Religulous

[spidergoat]

The flawed logic is in assuming theism and atheism are just two forms of the same thing. Religions often include holy books that ascribe all sorts of behaviors, from food habits to mating and politics. Atheism simply refutes the supernatural origin of these traditions. Indeed, the very existence of these principles proves that they are possible without any supernatural participation!

SAM's logic says that since these principles have always been associated with God, their effectiveness depends on that idea. I say that the association is simply a tradition and not a necessary aspect of it.

 

[S.A.M.]

. Religions often include holy books that ascribe all sorts of behaviors, from food habits to mating and politics. Atheism simply refutes the supernatural origin of these traditions.

And there you have it. Why there is no atheist society

 

[Enterprise-D]

You are consistently avoiding points that posters are trying to tell you. Religious people are collecting way too much power and misusing it. They are repeating the same failed attempts of the past and leading their people to a society that collapses under its own weight.

Contesting these claims by asking for examples of the opposite does not falsify any of the crap that fundies in power are committing.

 

[SkinWalker]

They? You mean atheists would be less self serving and promote self determination in the countries under current US foreign policy?

I don't think I've ever stated or implied that those who are secular in government are necessarily atheists. If so, I apologize.

 

[S.A.M.]

Religious people are collecting way too much power and misusing it.

And atheists would be different because?

I don't think I've ever stated or implied that those who are secular in government are necessarily atheists. If so, I apologize.

Thanks for the clarification, frequently the term "secular" is confused by the term "atheism"

 

[Enterprise-D]

I'd love for SAM to have addressed one or two my posts which she conveniently missed while answering spidergoat et al.

For example

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2058584&postcount=240

 

[Enterprise-D]

And atheists would be different because?

There'd be no unprovable, intangible, largely accepted, "god told me to" - a la GW Bush, ridiculous excuses.

However, you are STILL refusing to see that merely because there is a status quo of (majority) theist run societies that this must be the best solution.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm asking you to adhere to your own claims of requiring evidence before accepting something as fact. Or, am I supposed to take you on faith?

 

[spidergoat]

And there you have it. Why there is no atheist society

So, you are saying that because rules for society happen in the past to be associated with religion, that there can be no such rules without religion? It would seem the example of the United States and other secular countries would contradict that notion. They are no worse than societies of the past, and better in some respects. They work no matter what the individual religious feelings of it's citizens may be, if any.



Good questions, Enterprise-D.

 

[S.A.M.]

So, you are saying that because rules for society happen in the past to be associated with religion, that there can be no such rules without religion? It would seem the example of the United States and other secular countries would contradict that notion. They are no worse than societies of the past, and better in some respects. They work no matter what the individual religious feelings of it's citizens may be, if any.



Good questions, Enterprise-D.

So give me an example of atheists working for a secular as opposed to an atheist society. If they can do it, they must be doing it, right?

 

[Enterprise-D]

I'm asking you to adhere to your own claims of requiring evidence before accepting something as fact. Or, am I supposed to take you on faith?

I said nothing that requires evidence. I am railing on YOU for using a fallacious argument. You are, at the risk of sounding extremely repetitive, depending on a tradition to back up your argument with zero points of comparative reference to make the claim.

 

[Enterprise-D]

So give me an example of atheists working for a secular as opposed to an atheist society. If they can do it, they must be doing it, right?

No. You are perfectly capable of licking a muddy car tire, but you aren't going to...correct?

I can scarecely imagine anything more nightmarish than governing hordes of persons the likes of fundies I have come across. There might be very good reasons why many athiests avoid politics...at any rate, your assertion that religious societies are the be all and end all of existence is a fallacy.

 

[spidergoat]

So give me an example of atheists working for a secular as opposed to an atheist society. If they can do it, they must be doing it, right?

Since there is no devine compulsion to evangelize, working for an atheist society is not a common thing for atheists to do. The best we can do is make a sound argument and let people make up their own minds. For my own part, I am all in favor of a secular society, since most of my friends are some form of theist. It's none of my business to tell them how to think.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. You are perfectly capable of licking a muddy car tire, but you aren't going to...correct?

At least your example shows what an atheists notion of subscribing to a secular society brings to their mind

Since there is no devine compulsion to evangelize, working for an atheist society is not a common thing for atheists to do. The best we can do is make a sound argument and let people make up their own minds. For my own part, I am all in favor of a secular society, since most of my friends are some form of theist. It's none of my business to tell them how to think.

Where are the athiests making a sound argument on behalf of a secular society? Why are you telling me about an atheist society?

I said nothing that requires evidence. I am railing on YOU for using a fallacious argument. You are, at the risk of sounding extremely repetitive, depending on a tradition to back up your argument with zero points of comparative reference to make the claim.

You mean the presence of successful surviving theist based societies is a "tradition" while the complete lack of any atheist society is a fluke? Gee, thanks for that info.

 

[spidergoat]

I think every atheist can make arguments in favor of a secular society. Secular society is, in effect, virtually the same as an atheist society.

 

[Enterprise-D]

At least your example shows what an atheists notion of subscribing to a secular society brings to their mind

Sweetie, I was merely pointing out that merely because a notion is within your ability to achieve, does not mean that you actually have to or desire to do it.

You mean the presence of successful surviving theist based societies is a "tradition" while the complete lack of any atheist society is a fluke? Gee, thanks for that info.

I made no such claim that a so called lack of an atheist society is a fluke. I said, YOU my dear SAM are making a claim (and by the way, I might mention as a side note that it is a very elitist and holier-than-thou claim) with zero basis, zero point of reference and zero comparison. Hence, such a claim is next to worthless.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you no longer believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Strange, I thought that was the atheist position.

 

[Balerion]

And this dishonest, intentionally elusive woman is a moderator...my god...

 

[jpappl]

Sam,

Are you suggesting that socieites run by theists are better ?
Are you suggesting you want to move to a theocracy ?
Are you suggesting that it would be a step backwards for all of the worlds governments to operate under a secular notion ?
Atheism and Secularism are quite different as has been pointed out.
What specifically is your point ?
Why do you not see that we are here because of where we came, religion for better or worse has been ingrained in ours and others societies and in the members of each society. Does that not make more sense ?

Forgive me I came in mid-way and want to hear it from you directly so there is no mixed messages and nobody puts words in you mouth.

Thank you

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm saying that its not a question of "better" because there is no choice. There are no societies established by atheists.