Should atheism be recognised?

[(Q)]

Secular to me is religious tolerance.

That is NOT the definition of secular.

 

[iceaura]

If I want an opinion on religion, I'll ask another theist. Thats like a second opinion.

Like I said - flagrant.

All I've learned from atheists is that some arguments are just pointless.

You're young yet, there's time.

Meanwhile, there's the issue of whether theists can recognize atheists, and what they would have to do to accomplish that apparently difficult feat.

Is there a point you are making? Or are you saying that western countries are not secular or that the countries they invaded are?

IIRC somebody a few weeks ago was going to much trouble to establish that the countries like India and Lebanon were the truly secular ones, and the Western countries were not truly secular because they did not allow religions sufficient public expression.

There's also the complication that the countries we are now calling secular have the capability to invade the so-called non-secular, and the countries we are now calling non-secular can't invade back. This differential capability tends to bias the statistics.

And finally, we do have numerous invasions by non-secular countries of those countries vulnerable to them. Israel, for example, invaded Lebanon - are we agreed that Lebanon is more secular than Israel? - and Pakistan has invaded India and Bangladesh, various non-secular African peoples have done much invading, and so forth. Now the death toll is lower, in most of these cases (maybe not the African ones), but that seems to come down to capability again.

Atheists are generally not a part of that equation since they are without religion already.

Except for the religious ones, of course.

 

[Orleander]

....Secular to me is religious tolerance. Atheists are generally not a part of that equation since they are without religion already.

wha?? That's not even close to what secular means. :bugeye:

 

[S.A.M.]

wha?? That's not even close to what secular means. :bugeye:

I don't know how westerners define it. Indians define secular as worldly, not associated with religion or outside or separate from religion. Hence we have religious matters which are those that concern different religious groups and secular matters, which are common to all and separate from religious matters.

Atheists have no religion so they fall outside religious matters anyway.

 

[(Q)]

wha?? That's not even close to what secular means. :bugeye:

Don't worry Orly, Sam will continue to do the "dance" until you get tired or bored or both trying to get her to stand still for a moment.

You're doing a good job of exposing her bullshit, though. :thumbsup:

 

[Orleander]

I don't know how westerners define it. Indians define secular as worldly, not associated with religion or outside or separate from religion. Hence we have religious matters which are those that concern different religious groups and secular matters, which are common to all and separate from religious matters.

Atheists have no religion so they fall outside religious matters anyway.

westerners?? I think just about everyone who knows the word defines it as the dictionary does. OK, so what secular and non-secular countries were you talking about in the invasion scenario?

 

[Enmos]

sec⋅u⋅lar
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular?qsrc=2888

 

[Bowser]

I was merely responding to idiotic comments.

Secular to me is religious tolerance. Atheists are generally not a part of that equation since they are without religion already.

I think you're stretching the definition a bit, but I suppose you could apply it to most western nations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular?qsrc=2888

 

[S.A.M.]

sec⋅u⋅lar
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular?qsrc=2888

Yup, thats correct.

 

[Enmos]

Yup, thats correct.

So how are atheists not secular ?

 

[Orleander]

and the secular and non-secular countries you were talking about are....

 

[S.A.M.]

I think you're stretching the definition a bit, but I suppose you could apply it to most western nations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular?qsrc=2888

Its not my definition. India is a multireligious country and we have a secular culture and social systems. ie we don't interfere in religious matters and have civil as well as religious laws to accomodate as required.

 

[(Q)]

Yup, thats correct.

Then, you are wrong.

 

[S.A.M.]

So how are atheists not secular ?

Atheists are generally irrelevant as a consideration in secular societies. They just fall along the lines of the common civil regulations. There is no need to define the worldly for them, since they have no religious considerations. e.g. we have a Hindu marriage Act for Hindus and a Special Marriage Act for others. But all religious marriages are equally valid and follow religious laws. Atheists would fall in anywhere they wanted to.

 

[Enmos]

Yup, thats correct.

Its not my definition. India is a multireligious country and we have a secular culture and social systems. ie we don't interfere in religious matters and have civil as well as religious laws to accomodate as required.

That is the same definition I referred to.. :shrug:

 

[iceaura]

Atheists have no religion so they fall outside religious matters anyway.

Except for the religious ones, of course.

And the ones being abused by religious matters.

But the entire secular/non-secular business has become fairly confused over the past few months.

 

[Enmos]

Atheists are generally irrelevant as a consideration in secular societies. They just fall along the lines of the common civil regulations. There is no need to define the worldly for them, since they have no religious considerations. e.g. we have a Hindu marriage Act for Hindus and a Special Marriage Act for others. But all religious marriages are equally valid and follow religious laws. Atheists would fall in anywhere they wanted to.

Hmm I don't think so:

sec⋅u⋅lar
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular?qsrc=2888

 

[S.A.M.]

Except for the religious ones, of course.

Well as an Indian, possibly I see no connection between atheism and religion. However, also as an Indian, you're welcome to your notions.

Hmm I don't think so:

I like how you skip the first definition and go to the second one.

What difference does it make to an atheist how he/she gets married?

 

[iceaura]

Well as an Indian, possibly I see no connection between atheism and religion

Ignorance is a temporary state - if you choose.

What difference does it make to an atheist how he/she gets married?

Depends on their religion, if any. The Navajo and Buddhist and Taoist atheists tend to have a ritual in mind.

 

[Bowser]

Its not my definition. India is a multireligious country and we have a secular culture and social systems. ie we don't interfere in religious matters and have civil as well as religious laws to accomodate as required.

Our definition of "secular" must be corrupt then. A nation that tolerates religion is not the same as one that incorporates religious doctrine into its laws. There seems to be a fine line.