06-05-2008, 10:32 AM
|
#31
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
|
oh come on- you know that has nothing to do with campaigning for a secular society- that would be against the law were it perpetrated by anyone- could you fashion your argument a little better please? Most muslims, altho I detest the religion and its treatment of women specifically - do not buy into the crap perpetrated by these extremeists- yes they do support it in a way through their non- intervention but I will suport the right for anyone to believe whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't impact on others- you think the secular society condones that crap? then you haven't done your research and your logic is flawed
“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
|
|
|
06-05-2008, 10:44 AM
|
#32
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
|
Quote:
psychodiva wrote
could you fashion your argument a little better please?
|
It is the NSS that had best fashion its mission, and mission statement, better.
Quote:
psychodiva wrote
I will suport the right for anyone to believe whatever the fuck they want
|
What does that mean? Nothing!
It's absolute mindless garbage!
Belief, real belief, just happens (or not).
Just like any kind of thought, it happens to us.
Rights! Rights have nothing to do with it!
Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they parasitize teams).
|
|
|
06-05-2008, 11:37 AM
|
#33
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
|
ok- when you come up with an argument I'll argue it with you
“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
|
|
|
06-07-2008, 03:59 AM
|
#34
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
psychodiva wrote
why do you say that? practicing a faith is no bother at all- it is up to the individual idiot what they want to believe or not- forcing it into politics and schools etc etc is what is wrong- that is what secularism is all about with the society
|
My faith demands that a virgin girl be thrown into the volcano every morning to keep Pele from getting angry. For me to do that, the community must supply me with a continuous stream of virgins.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
06-07-2008, 04:05 AM
|
#35
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
psychodiva wrote
oh come on- you know that has nothing to do with campaigning for a secular society- that would be against the law were it perpetrated by anyone- could you fashion your argument a little better please? Most muslims, altho I detest the religion and its treatment of women specifically - do not buy into the crap perpetrated by these extremeists- yes they do support it in a way through their non- intervention but I will suport the right for anyone to believe whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't impact on others- you think the secular society condones that crap? then you haven't done your research and your logic is flawed
|
Assuming it is permitted by law, does the Secular Society (SS) condone the regular evening sacrifice of a goat on the main street corner of every village?
Is making it illegal to read or possess the Koran a legitimate secular action consistent with the right to practice religion without hindrance?
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
06-07-2008, 04:25 AM
|
#36
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
|
I'm not going to argue for or about the secular society when you can as easily e-mail them to ask them what they thought when they put the things on their site- I am a member of seaid society as it is all we have until such time as something better comes into being - yes it could be better, yes they probably haven't thought everything through- but who does? maybe they trust people to not tease out the sillyness in absolutely everything they say?
This could go on for hours and just end up being really silly with me saying- 'of course if its against the law'... etc etc- and you coming back with something equally fecetious - so lets just drop it now eh?
“'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
|
|
|
06-07-2008, 10:42 PM
|
#37
|
Guest
|
Quote:
ubs wrote
It takes a strong person to overcome childhood indoctrination. Welcome Chris!
|
or drugs, apparently
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
But then we'd be part of a religion of sorts, wouldn't we?
|
if your definition of religion is an "organised group" then yes, otherwise no
Quote:
psychodiva wrote
whats that suposed to prove? or mean?
|
he was just saying that not all religions should be allowed to be practised.
Quote:
psychodiva wrote
oh come on- you know that has nothing to do with campaigning for a secular society- that would be against the law were it perpetrated by anyone- could you fashion your argument a little better please? Most muslims, altho I detest the religion and its treatment of women specifically - do not buy into the crap perpetrated by these extremeists- yes they do support it in a way through their non- intervention but I will suport the right for anyone to believe whatever the fuck they want - as long as it doesn't impact on others- you think the secular society condones that crap? then you haven't done your research and your logic is flawed
|
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Assuming it is permitted by law, does the Secular Society (SS) condone the regular evening sacrifice of a goat on the main street corner of every village?
Is making it illegal to read or possess the Koran a legitimate secular action consistent with the right to practice religion without hindrance?
|
come on people use a little common sense, believing in a secular society doesn't mean you condone acts of murder, or abuse or anything else just because someone believes in it. all the society wants is the freedom to believe what they want to believe, free of prosecution and therefore they extend that curtsy to other belief systems.
starting a witch hunt is not the answer, it will only made religious folk more resilient and stronger. not to mention giving them ample reason to try outlawing atheism, or brand it as 'evil'.
if atheists want a world free of religion risking an backlash is a bad idea. instead they should work on improving education, promoting science and scientific methods and rational behaviour.
this atheists can "organise" themselves for. i don't think it is fair to say that being an atheist is just a non-belief in god, this more than that, it's a belief in critical evaluation and rational thinking. That we can promote together as a mass group.
if you want to call organising for that message "a religion" than so be it, it's just arguing semantics anyway.
|
|
|
06-08-2008, 07:51 AM
|
#38
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
|
Quote:
Orcus Dreki wrote
if your definition of religion is an "organised group" then yes, otherwise no
|
What are the tenets of atheism? What do atheists believe (not what they don't believe)?
Are most atheists anti-religious, benignly tolerant of religion or mostly complacent about religion in a free society? Do you even know?
What is the most effective appeal for coalescing the most atheists? Maybe you know.
There's nothing stopping a group of individual atheists who share a preponderance of common viewpoints from organizing around the same goals, but what exactly would those be? The eradication of all superstitious thinking from the globe? What?
"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
|
|
|
06-08-2008, 09:02 AM
|
#39
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
|
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
But then we'd be part of a religion of sorts, wouldn't we?
As secularists already, we don't need to do that. In the U.S., we have a Constitution that's supposed to protect us from the excesses of these people. We've got to be firm about that. That's the best we can do, really. Otherwise, all the various cults that exist out there have every right to their delusions. And, as for them hearing any other voices but their own, well, don't hold your breath. Most will not listen, no matter how loudly you shout.
And welcome to the forum.
|
i think most atheists accept that an organisation maybe of free thinkers would be a most beneficial idea , if not only to add free thought and reasoned thinking to a public that has very few groups of the kind to listen to and be influencd by.
|
|
|
06-08-2008, 11:23 PM
|
#40
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
What are the tenets of atheism? What do atheists believe (not what they don't believe)?
Are most atheists anti-religious, benignly tolerant of religion or mostly complacent about religion in a free society? Do you even know?
What is the most effective appeal for coalescing the most atheists? Maybe you know.
There's nothing stopping a group of individual atheists who share a preponderance of common viewpoints from organizing around the same goals, but what exactly would those be? The eradication of all superstitious thinking from the globe? What?
|
the problem is with the word atheist, literally meaning non-theist, however most people agree that even though we are highly diverse people, we still have common threads to rally behind. as ILOVEJESUS above me said, freethinking is one of them, or more importantly rational thought. how many atheists don't value rational thought highly? i don't think i have ever met one who doesn't. therefore atheists on that principle alone could begin to promote a system that supports such a concept, where knowledge is highly regarded and given to all and where debating and scepticism is rewarded. Rationalism is just one common ideal that atheists have, i'm sure us few atheists on this forum could brainstorm more that would be appropriate to most atheists.
we are slowly getting there, Richard Dawkins has an organisation already and so does Sam Harris. we just need to unify all atheist to make us an imposing political force in the world.
Be the change we wish to see in the world - Gandhi
|
|
|
06-09-2008, 02:44 AM
|
#41
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oxford, UK.
Posts: 2,330
|
Based on this forum, organising atheists = herding cats.
"You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching, and will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family"
|
|
|
06-09-2008, 02:58 AM
|
#42
|
Guest
|
Quote:
a different tim wrote
Based on this forum, organising atheists = herding cats.
|
nobody said it would be easy, but it is by no means impossible. wouldn't you a different tim fight for a better world or at least give your support?
|
|
|
06-09-2008, 04:21 AM
|
#43
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oxford, UK.
Posts: 2,330
|
Good luck getting this lot to agree on what a better world is. We can't even agree on what atheism is. ILJ think's it's OK to relabel the universe "God", for example.
Don't get me wrong. I think that the fact that atheists disagree on almost everything else apart from atheism is healthy.
I'm quite happy to cheer on the likes of Dawkins and Dennett from the sidelines, and support specific causes like the fund the ACLU put up for Kitzmiller v Dover, but an atheist political programme? Where would you start?
"You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching, and will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family"
|
|
|
06-09-2008, 04:35 AM
|
#44
|
Guest
|
Quote:
a different tim wrote
Good luck getting this lot to agree on what a better world is. We can't even agree on what atheism is. ILJ think's it's OK to relabel the universe "God", for example.
Don't get me wrong. I think that the fact that atheists disagree on almost everything else apart from atheism is healthy.
I'm quite happy to cheer on the likes of Dawkins and Dennett from the sidelines, and support specific causes like the fund the ACLU put up for Kitzmiller v Dover, but an atheist political programme? Where would you start?
|
can you at least agree you would like better educated people in the world, more political emphasis on science and a wider awareness on proper scientific method.
or are you happy with irrational believes ruling your political leaders?
|
|
|
06-09-2008, 04:58 AM
|
#45
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oxford, UK.
Posts: 2,330
|
I would. But I'll bet you can find someone who calls themself an atheist somewhere who will disagree with one of those. (Probably a free market nutcase who thinks that political emphasis on science is a bad thing and we should just let the private sector get on with it).
And I would rather have a liberal political leader who subscribes to an irrational belief than a dictatorial one who doesn't.
The problem, I think, is that there are certainly political programmes I would subscribe to. Education and science would be an important part of such a programme to me. But there's more to a political programme than that - is there any such thing as an atheist foreign policy or economics policy? I don't think so although I'm open to suggestion.
Now sure, there's some stuff we can (mostly) agree on, but it's on an ad hoc basis. It's pressure group stuff, to be signed up to as and when an issue arises, if we want to. I'm happy to cheer on Dawkins when he takes on the religious establishment in the UK, for example, but I know of plenty of atheists who think he comes across as dogmatic and arrogant and does more harm than good.
"You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching, and will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family"
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 PM.
|