Fixing the Two Party System

[Count Arioch the 28th]

There's a difference between banning religion and not giving a shit.

Banning religion is what they did in the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China (although they have relaxed immensely, they even allow missionaries in China now), and North Korea.

"Not Giving a Shit" is what they do in Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, and many others.

Places where not a single shit is given tend to be better places yo live than governments that try to force a certain viewpoint on everyone. Banning Christianity (or Islam, or Hindu, or Judaism, or Atheism, or whatever it is you believe on) doesn't work. I don't know a single person that doesn't buck harder against things when they feel oppressed in some way. It just doesn't work.

Now, not giving a shit? That's the ideal stance on religion I think.

[Username17]

The monopoly religion has on public life has been being evaporated by the light of reason and it will continue to do so. Four hundred years ago, believing in the wrong sky fairy could get you burned at the stake in most of Europe. Today only 52% of people in Europe believe in a god. And that percentage is going down. And that's a good thing.

Communists tried to stamp out religion. It did not work. People simply want to believe in a Higher Power. Live with it.

I live in Czech Republic. Less than 20% of people believe in a god here. Not "19% of people go to church", seriously only 19% of people even think there is a god. So you're wrong. It did work. It is currently working. Religion is less relevant this generation than last and next generation will be even less relevant. Even those people who do continue to follow religions increasingly ignore what they say. At the end of his papacy, six in ten American Catholics regarded John Paul's papacy as "out of touch" and ignored his pronouncements. With Ratzinger in charge, the number is even higher.

The reality is that science gives us light and the power of flight, and religion doesn't. The ancient answers were shitty guess work in the days of bronze working sheep herders, and they haven't gotten any better. People don't attempt to live their lives by the pronouncements of Leviticus, because those are retarded.

Cars. Medicine. Industrialization. Reason gives us so much, and religion gives us so little. And while traditions die slowly and hard, they do in fact die. They have been dying, they are dying now, and they are going to go away. Not today, not tomorrow, and not even in our grandchildren's lifetimes. But the religions of the past are already "quaint", and they aren't going to recover relevance ever in the future because they have nothing to offer and never did and never will.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

The whole point of an atheist education system is its the only way to let people make the personal choice of their beliefs. Unless the government violates the establishment clause and decides one religion happens to be right. That way lies religious persecution.

[Zinegata]

I live in Czech Republic.

Which is why your analysis fails.

I said "the world", not "the Czech Republic", not "Frank Trollman", not "Asshole Atheists".

I said "the world".

And survey says...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

According to one estimate, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nonreligious

A blistering 2.3% of the world describe themselves as atheists.

Again, make all the noise you want, but again the fact remains: The light of science hasn't obliterated the human belief in superstitions and higher powers. Most people do in fact want believe to some extent or another in a higher power. Cancel that - the vast majority of people believe in a higher power in one way or another. That's part of human nature.

----

But hey, some people want to whine about the 86% or so of humanity who still believe in a higher power. Let them. Nobody gives a shit.

[Zinegata]

The whole point of an atheist education system is its the only way to let people make the personal choice of their beliefs. Unless the government violates the establishment clause and decides one religion happens to be right. That way lies religious persecution.

The word you are looking for is not atheist. It is secular.

You seperate religion and state institutions to preserve religious freedoms.

You do not champion the denial of religion as the state, because that would in fact be religious persecution.

-------

Studies have shown that being an atheist makes you more like to be tolerant and reasonable. But that doesn't mean that there aren't asshole atheists in the world who have an axe to grind with the world. That's why the distinction between atheist and secular is quite important.

And frankly, I'd say ID falls well within the secular. ID does not name its God.

[A Hammer]

You know, I'm really curious about your definition of belief in a higher power, seeing as how it apparently includes people who self-identify as "non-religious".

[Fuchs]

And again: You can believe in a higher power without believing that said higher power created humans (or influences humanity in any other way).

[Username17]

And frankly, I'd say ID falls well within the secular. ID does not name its God.

No it doesn't. Filing the serial numbers off of your religious teachings doesn't make them secular. It makes them slightly watered down, but they are still religious teachings.

The light of science hasn't obliterated the human belief in superstitions and higher powers.

You left off a part. The end of that sentence is supposed to be "...yet."

Superstitions are going to take a long time to go away. Astrology used to be universally believed and used in matters of state. Science came in and nut punched it, and now only 25% of people believe in it, and most of them view it as quaint and fun rather than something to consult on matters of state. The numbers of people who believe in gods are also declining. The cultural impact of religious views is declining even faster. Two in five Americans say they attend church regularly, but the actual numbers are less than half that. The reality is that the number of people who regularly go to church is no larger than the number of people who regularly read their horoscope in the newspaper.

And in the less developed world, things are even more religious. People in Somalia still stone women for adultery. Religious teachings are taken very seriously there. But if and when they get access to education and the real wonders of real science, their religious leaders will fade from importance the same way that they have and are continuing to do so in the West. It's inevitable and it is good.

Because when it all comes down to brass tacks: the ancient sorceries don't actually work. No matter what you pray or what you pray to, nothing happens. We don't live in a demon haunted world.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

No it doesn't. Filing the serial numbers off of your religious teachings doesn't make them secular. It makes them slightly watered down, but they are still religious teachings.

Ah, I see. Let's ban mythology too then, because by your standards they're not secular either. The serial numbers aren't even filed off when people discuss creation myths.

You left off a part. The end of that sentence is supposed to be "...yet."

I don't believe much in "inevitability". If you really had the ability to pre-ordain the future, you should open a psychic hotline.

People have been superstitious since like forever, and very little has convinced me that this will ever go away. People will just find new voodoo to worship - be it Deities, a general belief in humanity, popstars, or Vocaloids.

Heck, one would think that the power of churches would go away (an abberation really caused by the fact every institution blew up after Rome fell except the Church), but even in the present day we see stuff like radical Islam getting traction.

History is not an inevitable march of progress.

[Zinegata]

You know, I'm really curious about your definition of belief in a higher power, seeing as how it apparently includes people who self-identify as "non-religious".

Edit: NM, good catch.

Fuchs->

And yeah, sure. But the point of a higher power - more often than not - is to explain what we do not yet understand. And why we are all here is one of the biggest things we've yet to understand.

It's a stretch, but not a huge stretch. Objection noted, and "Meh"'d.

[Fuchs]

The question was "how many people really believe that a higher power created humans", not "how many people believe in some higher power".

I am fairly sure a lot in Europe "believe in god" (at least on paper), but don't actually believe in creation myths.

[sabs]

No it doesn't. Filing the serial numbers off of your religious teachings doesn't make them secular. It makes them slightly watered down, but they are still religious teachings.

Ah, I see. Let's ban mythology too then, because by your standards they're not secular either. The serial numbers aren't even filed off when people discuss creation myths.

You left off a part. The end of that sentence is supposed to be "...yet."

I don't believe much in "inevitability". If you really had the ability to pre-ordain the future, you should open a psychic hotline.

People have been superstitious since like forever, and very little has convinced me that this will ever go away. People will just find new voodoo to worship - be it Deities, a general belief in humanity, popstars, or Vocaloids.

Heck, one would think that the power of churches would go away (an abberation really caused by the fact every institution blew up after Rome fell except the Church), but even in the present day we see stuff like radical Islam getting traction.

History is not an inevitable march of progress.

Hey you want to teach ID in a comparative religion class? Or in a Social Studies class right along with Greek and Norse Mythology, Hindi creation myths, The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Knock yourself out.

You want to teach it in SCIENCE CLASS as an alternative theory to evolution? Go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

See the difference?
Probably not.. that's asking for too much brain power.

[RobbyPants]

No it doesn't. Filing the serial numbers off of your religious teachings doesn't make them secular. It makes them slightly watered down, but they are still religious teachings.

Ah, I see. Let's ban mythology too then, because by your standards they're not secular either. The serial numbers aren't even filed off when people discuss creation myths.

As a general rule, people don't consult mythology when going to the polls to cast votes that will actually affect people's lives.

[Roy]

I like how Zinegata's argument is basically "lots of people do it, so it can't be wrong".

Rewind a few hundred years, lots of people believed the world is flat.

Today, Faux News is the most popular news channel, despite being the least accurate.

All it proves is that most people are fucking stupid.

But we already knew that.

[Zinegata]

See the difference?
Probably not.. that's asking for too much brain power.

Oh, look, calling people who have even the slightest inkling of being religious stupid. Hyuk hyuk, how insecure you are of your own intellectual superiority.

And why is ID okay in a science class? Simple. It's part of the history of science.

When I was in science class, we were taught how people's understanding of atoms evolved. At first, they thought atoms were indivisible. Then, they discovered smaller stuff that made up an atom - like electrons, protons, and neutrons. And how you can split an atom for a fuckton of energy. And now they have a bunch of other new theories on stuff that may be even smaller than those above components.

Similarly, if you read some articles on how the universe was created, you'll see that they'll discuss several different theories. Before the Big Bang, there was the Steady State. Now Steady State is considered largely discredited in the face of the Big Bang - but you'll still find it in most articles talking about the creation of the universe.

Why?

Because collective human knowledge is not constant. And science tracks our progress from varying states too. So discussing ID in the context of how "people tried to explain creation myths prior to scientific instruments" is in fact totally valid for a science class.

Sometimes, it's just as important to learn how they figured out the truth, on top of what is the truth.

The problem is only when people try to claim that ID remains a valid theory in a scientific context (which is usually done by religious nuts. But again, who gives a shit about them either?). That'd be like claiming that we should still consider Aristotle's random musings on physics as fact.

[Zinegata]

As a general rule, people don't consult mythology when going to the polls to cast votes that will actually affect people's lives.

As a general rule, people don't consult science either when they vote. They just vote for people who "seems like one of us".

You live in a democracy. You will have to live with people who don't agree with you. That is the reality of our world.

So again, this is pointless whining against religion. It's there, and you have to deal with it something like 96% of the time you meet an American.

Again, you can either accept the world as it is, or keep banging your head against a wall pointlessly. I live in a world full of religious people. And I live in a world full of people who have accepted science. ID threads the two in terms of creation myths. *shrug* So why whine over it?

[sabs]

ID is not the history of science. That's complete crap. That would be like teaching The Greek creation myth as "the history of science". It's rediculous. ID does not belong in science.

ID doesn't thread the two. It's a freaking Christian Creation myth fixed with a search and replace function. That's not science. Why don't we teach the Buddhist Creation Myth, it's actually probably closer. Or maybe the Hindu. What the hell makes Christian Intelligent Design any more science than any of those? ABsolutely nothing.

Yes, we live in a world with religious people. I am forced to restrain my Fists of Death everyday because of this. But that doesn't mean I have to let them dump their dumbass shit all over me. Just because Pat Roberts says that Haiti's earthquake was retribution for the Haitians making a deal with the Devil when they got rid of their kind and considerate French Overlords, does not make it so.

You wan to believe the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world 6223 years ago? Good on you. But don't teach that in Science class when we're already Number 27 world wide in education. When we're literally bleeding Knowledge and Jobs like a Jack the Ripper victim. This country has over the last 30+ years gutted our industrial, manufacturing, and engineering talent pool, in the search of higher bonuses for Execs, that we're #1 at absolutely nothing now, except thinking we're #1.

It's time to wake up and invest in education. And teaching Scientology in Science Class isn't the way to do it.

[Zinegata]

Yes, we live in a world with religious people. I am forced to restrain my Fists of Death everyday because of this.

See a psychiatrist. That is all.

*is now busy with Dominions*

[RobbyPants]

As a general rule, people don't consult mythology when going to the polls to cast votes that will actually affect people's lives.

As a general rule, people don't consult science either when they vote. They just vote for people who "seems like one of us".

You live in a democracy. You will have to live with people who don't agree with you. That is the reality of our world.

So again, this is pointless whining against religion. It's there, and you have to deal with it something like 96% of the time you meet an American.

Again, you can either accept the world as it is, or keep banging your head against a wall pointlessly. I live in a world full of religious people. And I live in a world full of people who have accepted science. ID threads the two in terms of creation myths. *shrug* So why whine over it?

Zine, you made a bad analogy. That's all I was pointing out. No one gives a flying fuck about mythology.

[tzor]

Giving religion the boot is a standard of modern western secular nations. And has worked out very well indeed.

No, PhoneLobster, you are the liberal drooling idiot. "Giving religion the boot" is not thestandard of modern western secular nations. The only true secular "western" nation is France. That's it. Period End.

The United States adopted the separation of CHURCH and STATE (not Religion) and only because it wanted to be the opposite of England where the Queen is still head of both the state and the national "church."

England never really booted out religion, the Anglican church just naturally slipped into a comotose state. Why the Pope visited and they couldn't express proper anti-Papist agnst anymore.

Itally is still "Catholic" (only in the Italian manner).

Spain is still mostly "Catholic" (only in the Spanish maanner).

Russia is still very much "Orthodox" (Russian variety).

Turkey has been trying to kill Orthodox Christianity for decades, they may do that, but that's not the same as giving Religion the boot as they are still firmly Islamic.

[Username17]

No, PhoneLobster, you are the liberal drooling idiot. "Giving religion the boot" is not thestandard of modern western secular nations. The only true secular "western" nation is France. That's it. Period End.

What? Do you have to literally be on the Western Coast of Europe to count as a "western" nation? Again, I think we're going to have to go to the opening sentences of the wikipedia definition of "Secular State":

A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not guarantee that a state is secular.

Now, let's go to the big map:



The red countries have no state religion. Yes, I realize that the United Kingdom is not red, because the Queen is the Pope of the Church of England, and that is the state religion. However, the vast majority of the world is Red.

-Username17

[tzor]

The monopoly religion has on public life has been being evaporated by the light of reason and it will continue to do so. Four hundred years ago, believing in the wrong sky fairy could get you burned at the stake in most of Europe.

This is another Frankism. In England alone there were 14 different offenses that required the death penalty (England, by the way, hanged witches, and didn't burn them; non Christians could not be charged with the crime of witchcraft as they were pagans).

This is not to say that non Christians were treated fairly, they clearly were not. But the notion that they were being burned at the stake left and right is the height of stupidity. (Oh wait, this is Frank we are talking about ... the height of arrogant stupidity.)

In about a hundred years, we would enter the "age of enlightenment" an age that attemped to brige the gap between faith and reason. Even 18th century agnosticism could be considered "religious" in a sense, it was the religion of the "we don't really know." Indeed, that was true of most science as well at the time.

But sure go ahead, believe in your RELIGION IS DA EVIL mantra. Far be it from me to assault your religious faith.

[tzor]

The red countries have no state religion. Yes, I realize that the United Kingdom is not red, because the Queen is the Pope of the Church of England, and that is the state religion. However, the vast majority of the world is Red.

There you go again. (Let's play "football" with Frank ... oh dear, he's moved the goal posts again.) We started this conversation with the notion of giving "religion" the boot, which means not a "state religion," (because really that is a state church, a religion is a collective group of ideas, a church is a body of people who enforce those ideas) but the prohibition of eligious practice within a nation. The fact that the leaders of the church are not unique to a nation (the state church) doesn't in any way, shape or form, have anything to do with whether or not the government supports "religious" beliefs or practices.

The United States, a nation known for having a "separation of Church and State" amendment in the Constitution (it does ... well I suppose Mr. Jefferson must be right) still regularly supports tax breaks for recgonized churches. A lot of nations in Europe have similiar rules.

Separation of Church and State does not mean by any manner that "religion has been given the boot." The predominant religion is often engraned in the secular laws of these nations for no other reason than the religious moral arguments made forth at the time.

[Username17]

The monopoly religion has on public life has been being evaporated by the light of reason and it will continue to do so. Four hundred years ago, believing in the wrong sky fairy could get you burned at the stake in most of Europe.

This is another Frankism. In England alone there were 14 different offenses that required the death penalty (England, by the way, hanged witches, and didn't burn them; non Christians could not be charged with the crime of witchcraft as they were pagans).

So? My statement was that they would burn you for believing int the wrong sky fairy. In England, that was certainly true. I don't think that the world revolves around witches, and I didn't say it did. You're arguing with a straw man you made yourself.

I said that in Europe they burned you for simply being a believer who happened to have the wrong flavor of belief. That is unambiguously true, as the Protestant burnings in 1555 England testify to. What that has to do with sorcerers I don't know.

-Username17

[sabs]

Tzor, did you not study any of the European Religious Wars? I had family enprisoned, executed, and burned at the stake. Because they were Hugenots, instead of Catholics.

The FUCKING Inquisition. Never heard of it? Medeival, Spanish, Roman flavors.

The French Religious Wars saw anywhere from 2 million to 4 million people killed because they were either Catholics or Protestants. (There's a reason France is so adamantly Secular these days)

In 1681 Louis XIV instituted the policy of dragonnades, to intimidate Huguenot families to reconvert to Roman Catholicism or emigrate. Finally, in October 1685, Louis issued the Edict of Fontainebleau, which formally revoked the Edict and made the practice of Protestantism illegal in France.

So Tzor, England is not the only Western Country.