Yep we seem to be fairly similar, although my opinions on all of this are far from concrete as I like to think I'm open to change. Where we differ is I think it's the legitimacy of unvalidated belief that sways me towards regarding religious belief as inherently wicked, from personal experience as well as from various reading. I guess it's almost like the distinction between murder and state sanctioned or sponsored murder - there's just something far worse about the latter, no matter how you phrase it.
German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'
- Thread starter dirtychinchilla
- Start date
Yep we seem to be fairly similar, although my opinions on all of this are far from concrete as I like to think I'm open to change. Where we differ is I think it's the legitimacy of unvalidated belief that sways me towards regarding religious belief as inherently wicked, from personal experience as well as from various reading. I guess it's almost like the distinction between murder and state sanctioned or sponsored murder - there's just something far worse about the latter, no matter how you phrase it.
Would you not consider that much of your negative experience (and I assume it is related to your geographic position) is in fact predicated by a political situation that used the inherent entrenched segregation of religious positions to justify itself, rather than the problem being inherent in those beliefs themselves?
I too am open to change...in fact I used to be a rampant Atheist in my youth...experience however taught me to take a more objective view.
Nope. It is politics manipulating religion certainly but there is an element that requires no manipulation - it's a combination of faith, as well as the inherent segregation within the religion as you say and the position religion holds itself in society as being untouchable and invulnerable to criticism (whether through fear or instruction).
It's also not geography. My dad is a recovering alcoholic and he credits God for taking away his desire to drink; yet he smokes 50+ cigarettes a day and can't find any way to quit. He's tried every method imaginable and had varying degrees of success but his faith in God removing his desire to drink is so strong that he thinks he needs a similar intervention to quit smoking instead of taking credit for it himself.
It's also not geography. My dad is a recovering alcoholic and he credits God for taking away his desire to drink; yet he smokes 50+ cigarettes a day and can't find any way to quit. He's tried every method imaginable and had varying degrees of success but his faith in God removing his desire to drink is so strong that he thinks he needs a similar intervention to quit smoking instead of taking credit for it himself.
Is that inherent segregation not due to entrenched attitudes in the region and their historical nationalism, rather than having a specific justification in the Christian Faith, for example, it is not inherent in England or many other European countries.....is it not nationalism and constitutional positions that are the driving force of Sectarianism rather than simply it being inherent in the Faith of the individual?
I am not sure what this example has to do with what we are discussing. How an individual justifies or informs their personal faith has little to do with Church Doctrine as such.
Their conflicting doctrines provide the inherent segregation. Affiliation based on loose association to those doctrines is what is manipulated, and that's largely unintentional. The driving force is political as well as religious but again my problem is with the legitimacy and validity that religion provides that sustains the conflict and provides the extra level of vigour to violent viewpoints.
My example was just showing how religion can be harmful towards logic and rationale, regardless of the form it comes in.
My example was just showing how religion can be harmful towards logic and rationale, regardless of the form it comes in.
I disagree, Faith doesn't give violence legitimacy or validity, individuals may try to justify their actions within their ideology, but that is largely down to them and it is influenced by other factors rather than their religion....if you remove religion from the equation, you will still have the same problems, they will simply be justified or defended using different paradigms.
Again, it is not religion that is responsible for your Father not having the will to quit smoking, that is something personal to him.....he feels that his faith helped him quit alcohol and that too is a personal justification for him, Relogion doesn't make him smoke, anymore than it made him drink. If he is blaming a lack of faith for his inability to quit smoking, then he is simply seeking external justification for his own weakness, just as he justified his strength in quitting alcohol in the same way.
If he had no faith, he would simply find another excuse.
One cannot deny how powerful religion can be on the mind for those that are naturally weak willed.
I would find it curious if a psychologist did a large scale test between two societies, one heavily religious and one without, seeing how it influences things.
Of course the test would have to have at least 20-50 years to work, which may be too much.
I would find it curious if a psychologist did a large scale test between two societies, one heavily religious and one without, seeing how it influences things.
Of course the test would have to have at least 20-50 years to work, which may be too much.
They would have to remove politics and various other influences as well, such as culture and nationalism. Religion influences people, but not always negatively and it is no more inherently evil than any number of other influences we have, such as the aforementioned Politics.
I am not saying it is inherently evil, man is inherently evil half the time.
Religion is simply a tool to most folk, to mould simple folk into doing whatever they please.
Which is unfortunately what a lot of people seem to suffer from.
But if you could make both societies have the exact same atmosphere, but only change the differences that I said, It can't be impossible to test surely?
How do you remove Faith from the individual? Even inthe absence of organised religion?
What do we see when we compare an atheist society to a religious society? To me it seems that it is the middle ground that is preferable, one that embraces both the spiritual and temporal needs of the individual without giving undue preference to one over the other except that which suits the individual within their own philosophy.
EDIT: To make it entirely clear to estebanrey and any others who may be confused by what has been said here and the context applied, when using the term Atheist Society I am referring to a Society that actively promotes State Atheism, while suppressing any form of Religion (as the context of the discussion StriderX suggests), when referring to a Religious Society the reference is with a Theocracy. The context was informed as to the comparison between the two disparate State apparatchiks with the middle ground implying Secularism. I did not think that this needed such extensive explanation given the context of the discussion at hand. It would appear that I was wrong and therefore the reason for this edit.
Last edited:
The middle ground is always preferred, however I don't see us reaching that terribly soon.
Unfortunately, religion is so heavily connected to some of the worst atrocities, that subsequent generations just don't want anything to do with it.
so is Politics....more so in fact, as political ambition often hijacks religion in order to justify itself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
As someone who is obsessed with pedantry around terminology I'm surprised you've implied the two things above are mutually exclusive notions.
A Buddhist society for example is an atheistic religious society.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You could say non-religious, but 'secular' would probably be the word you were looking for.
As someone who is obsessed with pedantry around terminology I'm surprised you've implied the two things above are mutually exclusive notions.
A Buddhist society for example is an atheistic religious society.
Buddhism embraces some atheist concepts, however it is not irreligious or non-theistic as you are attempting to imply......Buddhism simply doesn't adhere to a creation deity, not a non-theistic paradigm.
Also I am not obsessed with terminology except when it is being used erronously to illustrate a position that the terminology doesn't support.
True, but i like being blunt.
Secular simply means the separation of Church and State, not the removal of religion from society. You could say irreligious, but then that would negate your former post somewhat.
Secular States are not free from religion as StriderX was trying to elucidate.
EDIT: Again to salve estebanrey and any others who may be confused by the use of the terminology in the context it is being used, the use of secular in this case is contextually related to the State (as informed by the discussion about religious and irreligious state paradigms) I am not referring to, and neither does the context support other uses of the word Secular, for example: Occurring or observed once in an age or century, or Lasting from century to century....in the context StriderX and I, and therefore estebanrey himself used, the contextual use of the word relates to Secularism, which is seperation of Church and State, not the removal of Religion from the State as in State Atheism. I erroneously expected the context to not need explanation. My apologies
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
No it doesn't.
Separation of church and state is a concept it it's own right but isn't a requirement of secularism necessarily. We are considered a secular society yet we don't have a separation of church and state (given the Queen is the head of the Church of England).
Conversely, the US is a far more religious society than ours yet supposedly has a commitment to the separation of church and state.
You have just proven what I said......
Secularism in the context you used it, is the separation of Church and State, not the removal of Religion from Society. A Secular Society is based on Freedom of Religion, it is neutral in it's position of which religions the members of that Society follow, it doesn't remove religion from society or actively separate the people from their religion.
That the UK is considered by some to be secular, (in fact technically it isn't as we have an established Church) is immaterial to what was being said, as is the absence of an established Church in the United States. As far as I know there are only two truly secular States in the world, those being France and Turkey, although it is widely accepted that Western Society as a whole is secular, albeit with some aberrations (such as the Lords Spiritual in the UK for example)
Last edited: