Secularism = Political Atheism

[msj]

Um, having as your core belief that god(s) does not exist (and Santa, Satan, tooth fairy etc) does not make for much dogma, scripture, nor messiahs.  

For those of us who are "militant atheists" it is not our lack of belief in god that is the issue. It is religious people trying to shove their religious precepts down our secular throats that is the issue - and the fact that we no longer stand for it. 

The problem is that religious people don't like it when we stand up to them and tell them to practice their BS in private and don't expect to make laws protecting slavery or disallowing tattoos because their crap "authoritarian" book tells them this is righteous. 

Ahteists often go about their business with few blowing themselves up because of their lack of belief in any god. 

Meanwhile, religious people have no problem flying planes into buildings because their god told them to. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by msj

[msj]

I dunno, maybe I should retract the above. 

Afterall, isn't the religion of those who do not believe in the toothfairy just a splinter group from those who do not believe in leperchauns who split from those who do not believe in pink unicorns who had a schism with those who do not believe in Santa elves and reindeers who are divided with those who also do not believe in Santa Claus? 

 

[TimG]

1 hour ago, msj said:

For those of us who are "militant atheists" it is not our lack of belief in god that is the issue. It is religious people trying to shove their religious precepts down our secular throats that is the issue - and the fact that we no longer stand for it. 

Take 3 statements:

1) There is no god;
2) There is no evidence of a god at this time;
3) There is a god;

The first two are variations of atheism but 1) is a dogmatic statement of blind faith that is no different from 3).

I think it is important to keep the distinction in mind.

Edited January 10, 2017 by TimG

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, TimG said:

Take 3 statements:

1) There is no god;
2) There is no evidence of a god at this time;
3) There is a god;

The first two are variations of atheism but 1) is a dogmatic statement of blind faith that is no different from 3).

I think it is important to keep the distinction in mind.

And No.2 is the only one we can be sure of currently which is why a lot of people are aware that No. 1 is probably true as well.

[Omni]

And if there is a God and a heaven, I suspect when I get there God is going to say to me "good for you for not buying into all that BS others made up about me out of their fear, or wish to control others".

[msj]

Except most atheists would accept that god most likely does not exist and without any kind of suffient evidence it is reasonable to live their life as if god does not exist at all. 

So, to say "there is no Santa Claus (tooth fairy/leperchauns/pink unicorns/flying spaghetti monster) " is equally as dogmatic as to say "there is no god." 

Which is strange since most of us accept the likelihood of Santa Clause et al to be virtually zero (or absolutely zero) and yet people who believe in god are unable to extend the logic to their precious one (God/Allaha/Yahweh). 

Why such a distinction? 

Edited January 10, 2017 by msj

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

Take 3 statements:

1) There is no god;
2) There is no evidence of a god at this time;
3) There is a god;

 

There is no flying spaghetti monster.

[Altai]

I just asked a simple question and I see that everyone post nonsenses irrelevant with the question. 

I will make the question much simpler.  Imagine that you are a religious person and you want state laws to be suitable with your religious believes but you live in country which is ruled by a secular government. Is not it a violation of your rights ? 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Altai

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

Is not it a violation of your rights ? 

No.

 

Hey, maybe I'm a low tax person and don't want to pay so much tax. Does that mean that taxing me is a violation of my rights?

 

Or maybe I'm a socialist and want more free money from the government. Does that mean that me not getting free money is a violation of my rights?

Edited January 10, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[kimmy]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

  Imagine that you are a religious person and you want state laws to be suitable with your religious believes but you live in country which is ruled by a secular government. Is not it a violation of your rights ? 

No.  Your right to religious freedom allows you to worship how you choose.

Your right to religious freedom does not allow you to impose laws that would force other people to worship how you think they should worship.

Example: a hyper Christian gets elected... he can pray to Jesus before he starts work, but he can't impose a law that says everybody has to pray to Jesus before they start work.  Imagine if you're a Muslim and some politician says your children have to pray to Jesus at the start of every school day. That would be grossly unfair.

Imagine a Jewish politician gets elected and decides that everybody has to eat only food that complies with Jewish food laws. He can avoid bacon himself, but if he tried to prohibit everybody in Canada from having bacon there would be armed revolt.

Imagine a Muslim politician gets elected and decides that nobody gets to have beer anymore. He can avoid beer himself, but if he tried to prohibit everybody in Canada from having beer there would be armed revolt.

You can live by your own beliefs, but you don't get to impose your beliefs on others.  Everybody has the right to live by their own beliefs, even if their beliefs are different from yours. That's why politicians here don't get to "make state laws suitable to their religious beliefs."

 -k

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada actually had a "Lord's Day Act", upheld by the Supreme Court as late as 1982.   Sunday store closings still existed for many years in Canada despite the 1982 Constitution Act, imposing religious views on others and pandering to religious, labour, and business interests.

[msj]

3 hours ago, kimmy said:

No.  Your right to religious freedom allows you to worship how you choose.

You can live by your own beliefs, but you don't get to impose your beliefs on others.  Everybody has the right to live by their own beliefs, even if their beliefs are different from yours. That's why politicians here don't get to "make state laws suitable to their religious beliefs."

 -k

Points so obvious and logical that I am starting to understand why, if it were possible, people like Altai should not be allowed in Canada to impose their religious BS upon us.

 

[Ash74]

43 minutes ago, msj said:

Points so obvious and logical that I am starting to understand why, if it were possible, people like Altai should not be allowed in Canada to impose their religious BS upon us.

 

I do agree with your argument but I believe in religious freedom even if it is completely irrational. 

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Altai said:

I just asked a simple question and I see that everyone post nonsenses irrelevant with the question. 

I will make the question much simpler.  Imagine that you are a religious person and you want state laws to be suitable with your religious believes but you live in country which is ruled by a secular government. Is not it a violation of your rights ? 

No, it isn't.  Not even remotely.

Edited January 10, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[Altai]

5 hours ago, kimmy said:

No.  Your right to religious freedom allows you to worship how you choose.

Your right to religious freedom does not allow you to impose laws that would force other people to worship how you think they should worship.

Example: a hyper Christian gets elected... he can pray to Jesus before he starts work, but he can't impose a law that says everybody has to pray to Jesus before they start work.  Imagine if you're a Muslim and some politician says your children have to pray to Jesus at the start of every school day. That would be grossly unfair.

Imagine a Jewish politician gets elected and decides that everybody has to eat only food that complies with Jewish food laws. He can avoid bacon himself, but if he tried to prohibit everybody in Canada from having bacon there would be armed revolt.

Imagine a Muslim politician gets elected and decides that nobody gets to have beer anymore. He can avoid beer himself, but if he tried to prohibit everybody in Canada from having beer there would be armed revolt.

You can live by your own beliefs, but you don't get to impose your beliefs on others.  Everybody has the right to live by their own beliefs, even if their beliefs are different from yours. That's why politicians here don't get to "make state laws suitable to their religious beliefs."

 -k

These examples are quite superficial. Lets give us some real examples. For example imagine that you are a religious person and you want to take a break for lessons in your school at praying times but you live in a country ruled by a "secular" government and you are not allowed for it.

Is it still fair ?

Edited January 10, 2017 by Altai

[kimmy]

2 minutes ago, Altai said:

These examples are quite superficial. Lets give us some real examples. For example imagine that you are a religious person and you want to take a break for lessons in your school at praying times but you live in a country ruled by a "secular" government and you are not allowed for it.

Is it still fair ?

In Canada we make reasonable accommodation for everyone's religious beliefs.

 -k

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, kimmy said:

In Canada we make reasonable accommodation for everyone's religious beliefs.

 -k

 

And Atheists like me want freedom FROM religion.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Altai said:

These examples are quite superficial. Lets give us some real examples. For example imagine that you are a religious person and you want to take a break for lessons in your school at praying times but you live in a country ruled by a "secular" government and you are not allowed for it.

Is it still fair ?

It would only be fair if everyone was given a break.  It's the same at work when smokers take five outside.

[msj]

As compared to Cambodia where, going up and down the river, the Muslim community blasts their religious BS far too often. 

Or Egypt where I have a friend working and he wears noise cancelling headphones to bed as the mosque blasts its religious BS at all times of the night and early morning. 

Thankfully Canada has noise by laws to prevent this, but man, I would love to set up shop on the Mekong and blast Metallica, AC/DC,  etc right back at them.  

I will say that noise bylaws are evidence based public policy that benefit us all.  

The religious freaks, however, don't like it as they need to disrupt peoples sleep to keep the indoctrination going.....

[Goddess]

30 minutes ago, kimmy said:

In Canada we make reasonable accommodation for everyone's religious beliefs.

 -k

This is true.  When I was in college 2 years ago, there was a Muslim girl who was given all kinds of accomodations, extensions on assignments, passes on quizes, etc for her religious beliefs.

She basically told the college when and how she would attend classes/complete assignments and it was all accomodated.  She didn't attend classes or do any assignments during Ramadan.

[Guest]

Interesting ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/10/muslim-parents-must-send-children-mixed-swimming-lessons-european/

[Goddess]

29 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This is true.  When I was in college 2 years ago, there was a Muslim girl who was given all kinds of accomodations, extensions on assignments, passes on quizes, etc for her religious beliefs.

She basically told the college when and how she would attend classes/complete assignments and it was all accomodated.  She didn't attend classes or do any assignments during Ramadan.

I will add that I don't think accomodating her worked to her advantage.  She was unable to pass and ultimately failed the course.

 

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Interesting ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/10/muslim-parents-must-send-children-mixed-swimming-lessons-european/

Same thing here - I think everyone should learn how to swim.  It's a safety issue.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I will add that I don't think accomodating her worked to her advantage.  She was unable to pass and ultimately failed the course.

 

Same thing here - I think everyone should learn how to swim.  It's a safety issue.

True, but accommodation could easily be made by having separate lessons. I think general integration is the concern here, rather than safety, and I think it's good that they put that before the parents' concerns. 

[Benz]

17 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. One can be an agnostic atheist, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.^[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.^[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,^[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[10][11][12]

It is not just a lack of belief. It's the belief there are no gods. And agnostism is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that certain metaphysical claims – such as the existence of God or the supernatural – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.^[1][2][3]

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist".^[2]

[Benz]

8 hours ago, Altai said:

I just asked a simple question and I see that everyone post nonsenses irrelevant with the question. 

I will make the question much simpler.  Imagine that you are a religious person and you want state laws to be suitable with your religious believes but you live in country which is ruled by a secular government. Is not it a violation of your rights ? 

No it is not. As I already told you, secular is not only for atheists. Even in religious countries there are also secularism.

Practicing a religion is a right but, only in a context of spirituality. Laws are made by the people, for the people. Not by gods, for gods. If the people choose a law that is compatible with the saying of a religion, then so be it. But if the people are choosing a law that is not compatible with one of the religion you practice, then too bad. The laws are for everyone and everyone must follow it. It's not a good thing to have different standards based on your belief.

I'll give you an example. In some culture, most of the time for religious beliefs, they cut the clitoris of the young girls. They believe it is the will of god. On my country, this is totally illegal. Because the laws have to prorect every one. We have to protect children from their own parents if it is needed. If a girl who eventually become a woman, is asking a private doctor to remove her clitoris, that is her own business. But no adults can force, not even their own children to do that, no matter what their religion says.

It happened few times here that parents in the Jehova religion refused treatments or blood transfer to their kids because their religion says it is forbidden. The justice has taken their kid away from them, give the treament and save its life.

Under no circumstances, religions should have to power to overpass the human laws. Spirituality is one thing, the justice is something else. The spirituality can have an influence on people that will decide what are the laws, but cannot allow one individual to bypass the laws.