Secularism = Political Atheism

[drummindiver]

17 hours ago, cybercoma said:

-1=e^ipi is giving you the actual definitions and explaining that there's a difference between knowledge and belief. If you want to ignore that, it's fine, but you're not going to be able to have a discussion with anyone who actually understand the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" and uses them properly. No knowledgeable person cares to work with your personal made up definitions that are easier for you to understand.

As William Burroughs once said, "let's break it all down".

 

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

An agnostic is someone who believes that they do not know a god/gods exists.

 

Atheism is a question of belief, agnosticism is a question of knowledge.

 

An agnostic atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god/gods but does not think they know if god/gods exists or not.

A gnostic atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god/gods and thinks they are sure that god/gods does not exist.

An agnostic theist is someone who beliefs in a god or gods, but does not think they know if god/gods exist or not.

Agnostic-agreed

Second statement-wrong. Atheism is certainty of no God. Agnostic is not sure if one exists.

Gnostic atheist-gobblygook.  Gnostic of what?There is no god? Good, you're an Atheist. 

Agnostic theist-gobblygook. You're not sure of God while believing in God. That's called being schizophrenic.

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by drummindiver

[Altai]

21 hours ago, blueblood said:

One thing to note, the charter isn't set in stone, it's on ink.  Parliament can if there is enough public will amend or change the charter, granted it would be very difficult, it still can be done which is a good thing as it still enshrines parliamentary supremacy.

Dont waste your time, she cant understand. She will again say "but its against the constitution" 

Edited January 15, 2017 by Altai

[Ash74]

3 minutes ago, Altai said:

Dont waste your time, she cant understand. She will again say "but its against the constitution" 

Please!!!!!

Enlighten us. Teach us how we need religion/cults to decide our laws. Why we should ignore basic human rights because of what is decided by some religious leader says so.  

 

[Altai]

Yes this is true, a lot of secular laws are fully compatible with many religious rules. Because a real religion will never offer something illogical. 

Secularism has inhuman laws. For example jailing people is inhuman, jailing someone will affect the criminal person in negative manner. We need to understand them that why they committed a crime and we should help them. Except murder cases. In murder cases victim side has right for revenge. If you take someones rights to live, then you have no right to live. But still we would like victim side to forgive the criminal. The criminal may be really sorry for what he/she did and maybe keep living as a useful person. Here the decision does not belong to the courts, decision belongs to victim side. Victim side is the relatives of the victim.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Altai

[Ash74]

5 minutes ago, Altai said:

Yes this is true, a lot of secular laws are fully compatible with many religious rules. Because a real religion will never offer something illogical. 

Secularism has inhuman laws. For example jailing people is inhuman, jailing someone will affect the criminal person in negative manner. We need to understand them that why they committed a crime and we should help them. Except murder cases. In murder cases victim side has right for revenge. If you take someones rights to live, then you have no right to live. But still we would like victim side to forgive the criminal. The criminal may be really sorry for what he/she did and maybe keep living as a useful person. Here the decision does not belong to the courts, decision belongs to victim side. Victim side is the relatives of the victim.

So if the family decide that the murderer should suffer the Bronze Bull, we should honor that wish?

On your not wrong that makes people that have made bad decisions bad people but we cannot have a punishment free system. 

If a person rapes a minor and even if they offer to marry the victim (as was tried and a foolish nation) it is still rape. 

[kimmy]

48 minutes ago, Altai said:

Dont waste your time, she cant understand. She will again say "but its against the constitution" 

I understand just fine. You clearly have no understanding of our system of government, why sit there and pretend like you do?

All laws must comply with the Constitution. "It's against the Constitution" is all the response your ideas need.

If you want to make laws that violate the Constitution, you have to change the Constitution first.

Even the most minor change to the Constitution requires the agreement of Parliament, the Premiers, the Senate, and the Crown. It is such a massive task that it is almost never attempted.

To make a change as drastic as removing fundamental rights would be so controversial that it would be impossible to obtain agreement on it. Despite what blueblood wrote, it will never happen. It will certainly not happen for the sake of allowing some politician to impose religious rules on everyone.  Not happening, ever. Sorry.

 -k

[kimmy]

51 minutes ago, Altai said:

 Because a real religion will never offer something illogical.

 

52 minutes ago, Altai said:

Secularism has inhuman laws. For example jailing people is inhuman, jailing someone will affect the criminal person in negative manner.

From the person who was earlier asking about cutting the hands off thieves?

 -k

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 31, 2017 by cybercoma

[Ash74]

7 hours ago, Altai said:

 Because a real religion will never offer something illogical. 
 

Could you imagine how big the thread would be if we all started listing something illogical in religion?

Likely break the internet. 

[Altai]

12 hours ago, kimmy said:

I understand just fine. You clearly have no understanding of our system of government, why sit there and pretend like you do?

All laws must comply with the Constitution. "It's against the Constitution" is all the response your ideas need.

If you want to make laws that violate the Constitution, you have to change the Constitution first.

Even the most minor change to the Constitution requires the agreement of Parliament, the Premiers, the Senate, and the Crown. It is such a massive task that it is almost never attempted.

To make a change as drastic as removing fundamental rights would be so controversial that it would be impossible to obtain agreement on it. Despite what blueblood wrote, it will never happen. It will certainly not happen for the sake of allowing some politician to impose religious rules on everyone.  Not happening, ever. Sorry.

 -k

LoL  you are really a desperate case. Anyway. 

By the way, look at Turkish politics in nowadays and see how we change the constitution  

You are ignored, I cant waste my time with you.

[Altai]

13 hours ago, kimmy said:

 

From the person who was earlier asking about cutting the hands off thieves?

 -k

Yes, cutting their hands to bring a scar would be a shame for them. If they keep performing their illegal actions, then cutting off their hands complately would be a really deterrent punishment for all the other potential criminals planning a theft. Jailing them is not a solution. They are just planning another theft in their warm prison cell. If you want to prevent crimes, first you have to provide a good life for your citizens and secondly you have to be cruel against criminals. 

Bye ...

Edited January 16, 2017 by Altai

[Ash74]

7 hours ago, Altai said:

Yes, cutting their hands to bring a scar would be a shame for them. If they keep performing their illegal actions, then cutting off their hands complately would be a really deterrent punishment for all the other potential criminals planning a theft. Jailing them is not a solution. They are just planning another theft in their warm prison cell. If you want to prevent crimes, first you have to provide a good life for your citizens and secondly you have to be cruel against criminals. 

Bye ...

So jail is cruel. Dismemberment is ok. 

This society of yours just gets scarier and scarier. 

You would have been a person in high rank in Germany or Russia in the 1930's. 

[kimmy]

8 hours ago, Altai said:

By the way, look at Turkish politics in nowadays and see how we change the constitution  
 

Luckily for us, Canada isn't Turkey.

 -k

 

[Goddess]

"It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless."

     ~~ Martin Luther King ~~

[Goddess]

Secularism is nothing more than a commitment to keeping religion and politics separate.

You can be a secularist and still be an off-the-wall religious nutjob.

[Argus]

On 1/16/2017 at 8:54 AM, Ash74 said:

So jail is cruel. Dismemberment is ok. 

This society of yours just gets scarier and scarier. 

You would have been a person in high rank in Germany or Russia in the 1930's. 

Turkey imprisons more journalists than any nation on earth.

All of them for anti-government activities... er, terrorism, of course.

[dre]

On 1/9/2017 at 10:08 PM, 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.

1 and 3 are not at all the same. 3 is a positive belief in something with no evidence. 1 is a reasonable assumption based on the absence of evidence and the knowledge that gods are something that humans thought up. Its not difference than saying there is no Santa Clause. Its not completely impossible that Santa Clause, his reindeer, and his elves really DO exist somewhere in the universe. But since we know we made up that story, believing that he does not exist is quite reasonable. Believing in a vast supernatural construct without a shred of evidence is completely different.

[dre]

On 1/15/2017 at 10:44 PM, Altai said:

Yes, cutting their hands to bring a scar would be a shame for them. If they keep performing their illegal actions, then cutting off their hands complately would be a really deterrent punishment for all the other potential criminals planning a theft. Jailing them is not a solution. They are just planning another theft in their warm prison cell. If you want to prevent crimes, first you have to provide a good life for your citizens and secondly you have to be cruel against criminals. 

Bye ...

If that's the case one would expect to see a pervasive correlation between countries that dole out severe punishment and low crime rates. But the inverse correlation exists. Its these so called "hug a thug" liberal democracies that seem to have the safest streets.

[Altai]

2 hours ago, dre said:

If that's the case one would expect to see a pervasive correlation between countries that dole out severe punishment and low crime rates. But the inverse correlation exists. Its these so called "hug a thug" liberal democracies that seem to have the safest streets.

For example ? Which countries are these ?

[dre]

2 hours ago, Altai said:

For example ? Which countries are these ?

Monaco, Iceland, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, South Korea, Czech Republic, Spain, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Denmark,  Austrailia, Newzealand, Portugal, Germany, the UK. All of those have homicide rates of under 1.0. None of them have capital punishment or torture.

Now lets look at some countries with stiff sentencing and capital punishment... China, Iran, Pakistan, the US, Iraq, Somalia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan, India, North Korea, Vietnam.

You are more than welcome to move to one of those and see how well your ideas work in real life

[Altai]

6 hours ago, dre said:

Monaco, Iceland, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, South Korea, Czech Republic, Spain, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Denmark,  Austrailia, Newzealand, Portugal, Germany, the UK. All of those have homicide rates of under 1.0. None of them have capital punishment or torture.

Now lets look at some countries with stiff sentencing and capital punishment... China, Iran, Pakistan, the US, Iraq, Somalia, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan, India, North Korea, Vietnam.

You are more than welcome to move to one of those and see how well your ideas work in real life

Almost all of these countries which you list under "lowest crime rates" are the countries with highest living standarts.

Almost all of these countries which you list under "highest crime rates" are the countries with lowest living standarts, even war zones. 

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎01‎-‎09 at 9:09 AM, Altai said:

I think that secularism is the adapted version of atheism to the state laws and therefore its a dictatorship. Because in secular governments, religious persons are forced to comply with secular laws. 


Secularism = Political Atheism


What do you think ? 

Back to the original thread start.

Clearly the thread starter decided to change the actual meaning of secularism.

Secularism is simply a  principle or view of thought that believes in the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.  Someone who believes in separation of religion from state as secularists would, is not necessarily an atheist as Altai suggested. They could be of any belief and that includes any religion or faith based belief, they simply believe governments should remain neutral to all faiths and so the best way to do that is to separate religion from state in its ceremonies, legal wording and treatment of people.

In Canada, we had a pre-existing set of faiths held by the aboriginals. For the sake of discussion because they have many complex variations of faith, lets call it animism, a faith belief where the planet earth is seen as an actual living organism that all other life forms can enjoy the benefits of in a mutually beneficial relationship or a parasitic one in which we take but don't give back from the earth causing an imbalance.

That was then met with Christianity in the form of French then British settlers.  Canada when it was started as a nation was already a nation of nations and each one of these nations had traditions and beliefs and then found themselves dealing with Christian concepts of law and institutional symbols.

Canada started as a Christian nation and to this day the majority of its citizens remain Catholic.

The Christian religion and Canadian law has always ben inter-connected. Canada unlike the U.S. adopted aboriginal laws and customs as well. This is where it could be argued we got the concept of cooperatives and medicare from or many community based concepts. Some argue its from basic Christian principles as well. Its a mix of both.

The Christian laws of course come from the Talmud, Ten Commandments, and Bible both Old and New testament.

As Canada has developed and turned into a multi-cultural state post WW2 based on guilt in reaction to pre World War Two Canada which was segregated and treated the aboriginals and minorities poorly, Christian religion was re-shaped to sound less superior or presumptuous and as more and more ethnics came to Canada with different religions politicians pandering for their vote began to tone down their religious references.

Along with that has been a gradual erosion of the role of the Catholic church as a multi-functioning social agency. For the first 80 years of Canada, Education, hospitals, social welfare, dealing with the poor, was pretty much the function of the Church. The government preferred to have the church do such work.

Then as the Catholic and other churches diminished in importance, government gradually replaced them in regards to maintaining schools, hospitals, social welfare.

In Canada there is still a belief that while religion should be separated from day to day government services to prevent bias in serving Canadian citizens, that a complete abandoning of religious values is still not quite embraced. Many people who are secularist in Canada still have religious opinions. Secularists range from those who belief in no reference at all to any religion, to those who think leaving God in the law or oaths is fine.

Because of an influx now of Muslims who come from countries where the state and religion are not differentiated as they are in Canada there is friction.

Sharia law is a system that is implemented by Muslim countries whose governments and countries are Muslim institutions and where citizens who are not Muslims are still defined as inferiors, i.e., dhimmi, or kafir or infidels. Sharia law in most Muslim countries institutionalizes discrimination against non Muslims. Non Muslims can't own land, have places of worship bigger or taller than a mosque-can't pray in public or gather in public for large festivals , and non Muslimscan not testify in court and ned a Muslim to  testify on their behalf. They can not own land, and they are restricted on where they can live.

Islam is pretty much in the Arab and Muslim worlds of Asia and Africa where Christianity was once before where the Catholic church and the monarch or King/Queen were pretty much inter-connected and a Monarch had to be subordinate to the Pope until of course Henry the Eigth and Martin Luther challenged the Catholic dynasty and we had Protestantism replace Catholicism as the state religion in some European states, i.e., Germany, Holland, Britain.

Secularism however is not about one's individual religious belief or even whether they have one or not. It simply refers to the belief that church and state should be kept distict as to assure neutrality when the government serves us.

The original premises was wrong. It also not surprisingly comes from someone who embraces Sharia law and Islam and is a follower of the Turkish President Erdogan who  many of us call an Islamo-fascist-someone who does not separate his religious beliefs from his state functions as President and claims they are one and the same.

I think I am a fairly typical Canadian secularist. I believe there is a time and place for religion and usually not in day to day government affairs. However although I am a secularist I believe its foolish to deny the Christian traditions in our society that do not discriminate against non Christians and gave become part of Canadian culture such as Christmas. I also don't lose sleep over people wanting a reference to God in oaths or constitutions.  Some would have a problem with that  I don't m yself.

To say all secularists are atheist is no different than saying all Muslims are extremist terrorists or all Jews don't eat bacon.

Uh no. Think again.

 

 

 

 

[Altai]

Secular-Atheist people are owning public schools as like its not public but its only their owns. They are disturbed by and they think its "discrimination" when a student does not want attend some classes he/she dont like. 

The same secular-atheist people pukes hatred against religions and they dont think that its "discrimination" but its only "freedom of speech".   how cute


SECULARISM = POLITICAL ATHEISM

Edited March 31, 2017 by Altai

[hot enough]

On 1/9/2017 at 9:27 AM, kimmy said:

We have many religious groups in our country, which is why no religious group is allowed to impose overtly religious rules upon others.

That has been the tall tale told. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

The people of Turkish Cyprus need more of that ‘political atheism’ right now:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/06/were-not-muslim-enough-fear-turkish-cypriots-as-poll-looms