Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

More freedoms, more rights -- less responsibilities, no authority.

The government?
I see no one has mentioned North Korea, no religion allowed there.

I am still waiting for the science/atheist society we can study.
 
More freedoms, more rights -- less responsibilities, no authority.

The government?
I see no one has mentioned North Korea, no religion allowed there.

I am still waiting for the science/atheist society we can study.

Scandinavia and other parts of Northern Europe are quickly moving that way. What do we see there? Peaceful societies that strongly support minority rights. The main problematic issues that each share in common relate to the disturbances caused by large Islamic immigrant populations that try to demand that the state allow them to continue with the discriminatory religious practices that were the main obstacle to peacuful coexistence between peoples in the first place.
 
And Scandinavia is like here?
They balk if you call them atheists.
They do still have their Lutheran or whatever backgrounds, not to mention the highest paying taxes in the world.
 
I received a link to this in a PM. Thanks.

Scandinavian Non-believers, which is not to say atheists

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

It would be fairly safe to say that Scandanavians, though nominally Christians, are Christians without the God bit. I'm hearing the term cultural Christians more and more. My home country Ireland, which used be 95% practicing RC, now has one of the fastest growing atheist populations. Many of those who do not define themselves as atheist, call themselves cultural Catholics. That is they have more or less abandoned their faith, but still engage in some of the social aspects related to Catholicism as it is deeply ingrained in their Irishness. It is very much like Buddhism in modern day Thailand, where I am writing this from. The Thai identity is very much a Buddhist identity and their culture is built around Buddhist traditions. Thais who might abandon the Buddhist faith, if that is the right word, would probably retain their Buddhist traditions, as that is part of their Thainess
 
VC - my reading of our discussion is that we are probably fairly close to agreement on a lot of the key points.

It may be that my post last night could have been better served in the other "Science vs Religion" thread as posting it in this thread may have accidently meant that others could confuse me with someone who is taking sides of religion (in the sense that most of the debate in here is very combative "us" vs "them" and it was not my intention to participate in that way).

I was very careful not to strictly confine what I meant by myths and tales and legends to encompass a strict definition of religion (if you read back on my posts I tried fairly hard not to use the word religion unless absolutely necessary). Possibly splitting hairs, but the distinction between religion vs organised religion may have come in handy somewhere along the way too.

Perhaps I was better served by simply saying something to the extent of "Ancient societies were able to create a narrative to bind their peoples around a common value system and culture which enabled them to exist in a nature that many would deem successful until this narrative became corrupted further on in time."

It is this narrative that science itself cannot create because it is subjective, and for this reason the basis of any moral code, seems to me to encounter a suspension of reality or a reliance on people making a leap of faith to accept its validity. For that reason it may appear that the concept of ethics shares closer ties with forms of religion than it does science.

If you wish to remove religion then you need to replace its narrative with something from a similar sphere IMO.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs with this distinction. It's hard to say!!!

The problem I have with what your saying, is that you seem to be saying that because you can not define a moral code using scientific formula, we have to differ to a religious system.

That doesn't make sense to me, why would you have to defer to the supernatural for a moral code.

I think there are some very basic motherhood statements for a moral code that can be easily debated and reasoned to without deferring to any religious presuppositions.

The basic golden rule of treating others as you would want them to treat you is a fairly good mother hood statement, these sorts of things dont need religious authority to invoke, you can explain simply why its good for society to live by it.

We have a large non religious community in Australia that all seem to operate quite morally without religion.
 
More freedoms, more rights -- less responsibilities, no authority.

The government?
I see no one has mentioned North Korea, no religion allowed there.

I am still waiting for the science/atheist society we can study.

Religion is allowed in NK, they only allow one religion though, which is the state religion of leader worship.

Which is instilled in children through their schools by the government policy.

Which is exactly what most atheists are against, we don't want to ban religion, we just don't want any one religion forced on everyone through government policy.
 
And Scandinavia is like here?
They balk if you call them atheists.
They do still have their Lutheran or whatever backgrounds, not to mention the highest paying taxes in the world.

Yeah a lot of people dont want to use the term atheist, because it has been given negative connotations by the religious folk for years.

Most atheists when asked their status will prefer to say things like, "not religious" "non believer" "agnostic" etc because it avoids a lot of judgement by religious folk, if you tell a really religious person your an atheist, their face screws up and seem to be offended and get judgemental, so i often use the term not religious in public settings, which doesn't seem to get as bad reaction, however it does seem to make them think they have a chance to preach, so if i want to avoid preaching i say atheist.

At the end of the day the word atheist just means someone who doesn't believe in any of the gods, so its the most appropriate term for "non believers", even if the person is what would be described as a cultural Christian, Jew or Muslim.
 
Religion is allowed in NK, they only allow one religion though, which is the state religion of leader worship.

Which is instilled in children through their schools by the government policy.

Which is exactly what most atheists are against, we don't want to ban religion, we just don't want any one religion forced on everyone through government policy.
Does this mean that you now accept my dictionary definitions for religion and worship?

Have you already forgotten your recent accusations of word games?
 
Yeah a lot of people dont want to use the term atheist, because it has been given negative connotations by the religious folk for years.

Most atheists when asked their status will prefer to say things like, "not religious" "non believer" "agnostic" etc because it avoids a lot of judgement by religious folk, if you tell a really religious person your an atheist, their face screws up and seem to be offended and get judgemental, so i often use the term not religious in public settings, which doesn't seem to get as bad reaction, however it does seem to make them think they have a chance to preach, so if i want to avoid preaching i say atheist.

At the end of the day the word atheist just means someone who doesn't believe in any of the gods, so its the most appropriate term for "non believers", even if the person is what would be described as a cultural Christian, Jew or Muslim.

It's interesting that you've experienced that!

I've had the unsavoury experience of atheists vehemently attacking my right to hold theistic beliefs.

See what I mean! Some atheists behave just like other religious folk!
 
Does this mean that you now accept my dictionary definitions for religion and worship?

?

No, because the way they actually worship their leader ( including the dead ones) fits my definition, i dont need to go to your definition.
 
Did they actually say you didn't have a right to have a theistic belief?
All I did was compliment one on the minister and her sermon from when I'd attended his wedding. The next thing I knew I was receiving the most relentlessly oppressive lecture I'd received since childhood (we all know what parents can be like).

They may not have said those exact words, but as I've told you before "actions speak louder"!

Edit: I note that you are again rushing to the defence of your atheist brethren! (You see what I mean?! So much like other religious folk!)
 
No, because the way they actually worship their leader ( including the dead ones) fits my definition, i dont need to go to your definition.
My dictionary has a word that describes a certain behaviour that is evident in your posts.

Namely "hypocrisy"!
 
My dictionary has a word that describes a certain behaviour that is evident in your posts.

Namely "hypocrisy"!

Because I didn't need your stretched to breaking point version of the definitions? Ok, think what you like, no doubt your stretching that definition also.
 
Edit: I note that you are again rushing to the defence of your atheist brethren! (You see what I mean?! So much like other religious folk!)

Not defending? Just seeking clarification, because in my experience atheists are generally the biggest defenders of religious rights, and i have never heard any of the atheists i have seen interviewed or spoken too personally express feelings that people should not have the right to practice their religion, we defend peoples rights to their religion, ( except if it is actively harming others or their children)
 
Because I didn't need your stretched to breaking point version of the definitions? Ok, think what you like, no doubt your stretching that definition also.
As I've stated earlier I was not the author of those definitions!

Just like I said, the contents of your post are evidence of your hypocrisy!

Not defending? Just seeking clarification, because in my experience atheists are generally the biggest defenders of religious rights, and i have never heard any of the atheists i have seen interviewed or spoken too personally express feelings that people should not have the right to practice their religion, we defend peoples rights to their religion, ( except if it is actively harming others or their children)

Clearly you haven't fully experienced very much of yourself or your precious "Dawkins" lately!
 
The problem I have with what your saying, is that you seem to be saying that because you can not define a moral code using scientific formula, we have to differ to a religious system.

That doesn't make sense to me, why would you have to defer to the supernatural for a moral code.

I think there are some very basic motherhood statements for a moral code that can be easily debated and reasoned to without deferring to any religious presuppositions.

The basic golden rule of treating others as you would want them to treat you is a fairly good mother hood statement, these sorts of things dont need religious authority to invoke, you can explain simply why its good for society to live by it.

We have a large non religious community in Australia that all seem to operate quite morally without religion.
Not quite what I am saying.

I am saying that the narrative provided to implement any moral system is based on symbolism, which is a human concept as distinguishable from underlying objective reality. Moral values such as we are all equal, treat others how you would wish them to treat you, economic growth at all costs, our duty is to the King / Queen, glory is in conquest (or any example you can think of) are all beliefs, and can be put in a variety or contexts and justified within many different narratives. Symbolism is everywhere that there are humans. Within overarching society it is always justified on a rational basis. And it is this disconnect that sows the seeds for its eventual demise. It can sit quietly under the surface for a long time (and the most successful societies in history thrive on this), but eventually when the narrative starts breaking down, it can be taken to extremes and becomes a mockery of its previous self. It will be replaced or refined and so we begin again. It is fairly cyclical over history, if you look for it.

My purpose here is not to judge, but to point out that it exists as a process. If you know something exists it is much easier to question it.
 
Clearly you haven't fully experienced very much of yourself or your precious "Dawkins" lately!

I think what is happening here is that people such as yourself, pav and cbc, think that when I stand up for my own religious rights, and the rights of others, that I am some how oppressing you, when this is not the case.

I fully support your rights to Have a religion, practice it in any non harmful way you want, build churches, have meetings, instruct your children, have faith schools, be free to not have others force their religion on you etc etc.

However, other people also have these rights to their own religions or even no religion, So when people suggest Christianity should be forced through public schools or public policy, they are encroaching on the religious rights of every other religion and the rights of non believers.

I think you will find the only time you get "Oppressed"(it's not really oppression) is when your actively saying things that would suggest in some way you want to take other peoples religious freedoms away, for example suggesting your religion should be taught to all children in schools, you should be able to see that that wouldn't be you expressing a religious right, it would be you oppressing every other religion and non religious group.
 


Write your reply...
Top