the risk of being involved in a collision. I don't want anything interfering with me that is based on religious belief.

And we have statistics which show that societies which actively decided to concentrate on removing religion and having "there is no god" as a central part of their philosophy left hundreds of millions of dead bodies in their wake and little else of merit whereas religions of all hues which it has to be admitted did lead to deaths in no way got anywhere near the scale of the atheistic body count and even in some of the worst human sacrifice religions e.g. Aztecs, Incas they built whole civilizations.

If a religion is built on a rule of "thou shalt not murder" then what gives you the right to ignore murder laws brought in because of that religion having an influence of society?

seamus

ISAW wrote: »

either you don't accept this and you option is to suggest we ignore the law altogether and should have anarchy or you respect the law which is made by people based on their religious views.

While I understand where you're coming from, the vast majority of people are able to separate, "I think X because that's how I feel" from, "I think X because my religion says so".

Some people can't, but most people can.

Or to put it more simply, no law should ever be enacted on the basis of "my religion says so". And most religious people would agree with this too. If there is some kind of sound basis or other decent argument for it, great. But if the purpose of the law is soley to placate or enforce a particular religious point of view, then it's a case of the majority enforcing their will unfairly on the minority.

The ban on alcohol sales on Good Friday is an example of such a law.

ISAW

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Doctors without Borders is one such example. I hope you have some respect restored

The founder of which, Kouchner, had a Jewish father and a Protestant mother, and worked closely with the Shia cleric Imam Musa al-Sadr?

UDP

ISAW wrote: »

And we have statistics which show that societies which actively decided to concentrate on removing religion and having "there is no god" as a central part of their philosophy left hundreds of millions of dead bodies in their wake and little else of merit whereas religions of all hues which it has to be admitted did lead to deaths in no way got anywhere near the scale of the atheistic body count and even in some of the worst human sacrifice religions e.g. Aztecs, Incas they built whole civilizations.

No that is a fallacy. They wanted to replace the deity in the sky with a deity on the ground i.e. a dictatorship. That has nothing to do with secularism.

ISAW wrote: »

If a religion is built on a rule of "thou shalt not murder" then what gives you the right to ignore murder laws brought in because of that religion having an influence of society?

But that is rubbish since if we look at the many "christian" countries and compare the murder, crime, std etc rates to the less religious countries we see that the christian countries fair out worse. Some reading.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

And we have statistics which show that societies which actively decided to concentrate on removing religion and having "there is no god" as a central part of their philosophy left hundreds of millions of dead bodies in their wake...

"Societies" that decided?

Congratulations. In one word you've completely misrepresented the actual political background of the regimes people such as yourself regularly trot out as an example of godlessness.

Are you ever going to understand the difference between a secular society, like Sweden, for example, or a 20th century totalitarian regime run by a dictator set on removing any threat to his authority?

ISAW

seamus wrote: »

While I understand where you're coming from, the vast majority of people are able to separate, "I think X because that's how I feel" from, "I think X because my religion says so".

Particularly as an anti authoritarian I agree.

Some people can't, but most people can.

And even better. some people look at the reasonableness of the argument and nature around them and see it as a convincing argument. From where do you get your own values? Are they derived mathematically from set theory? Or do you actually turn to a tried and tested and well studied body of values? the alternative as I have pointed out is to destroy the existing set and start again. This was tried by atheistic regimes and all of them failed to produce any brave new world.

Or to put it more simply, no law should ever be enacted on the basis of "my religion says so".

Including the statement you just made that "no law should ever be enacted on the basis of 'my religion says so' "?

And most religious people would agree with this too.

All reasonable religious people would I hope.

If there is some kind of sound basis or other decent argument for it, great. But if the purpose of the law is solely to placate or enforce a particular religious point of view, then it's a case of the majority enforcing their will unfairly on the minority.

Law doesn't really matter to moral people. Doing the right thing is what matters. To then sin existed before any law. People were doing right and wrong before any rules were written about it. Which is the kernel of the original posters issue and into which direction I was trying to nudge the discussion.

The ban on alcohol sales on Good Friday is an example of such a law.

So take this to extreme to the alcoholic minority and pubs and off licenses should be allowed open at any time whatsoever. One does not have to be religious to appreciate the idea that shop[s should close on a Sunday as they do in France for example. and opne can claim the reason Ireland has such unnecessary "open all hours" policies is because of our worship of the false god of the material.

swampgas

wylo wrote: »

Would you care if people beleived in God?
Supposing the Catholic Church or whatever church never existed, and it was just people simply believing in an almighty being, would you care? Would you take the time to argue with someone who beleived in God?

I would still prefer that an irrational belief in the paranormal was discouraged - after all, if you accept that there can be an almighty being it implies some sort of faith, without evidence.

I would also prefer to discourage credence in homeopathy, horoscopes, ghosts, and all the other irrational mumbo-jumbo that is out there.

So, even ithe church didn't exist, and people were only believing in some vague almighty being, I would still be inclined to want to argue with them about it as it simply isn't rational (IMO). I do like to argue though!

UDP

ISAW wrote: »

atheistic regimes

Can you clarify this term please?

I assume you are talking about countries that expressly forbid the practice of religion and not secular countries? Right?

Doctor DooM

ISAW wrote: »

The founder of which, Kouchner, had a Jewish father and a Protestant mother, and worked closely with the Shia cleric Imam Musa al-Sadr?

Yeaaaah, my parents are religious too, I have religious colleages also, and?

Once again ISAW, you are misinterpreting what a true secularist is. They get on with everyone equally.

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

"Societies" that decided?

Congratulations. In one word you've completely misrepresented the actual political background of the regimes people such as yourself regularly trot out as an example of godlessness.

Are you ever going to understand the difference between a secular society, like Sweden, for example,

This would be the same Sweden which had an established state church like all the other so called "atheist" ( but not really) Nordic countries which in fact have large numbers of hard line believers?

or a 20th century totalitarian regime run by a dictator set on removing any threat to his authority?

[/quote]

Atheistic regime not just run by one person but by a whole cadre of those who adhered to an atheistic creed. Just like you accuse the religion of doing. except in the case of religion there was not hundreds of millions of dead.

Marxist Leninist philosophy had "there is no God" as a central belief. It was in essence atheistic and resulted in piles of bodies.
Castro is a communist and a dictator but Cuba isn't atheistic and allows the Church and does not have piles of dead bodies does it?

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

See post 3 above where the poster says

The claim in 1 is about the individual wanting to do as they liked as long as it didn't interfere with others.

The point made in 2 is that "church going people" i.e. religious believers happen to make laws which interfere with individuals who don't believe in the same values as the church goers.

Now either we make it all up as we go along and have anarchy or we respect the law of the land as made by the people

No one suggested ignoring the law, they were making a point that some laws essentially impose religious rules/restrictions on people that aren't members of the religion.

The law of the land as made by the people isn't made to placate the individual whim of people who " want no part in it" and view the opinions of these religious people "insisting on forcing it on me on a daily basis and quite often make decisions/assumptions for me based on their following of said church"

who has suggested that it is?

Yes people make laws and vote for laws based on their religious belief and the values they the religion imparts on them.

And people who aren't members of the majority religion are also entitled to complain or work to change that if they wish.

either you don't accept this and you option is to suggest we ignore the law altogether and should have anarchy or you respect the law which is made by people based on their religious views. Well either that or you wait
(possibly forever given the low single digit percentage of those who are anti church and fundamentalist atheist until people who want to declare they are not influenced in any way by God or god(s) or spiritual metaphysical elements or you accept the system we have i.e. that people make laws about drink driving, public morality, speeding or whatever based on their adherence to a belief in something above them and not a subjective belief in "Me".

what a load of nonsense. You're honestly insinuating that you need to be religious to support drinking driving and speeding laws?

Why do you need to believe in God to understand that drunk driving endangers lives?

That is how I get from people suggesting that religious adherents making the laws based on what they view as an informed conscience and leaving religion aside and a "there is no God" society and there options for making rules or abandoning rules altogether i.e anarchy.

By almost completely misunderstanding the premise of the OP is more like the answer.

The vast majority of laws require no-one to consider their religious beliefs in order to vote. The problem is when the religion of the majority impose laws that can create a problem for non-members.

A good example would be the gay marriage debate, where the majority of people opposing it generally use their religion as the reasoning for opposing it.

Doctor DooM

ISAW wrote: »

This would be the same Sweden which had an established state church like all the other so called "atheist" ( but not really) Nordic countries which in fact have large numbers of hard line believers?

Once again, in a secular society, people are free to believe what they like.

A large number of believers is perfectly welcome in a secular society, it is merely that they don't influence the running of the country, schools etc. moreso than others.

This is at least the fourth time I've explained this to you in various different forums.

seamus

ISAW wrote: »

Including the statement you just made that "no law should ever be enacted on the basis of 'my religion says so' "?

Absolutely. But given that my statement is made on the basis of rationality and in the interests of a free & equitable society, plus the fact that I have no religion, removes any possible religious biase from the equation.

Law doesn't really matter to moral people. Doing the right thing is what matters. To then sin existed before any law. People were doing right and wrong before any rules were written about it. Which is the kernel of the original posters issue and into which direction I was trying to nudge the discussion.

Aha. But right and wrong are subjective. There is no moral absolute. What is "good" and what is "wrong" are based on changing societal views and changing knowledge. Yes, even the embargo on killing another human being is subject to change and in the past has been more permissible then it is now, and in the future may be more or less acceptable than it is today.

But the basis of that law should not be, "This is what society wants", rather, "This is what society needs", and things should be legislated for in the best interests of the widest section of society.

To go back to the licencing law - allowing alcohol sales on Good Friday doesn't affect Catholics. If they're Catholics, they won't drink. Whereas banning alcohol sales affects the entire population. Therefore the ban on alcohol sales may not be in the best interests of the widest section of society.

One does not have to be religious to appreciate the idea that shop[s should close on a Sunday as they do in France for example.

No, but you're missing my point. As I say above, it's not about making laws which cater for everybody, lest someone's freedom be trampled on. It's about making (or repealing, as the case may be) laws in the best interests of society taken as a whole.

If you can show me that forcing shops to close on a Sunday will be more beneficial to society in general than allowing them to remain open, then I'll stand with you and call for such a ban.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

This would be the same Sweden which had an established state church like all the other so called "atheist" ( but not really) Nordic countries which in fact have large numbers of hard line believers?

Now you're starting to understand... Sweden is a secular country and allow churches with hardline believers to exist - just not to have a say in the governing of the country.

Actually, I don't believe you understand or have any interest in understanding. You're one step away from a ban, as you do nothing except ignore, dodge and rephrase and I think we're all over it.

ISAW

UDP wrote: »

No that is a fallacy. They wanted to replace the deity in the sky with a deity on the ground i.e. a dictatorship. That has nothing to do with secularism.

But that is rubbish since if we look at the many "christian" countries and compare the murder, crime, std etc rates to the less religious countries we see that the christian countries fair out worse. Some reading.

I dont accept Zukermans rate of "atheism2 in europe p.951 as ranginf from 24% to 61% with most in the mid thirties. He quotes seven sources including himself but then highlights ONE ( Inglehart et.al 2004) for these percentages and he muddies the boundary between "ther is no God" = atheism and "secularism" which is about separation of church and State and not about a positive disbelief in God. Also in his figures are unaffiliated believers.

Japan and Korea are listed as having the highest level of atheist but this is if you consider their religion Bhuddism as atheist. Even if you do they have an exceedinglyu high level of religious adherents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden

According to the most recent Eurobarometer Poll 2005
23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".

53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".

23% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force".

Thats over 75% believers in something.

Phil Zuckerman, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Pitzer College writes of several academic sources who have in recent years placed atheism rates in Sweden between 46% and 85%, with one source reporting that only 17% of respondents self-identified as "atheist".

That's the same guy you use above ~17% see what happens when you highlight one of the sources?

The Church of Sweden, by law,[18] is organized in the following manner:

It is an Evangelical Lutheran community of faith manifested in parishes and dioceses. The church also has a national organisation.
It is an open national church which, working with a democratic organisation and through the ministry of the church, covers the whole nation.

The Primate of the Church of Sweden is the Archbishop of Uppsala, currently Anders Wejryd.

"by law" implies link between church and state.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Are you ever going to understand the difference between a secular society, like Sweden, for example, or a 20th century totalitarian regime run by a dictator set on removing any threat to his authority?

ISAW wrote: »

Marxist Leninist philosophy had "there is no God" as a central belief. It was in essence atheistic and resulted in piles of bodies.

<...looks around for a new facepalm image...>

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

Now you're starting to understand... Sweden is a secular country and allow churches with hardline believers to exist - just not to have a say in the governing of the country.

Ireland is a secular country and allows all sorts of freedom of belief or right not to believe.
Even to a less regulated degree than Sweden.

Actually, I don't believe you understand or have any interest in understanding. You're one step away from a ban, as you do nothing except ignore, dodge and rephrase and I think we're all over it.

You are entitled to believe as you wish. But threatening a ban when I point out how people define "atheist" and "secular" countries and regimes really is avoiding the discussion.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

"by law" implies link between church and state.

The local golf club has by-laws, do they also have a link to the state? :rolleyes:

ISAW

koth wrote: »

The local golf club has by-laws, do they also have a link to the state? :rolleyes:

The people of Ireland who happen to play golf dont by law elect the head of your local golf club. Hint : look up history of "established church"

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

But threatening a ban when I point out how people define "atheist" and "secular" countries and regimes really is avoiding the discussion.

You are being threatened with a ban because you're going around in circles, much to everybody's irritation.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

The people of Ireland who happen to play golf dont by law elect the head of your local golf club. Hint : look up history of "established church"

I was pointing out that it looked like you don't understand the term "by law".

And what exactly is your point? that a church uses democracy to choose its leader?

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

Now you're starting to understand... Sweden is a secular country and allow churches with hardline believers to exist - just not to have a say in the governing of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Sweden

The Church of Sweden (Swedish: Svenska kyrkan) is the largest Christian church in Sweden. The church professes the Lutheran faith and is a member of the Porvoo Communion. With 6,751,952 baptized members,[16] it is the largest Lutheran church in the world, although combined, there are more Lutherans in the member churches of the Evangelical Church in Germany. Until 2000 it held the position of state church. As of 2008, 72.9% of Sweden's population belonged to the church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Lutheran

Sweden relegated their state church, Church of Sweden, into a national church in 2000. In late 2009 the Church of Sweden had 71.3% of the population as its members in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_church

National church is a concept of a Christian church associated with a specific ethnic group or nation state.

ISAW

koth wrote: »

I was pointing out that it looked like you don't understand the term "by law".

And what exactly is your point? that a church uses democracy to choose its leader?

The point is the church and the State are linked by laws in this so called "secular country" Sweden presented as a bastion of atheism to a greater degree than they are linked in "holy Catholic Ireland" which is presented as a place controlled by the roman church.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

You are being threatened with a ban because you're going around in circles, much to everybody's irritation.

I'm not going around in circles . I'm just restating how my point is relevant to the original posters question about atheist countries versus religious countries.

It is relevant to ask how we assess "harm" and where the source of values spring from.
It is relevant to compare religious countries in history and today with atheistic countries in history and today and to see what they contributed to the history of the world.

If it is no harm ( or in fact a positive thing) to adopt a position of "there is no God" and if it is harmful to adopt a position of "there is a God" then we have to compare them don't we?

ISAW

swampgas wrote: »

I would still prefer that an irrational belief in the paranormal was discouraged - after all, if you accept that there can be an almighty being it implies some sort of faith, without evidence.

I would also prefer to discourage credence in homeopathy, horoscopes, ghosts, and all the other irrational mumbo-jumbo that is out there.

So, even ithe church didn't exist, and people were only believing in some vague almighty being, I would still be inclined to want to argue with them about it as it simply isn't rational (IMO). I do like to argue though!

I agree with your general point on horoscopes hopmeopathy etc. as a scientific skeptic.
I don't agree that all religion is irrational. some are rooted in the same rationality as science.

Yahew

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Once again, in a secular society, people are free to believe what they like.

A large number of believers is perfectly welcome in a secular society, it is merely that they don't influence the running of the country, schools etc. moreso than others.

This is at least the fourth time I've explained this to you in various different forums.

You've haven't actually explained your position at all. You may think you have, but the new atheist is never really on the ball.

I am a non-believer ( zombie Jesus is a 'tard*) but the nature of democracy, and laws, is often some people imposing their views on others. A majority imposing on a minority. A politician setting speed limits while some people would prefer they didnt. Etc.

So if people oppose abortion, and vote against it, you are subject to it. Religion may also make people vote against capital punishment ( the Catholic church is opposed to that too) and the hang-em high brigade are going to have to put up with that. If you dont believe people have a right to "tell you what to do" if religious, then explain how that would work if they were in the majority, and you weren't? You are basically saying people influenced by religion should have no say.

The pluralist solution to religious schools is to have religious confessional schools, and non-religious secular schools. Which is where we are. Maybe the proportions need to be changed, to reflect society, but it is where we are.

The opposite idea is to have secular schools only, apparently based on the French or American models. Thats less pluralistic, and more impositional.


* not my usual rhethoric, but it gets the point across. Not a Christian.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

The point is the church and the State are linked by laws in this so called "secular country" Sweden presented as a bastion of atheism to a greater degree than they are linked in "holy Catholic Ireland" which is presented as a place controlled by the roman church.

They were linked until 2000, then it became a national religion. It is a secular country by the virtue that the state has separated itself from the church.

and I've no idea where you're getting the "bastion of atheism" from.

ISAW

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Once again, in a secular society, people are free to believe what they like.

A large number of believers is perfectly welcome in a secular society, it is merely that they don't influence the running of the country, schools etc. moreso than others.

This is at least the fourth time I've explained this to you in various different forums.

But what do you mean by "influencing moreso" ? If almost all of the people want Christian schools and five percent don't want them then that according to you means that the people that don't want them should have half of the schools declared "non christian"? I don't think so. Even the atheist minister of education sent his children to fee paying religious schools, like the one he want to himself.

People are entitled to believe as they wish in Ireland but if they are only five per cent of the people they are not entitled to make the other 95 per cent behave in a way that affects how the other 95 per cent believe especially if it is only because the 5% find the other 95 % belief offensive.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Sweden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Lutheran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_church

What is this, a link-fight?

Here's one about this church you keep bringing up:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/most-swedish-church-members-dont.html

When 10,000 members of the Lutheran Church of Sweden were asked about their beliefs, only 15 per cent of them said they believed in Jesus. According to the survey, 15 percent of church members said they are atheists, while a quarter identify themselves as agnostic. The younger the members, the more likely they are to be atheists or agnostics.

And NONE of this has to do with secularism, except to show how a society can be comfortable with both belief and non-belief while not allowing the church any say in governance, and not slaughtering it's population.

ISAW

koth wrote: »

They were linked until 2000, then it became a national religion. It is a secular country by the virtue that the state has separated itself from the church.

No it hasnt. It has stopped being the Established church. It is still the state religion.
or "national Church" as they prefer to call it. But religion is linked to the State apparatus.
http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/default.aspx?id=657773

The financial affairs of the Church of Sweden illustrate the long connection with the state. All members are liable to pay church dues, collected by the state with the taxes and, under the new system, handed over to the church to finance all its operations, which include the maintenance of all its historic buildings. For this latter item the church is to receive extra money from the state and has to obtain expert agreement to any restoration or alteration.

and I've no idea where you're getting the "bastion of atheism" from.

Well usually from experience when atheists are asked "name an atheist country2 they come up with some Scandinavian one. Just like the reference to zukerman did!

zukerman singles out Ingleheart et. al.

Inglehart, Ronald, Miguel Basanez, Jaime Diez-Medrano, Loek Halman and Ruud Luijkx 2004. Human Beliefs and
Values: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook Based on the 1999-2002 Values Surveys, Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo Veintiuno
Editores.

See page 392 for the problems associated in relying on such surveys of a limited group of countries or cultures.