Religion has its rights.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Heresson
A view in religious matters or voting in elections is a common matter of all citizens, while murdering someone is a singular case. Your analogy is nice indeed, but wrong

So is yours. There's no parallel between voting and religion.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by molly bloom



A Christian can believe they might win the lottery if they buy enough tickets. That isn't religious belief.


What part of Christianity is a belief in Hindu gods?


None that I know of.


You're still failing to show that atheism is a religion.

You haven't shown in any substantive way how it resembles a religion, a creed, or faith in the supernatural.

That's because it isn't any of them.

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Atheism is an anti-religion, it's belief and doctrine is that all (other) religions are false. It's followers will usually actively pursue that belief and confront, debate, and try to convert the followers of other religions. It's counter to the spiritual varies, but typically it is replaced by an unending faith into science (or scientists). An atheist's priest wear's a labcoat instead of a robe.



Agnotism is basically just apathy.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom

A Christian can believe they might win the lottery if they buy enough tickets. That isn't religious belief.

What part of Christianity is a belief in Hindu gods?


None that I know of.

A christian may believe or not that he may win lottery if he buys enough tickets, and He will remain a Christian. If He believes Hindu gods are gods indeed, He isn't a Christian, because he'd be polytheist.

You're still failing to show that atheism is a religion.
You haven't shown in any substantive way how it resembles a religion, a creed, or faith in the supernatural.

Read my definition of religion. Religion isn't belief in anything supernatural, it is ANY view in such matters. Atheism has its creed. It is : God doesn't exist, and nor do gods. It's atheism, not Areligionism.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by General Ludd

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Atheism is an anti-religion, it's belief and doctrine is that all (other) religions are false. It's followers will usually actively pursue that belief and confront, debate, and try to convert the followers of other religions. It's counter to the spiritual varies, but typically it is replaced by an unending faith into science (or scientists). An atheist's priest wear's a labcoat instead of a robe.

Agnotism is basically just apathy.

Thanks, that's what I ment

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

For starters, the principles to found a state on could and did change over time, and so did the forms of governments. OTOH, religion doctrines are inerrant.

You are wrong. Religion doctrines change, though sometimes the religion itself doesn't want to admit that.
The same for secular ideologies: USA still bases its identity on people who lived 200 years ago, though its modern doctrine had to change through that time.

If you don't mind giving up freedom of religion. You can't have one without the other.

Why?

Not so.

Of course it is. It judges some behaviours as wrong, some as right and gives answers how to deal them. Isn't it a moral system?

Since a country is not supposed to annex territories by force.

Who says so?

Those who aren't probably would have fled during the process of independence.

Yes, of course, all of them

First of all, lets put aside this divine help business.
Religions do not exist to serve the believers, only to form institutes that would survive perpetually.

I don't think Jesus created Christianity just to create an ever-lasting institution. Institutions of religion are means, not goals. There was a guy who created a theory of institutions, that originally they are supposed to organise people to achieve some goals, and are emanation of people creating them, but they soon get independant, and tend to create their own goals. It may be true, but thinking that religion is only about institutions is simply silly. Getting divine help was the goal.

If any services were provided, they were merely incidental, as means to gain more converts.

Perhaps - but it doesn't mean the people don't believe in them

They only serve those at the tip of the hierarchy. Much like most of the governments that had ever existed in history. That's why you are confused.

So You think that actually all priests of the world are just cunny atheists that manipulate the masses? Some perhaps, but making general rule out of it is primitive anticlericalism.

This can't be further from the truth. Atheism is freedom from religion.

Depending on definition of religion. If You think it is "belief in supernatural powers", yes. But it's not religion. Religion is any view in this matter, and again I say, atheism falls into that cathegory

So is yours. There's no parallel between voting and religion.

There is. As I said before, no matter if You participate in it or not, You are making a choice.

[Sandman]

Religions should have the same rights as any other hobby. Which is all they are, really.

Oh, and add me to those who insist that absence of religion does not constitute a religious belief.

[Agathon]

Greek/Roman ancient philosophy

No. What about the atomists, for example, or the various sceptics? Greek natural theology as it occurs in the other schools is quite a bit different from what most people think of as religion, it is generally metaphysics and involves the transformation of the person to a degree not seen in mainstream religion.

Christian philosophy, science, art - based on religion
Muslim philosophy, science, art - based on religion.

No. Based on Greek philosophy, which was used by these faiths to give their doctrines some intellectual punch.

Christianity is really just Platonism for everybody, as Nietzsche correctly pointed out.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Agathon

No. What about the atomists, for example, or the various sceptics? Greek natural theology as it occurs in the other schools is quite a bit different from what most people think of as religion, it is generally metaphysics and involves the transformation of the person to a degree not seen in mainstream religion.

And what? It was religious speculation.
The Academy and Museion were officially religious cult groups.

No. Based on Greek philosophy, which was used by these faiths to give their doctrines some intellectual punch.
Christianity is really just Platonism for everybody, as Nietzsche correctly pointed out.

You're exagerrating; do You think that Islamic and Christian though is just platonism? Of course, they were influenced by it, and I think late neoplatonism was influenced by christianity too.
Anyway, the point is?
Why do You criticise Christianity when You were supposed to prove me religion was something wrong?
Platonism is a part of religious thought of mankind.
According to You, it is worth nothing, because
all religions of the world didn't make anything worth drawing inspiration from.
What about wonderful ancient greek and roman religious art, Christian art, Muslim art? Even secular modern art draws inspiration from religion

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by General Ludd

You're confusing agnosticism with atheism. Atheism is an anti-religion, it's belief and doctrine is that all (other) religions are false. It's followers will usually actively pursue that belief and confront, debate, and try to convert the followers of other religions. It's counter to the spiritual varies, but typically it is replaced by an unending faith into science (or scientists). An atheist's priest wear's a labcoat instead of a robe.



Agnotism is basically just apathy.

No, I'm not.

I do not have a priest, and I don't put 'faith' in scientists.


You're also confusing irreligious and anti-religious with non-religious.

I believe that those with religious beliefs are welcome to them, more to the point have a right to hold them and express them, insofar as the holding and expression of those beliefs does not infringe upon the rights of others. Usually I find this is rather more of a liberal view than a great many of the religious are willing to embrace themselves.

Atheists do not invariably oppose the religious, nor is there any defining doctrine of atheism, because there is no singular all embracing 'atheism' that one opts into or out of.

As I'm discovering with this thread, there are a few people who think they know what atheism is, but they clearly haven't thought about it in any depth.


Heresson, atheism has no CREED.

I am an atheist.

On my own, for myself.

I find there is no reasonable argument for a belief in the existence of a god, or a multiplicity of gods.

No club for me to join, no rituals for me to perform, no one to give me a book to guide me, or offer counselling, or intercede with invisible beings, or wear brightly coloured clothes and chant in an ancient language.

It is not a creed, in the sense that a set of religious doctrines or summary of religious beliefs is a creed.

That is because my atheism does not rely on supernatural entities, holy books or commandments, contradictory acts or messages, or any other of the distinguishing features of religious creeds

It is only a 'creed' in the broadest sense of the word, when 'creed' applies to a person's or nation's set of ethical principles, or code of honour or set of opinions.


If you think as you keep saying, religion means any 'view about spirituality', is spiritualism a religion?

Using a ouija board?

Is a New Age bookshop a religion?

How about a piece of poetry? Frequently one finds views on spirituality in poems, or novels.


So far your attempt to shoehorn an absence of belief in religion or the supernatural/spiritual into some broad all embracing category of religious faith is working only for you. Possibly because you're the only person I've so far come across who has (seriously?) advanced this notion.


I'll put it another way: a complete absence of colour is not indication of pigmentation, latent or otherwise, nor is it a view on hues, tones, colours, or shades.


Albinism isn't negative suntanning.


Being barefoot isn't being anti-footwear.


Being bareheaded does not indicate any 'views' on hats, or their efficacy.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom

I do not have a priest
and I don't put 'faith' in scientists.

Who says religion needs priests?

I believe that those with religious beliefs are welcome to them, more to the point have a right to hold them and express them, insofar as the holding and expression of those beliefs does not infringe upon the rights of others.

How wearing a scarf in school, a cross in a classroom, or a mention of Christianity in Constitution would hurt religious expression of other religions?

Atheists do not invariably oppose the religious, nor is there any defining doctrine of atheism, because there is no singular all embracing 'atheism' that one opts into or out of.

You are an atheist or are not.
A religion doesn't have to be a church.

As I'm discovering with this thread, there are a few people who think they know what atheism is, but they clearly haven't thought about it in any depth.

Glad we helped You to discover something about Yourself

Heresson, atheism has no CREED.

Yes, it has - lack of faith in God.

On my own, for myself.

And?

No club for me to join, no rituals for me to perform, no one to give me a book to guide me, or offer counselling, or intercede with invisible beings, or wear brightly coloured clothes and chant in an ancient language.

Religion doesn't need that either necessarily

It is not a creed, in the sense that a set of religious doctrines or summary of religious beliefs is a creed.

The summary of atheist doctrine is lack of God. Nothing else is needed in that matter

That is because my atheism does not rely on supernatural entities, holy books or commandments, contradictory acts or messages, or any other of the distinguishing features of religious creeds

And what?

If you think as you keep saying, religion means any 'view about spirituality', is spiritualism a religion?
Using a ouija board?
Is a New Age bookshop a religion?
How about a piece of poetry? Frequently one finds views on spirituality in poems, or novels.

But they are based on other religions, and do not necessarily have an ambition to rule the spiritual life of someone completely. If so, yes, it's a religion.

So far your attempt to shoehorn an absence of belief in religion or the supernatural/spiritual into some broad all embracing category of religious faith is working only for you. Possibly because you're the only person I've so far come across who has (seriously?) advanced this notion.

I haven't convinced You, You haven't convinced me.
It is just a thought, I'm not sure about it. The real point is that "religious neutrality" is not quite possible.
For me, it's OK I guess, but France definitely overdoes it, and so do You. By claiming that religious past and presence of Europe has nothing to offer us, You are being blind with hatred to religion it seems.

I'll put it another way: a complete absence of colour is not indication of pigmentation

Actually, black is lack of colour, and is a colour nevertheless

Being bareheaded does not indicate any 'views' on hats, or their efficacy.

But atheism isn't just not wearing a hat. Atheism is saying that the hats are wrong, are kind of mental disease, and stuff. Not wearing a hat because You can't afford it or You aren't sure which one to chose would be agnosticism

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
It's a matter of opinion. For me French "secularism" is a state atheism. It just goes too far.

Saying the French secualrism goes too far is a matter of opinion all right. Saying that French secularism is State-sponsored atheism is not a matter of opinion, but an assertion that you are supposed to back. Especially now that you clearly distinguished atheism from agnosticism, and thus provided a definition of atheism.

So my special concern about christianity in this discussion is not without a cause

Of course your concern is not without a cause, as you are christian. But it doesn't mean that Christianty should have a special position in a country's policies. That Christianty is a topic you're interested in, is normal. However, it doesn't mean countries should treat Christianty differently because Heresson has a special concern for this particular religion.

If You don't see cultural unity between christian cultures of each culture, You must be blind.

I see quite a few differences between Latin countries and Germanic countries. On a great many topics, the attitudes of these populations are completely different. Of course, we are mostly the same: we are human people, with heads and hearts. We are human people, and we need to breathe, drink, eat and reproduce just the same. We are human people, and we are able of love and hatred, of genius and stupidity just the same.
The differences between these populations are small compared to their shared features. People tend to focus on the small differences instead of focusing on the bulk of shared features (IIRC, Freud called it the "narcissism of small differences).

And guess what? The differences between Muslims and Christians are equally very small compared to our similitudes. By pretending that we are "us", and they are "them", we are only emphasizing the small differences, just the same way Catholics did when they burnt Protestants at the stake.

Is there a bigger cultural difference between France and Germany today than between France and Greece?

I don't know about Greece, and I don't think it is a latin country anyway. But France is definitely closer, culturally speaking, to Spain and Italy than to Germany. There's a reason why so many French people choose to learn Spanish instead of German. There's a reason so many French people prefer spending their vacation in Spain or Italy instead of Germany.

Don't be silly. Two big countries and three tinies in the west don't have a right to call themselves Europe.

Yes they do.
Heck, Moldova could call itself "Europe" if it so wished. Nobody would forbid them to do so. Nobody would care either.

The same Poland could form an "Europe" with surrounding states. We must find something that unites almost all countries on the continent. And it is roman/greek and christian heritage

Why "almost all" rather than simply "all"? You are creating an imaginary barrier that will make it impossile to treat all members as equals, as genuine members of our community of Peace. Why so?
Again, why choose "Christianty" instead of "Monotheism" as a determining factor? Why pretend "Muslims are not European" rather than "Polytheists are not European"?

I know Poland is a highly religious country. But take a look at the rest of Europe, and you'll see how many people prefer spending time watching a football match rather than watching a religious ritual.

No

Yes. It just happens that you want to belong to a religion that bans you from worshipping anything else. If you picked some new-age groovy religion, you'll probably be free to practice different belief ssytems as well.

Bravo. Comparing religion to waste disposal.
But that's not what I ment. I ment not dealing with the problem with organised community, but rather dealing with the problem by each member of it.
Each person has some view in the matter of religion
I didn't mean that 100% people are interested in elections or referenda, but that at least theorethically, they are supposed to be and their opinion, or lack of opinion, matters in the case

And this is where you're wrong. General elections are supposed to have everybody participate indeed, as they manage the entirety of our collective life. However, specific issues are not supposed to interest everybody. If I'm voting in Zurich for some administrative reason, but living in Bern, but , why should I care about Zurich's new sewage project?

I wonder why you want to make religion an issue that should be of interest for everybody. I completely oppose it. Religion should be a matter for the faithful. It should be something that matters only to those who are actually interested.
For the others, it shouldn't be a matter any more so that a football supporter club = the Religious can worship whatever they want, however they want, as long as they don't disturb the rest of society, which doesn't care about it.

[Agathon]

And what? It was religious speculation.

It was mostly natural theology which is different from revealed religion. The Atomists have a very spartan view of the universe, the sceptics think we just don't know anything, and the Epicureans think that God exists, but just doesn't give a stuff about it.

You're exagerrating; do You think that Islamic and Christian though is just platonism?

That's not what I said. It is Platonism "for the people" - a watered down no-elitist version.

Of course, they were influenced by it, and I think late neoplatonism was influenced by christianity too.

Very late. And Christianity provided no intellectual content to neoplatonism. Plotinus, the premier neoplatonist, gets almost everything from Plato and Aristotle. His doctrines bear little resemblance to Xtianity.

Anyway, the point is?

That popular religion in the ancient world, insofar as it has any intellectually worthy content, stole it from Greek philosophy.

Platonism is a part of religious thought of mankind.

No it isn't. It is a philosophical doctrine with arguments in support of it, based on a particular metaphysical viewpoint for which Platonists supplied further arguments. I can't think of a platonic blood ritual.

According to You, it is worth nothing, because
all religions of the world didn't make anything worth drawing inspiration from.

I never said that. My claim is that intellectually speaking they are worthless. They may have some emotional or literary influence on art, but as far as philosophy goes ancient Xtianity was a degenerate, fanatical and irrational cult.

[Agathon]

I'd add that the Gods of Greek natural theology are impersonal gods. They do not wear a human face and don't care about who's screwing whom (we are supposed to care about that, because we wish to become like them).

[David Floyd]

Here's my viewpoint on the headscarf ban:

1)It's stupid, stupid, stupid. However, that opinion is irrelevant.

2)Headscarves are a part of religious expression, as are various other forms of religious dress. Some of these things are integral to a person's religion - ie, their belief system requires that they wear them.

3)If attending school was voluntary, or if students could choose to attend schools were religious dress was permitted, there would be little problem in terms of rights violations. However, the vast majority of French students attend public schools, where the ban applies. As such, the French government is violating the religious freedom of students by telling them, in essence, that they must give up their religion to avoid breaking the law by staying out of school. Simply put, parents can violate the law by keeping their children out of school, or children can violate the law by wearing religious dress in school. The only way out is, in some cases, for students to give up their religion.

Whether or not this is fair isn't the point - the point is that it certainly does violate the student's religious freedom, while wearing religious dress does NOT infringe on the religious (or any other) freedom of anyone else. The law is both stupid, and discriminatory.

[Heresson]

And?

(this refers to Agathon's post)