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.
I see no one has mentioned North Korea, no religion allowed there.
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!!!
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.
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.
Does this mean that you now accept my dictionary definitions for religion and worship?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.
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.
I've had the unsavoury experience of atheists vehemently attacking my right to hold theistic beliefs.
!
Does this mean that you now accept my dictionary definitions for religion and worship?
?
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).Did they actually say you didn't have a right to have a theistic belief?
My dictionary has a word that describes a certain behaviour that is evident in your posts.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"!
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!)
As I've stated earlier I was not the author of those definitions!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.
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)
Not quite what I am saying.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.
Clearly you haven't fully experienced very much of yourself or your precious "Dawkins" lately!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?