Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

[RainbowSingularity]

I recently had a debate with a Christian and Muslim, both stated emphatically they had every right to exercise their freedom of their respective religions, however both also stated that no one should have freedom from religion, that this was not a right.

Thoughts?

if you can not have freedom from religion then you are victim of religion.

 

[Musika]

///
You claim there is a god & strongly imply it is omnipotent. You know this.
If you changed your mind, say so.

The demons are in your dreamworld.

<>

See how I am responding to your quote now. This is what it looks like when you quote someone's contribution to the thread. If you want to discuss something I raised in this thread, you have to find it first and then hit the reply button. If instead you just want to banter about run-of-the-mill generic atheism, you might be better off doing it in a separate thread.

If you have read and actually took in anything that I have posted about the universal acceptance of an omnimax God (none of which appears in this thread btw), you wouldn't ask such a question. The fact that you continue to ask such questions indicates that you haven't (and arguably, can't and won't) read anything I have already submitted on the subject.

 

[Michael 345]

if you can not have freedom from religion then you are victim of religion.

Isn't it nice though - religions fighting over atheist, even though we have divorced them all

Thought bubble - are they fighting over us

• to enlarge their flock here or
• they don't mind if you stay home and pray as long as Sky Daddy gives them the Brownie points

 

[spidergoat]

... yet they have websites, literature, philosophy, social movements, memes, jokes, etc etc that you see similarly associated with many other "things".

Yes. There are two aspects to this subject. There is the philosophical position of atheism, which doesn't require anything other than lack of belief in God. But in practice, atheists tend to (properly) adopt a set of humanist values to make up for the rejection of religious values. This includes respect for freedom of belief (if not always freedom of action), calls for activism, and public shaming of religiously inspired misdeeds.

 

[Goldtop]

Do you realize that the notion of equality amongst people is a transcendental treatise?
I mean, if we are not equal in terms of power, influence, obligation, education height, weight or any other material consideration under the sun, on what basis are we saying right's are equal?
Or alternatively, if you feel there is some material test you can apply to everyone so that we all give a uniform result, please bring it to the table.

It's ironic that you have to conveniently ignore at least the last 300 years of history, religion and philosophy to arrive at the point of suggesting that religion is the core element of diviseness in society.

The basis of equal rights is obvious, we are all humans so we are all equal.

Certainly, Religions are one element that divides societies, there's no question about that. Religions are tribal. Muslims are still killing Muslims over their beliefs, Muslims and Christians are still killing each other over their beliefs. The Religions that rule these folks worldview certainly doesn't consider any kind of equality or rights.

 

[Write4U]

I believe in gravity

Haven't noticed any

"We must believe in gravity or we will float off into space"

groups forming to reinforce my, along with a few others, belief

Ah, but this belief was not invented but is a result of demonstrable effects that "what goes up must come down" in reality. It allowed us to land a man on the moon and a Rover on Mars.

No one has been able to visit heaven and live to tell about it......

 

[Seattle]

Well that definitely makes atheism unique. Throughout history, thesis is met with antithesis to produce synthesis, yet by some strange magic, you argue that the (dominant) philosophy, culture, etc of theism is met by atheism, yet it brings with it no intrinsic philosophy, culture etc.

I didn't argue that.

 

[Musika]

The basis of equal rights is obvious, we are all humans so we are all equal.

There is nothing obvious about it.
If, as a human, someone is more powerful, rich, educated, etc etc, than you, why should they have equal rights with you when they display very obvious, functional superior/greater qualities?
Even in terms of biology, one of the greatest threats to a mammal is its own species due to competitiveness. There is nothing about identifying one's own species that automatically defaults to spontaneous feelings of equality. Remember we are not even talking about cooperative arrangements within a clan or family (which function on the notion of inequality). The notion of equal rights flies right in the face of the material assessment of things.

Certainly, Religions are one element that divides societies, there's no question about that.

Certainly you are conveniently ignoring at least the last 300 years of religion to avoid coming to the conclusion of its unique combination. It is actually material designations that divides society (to which, religious institutions may, just like anything else in society, be susceptible to).

Religions are tribal. Muslims are still killing Muslims over their beliefs, Muslims and Christians are still killing each other over their beliefs.

Actually the middle east is traditionally very tribal, and it is this aspect that got unfortunately exported along with religious ideas in the region. Say what you will about the Romans, but at the least, they weren't tribal. As for the notion that religion causes war, you certainly couldn't say that if you were looking at religion originating in India.

The Religions that rule these folks worldview certainly doesn't consider any kind of equality or rights.

If they didn't consider it, it wouldn't have have made it anywhere near the declaration of independence... which is perhaps the most seminal treatise for discussing issues of equality in the modern world.

 

[Musika]

Yes. There are two aspects to this subject. There is the philosophical position of atheism, which doesn't require anything other than lack of belief in God.

Non sequitor.
You don't venture into philosophy without the tools of philosophy.
Not even in sciforums.

 

[Musika]

I didn't argue that.

Then you are not arguing that atheism brings with it no inherent baggage.

 

[Seattle]

Then you are not arguing that atheism brings with it no inherent baggage.

I'm arguing that atheism is your word/concept. I'm aware of history whether it's religious in nature or not.

 

[Write4U]

Musika said:
Then you are not arguing that atheism brings with it no inherent baggage.

What baggage?
Name just one piece of baggage that comes with atheism except the scorn of theists.

And don't give me that BS about atheist dictators. No one ever went to war in the name of atheism.

How Many Have Been Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?
None, probably. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic. So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — even in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Communists Don't Kill in the Name of Atheism...

https://www.thoughtco.com/war-in-the-name-of-atheism-myths-248377

 

[Musika]

I'm arguing that atheism is your word/concept. I'm aware of history whether it's religious in nature or not.

On the contrary, the baggage of atheism (cultural, historical, philosophical, etc) is not something I (or even you)own.
Granted it's a popular myth of atheism to allude to the Pureland of being beyond cultural/ideological influence, but where the rubber meets the road, it is never the case.

 

[Write4U]

On the contrary, the baggage of atheism (cultural, historical, philosophical, etc) is not something I (or even you)own.
Granted it's a popular myth of atheism to allude to the Pureland of being beyond cultural/ideological influence, but where the rubber meets the road, it is never the case.

What baggage do atheists own? Name one.
Pureland???? What are you talking about??? Are you implying that atheists have an equivalent to a theist heaven, but call it Pureland???? Are you madddd..??????????

 

[Musika]

What baggage?
Name just one piece of baggage that comes with atheism except the scorn of theists.

Well, that luggage probably wouldn't meet the criteria of carry~on, to say the least. If you want to reject a world view, is it possible to do it without foisting another?

And don't give me that BS about atheist dictators. No one ever went to war in the name of atheism.

I guess genocide is technically not an act of war, so you may be correct

https://www.thoughtco.com/war-in-the-name-of-atheism-myths-248377

Lol
Lots of hand waving when he discusses communism .....

The author is obviously a fool if he cannot connect the dots between a state sponsored doctrine that identifies God/religion as inherently false and the systematic destruction of institution, property and people's lives that followed.

 

[Seattle]

On the contrary, the baggage of atheism (cultural, historical, philosophical, etc) is not something I (or even you)own.
Granted it's a popular myth of atheism to allude to the Pureland of being beyond cultural/ideological influence, but where the rubber meets the road, it is never the case.

The myth is that there is a God. That there is a culture behind that is what it is. Culture moves on regardless. Culture comes from Man and not God. "God" comes from Man.

 

[Musika]

What baggage do atheists own? Name one.

You already did .... and a big one at that.

Pureland???? What are you talking about??? Are you implying that atheists have an equivalent to a theist heaven, but call it Pureland???? Are you madddd..??????????

I am implying that atheists commonly allude to a type of cultural/ideological neutrality as the default position to foist their views. Such a position is technically impossible. There is some suggestion that this trend may have been catalyzed by communism, and the subsequent hasty maneuver to retreat from such a social embarrassment.

 

[Musika]

The myth is that there is a God.

So the atheists tell us....

That there is a culture behind that is what it is. Culture moves on regardless. Culture comes from Man and not God. "God" comes from Man.

At this stage I'm not sure what your point is .... that this is not "baggage"? That these ideas are beyond any cultural/ideological context (aka, coming direct from the "Pureland")?

 

[Write4U]

You already did .... and a big one at that.

I am implying that atheists commonly allude to a type of cultural/ideological neutrality as the default position to foist their views. Such a position is technically impossible. There is some suggestion that this trend may have been catalyzed by communism, and the subsequent hasty maneuver to retreat from such a social embarrassment.

Ahhh, you are implying........
Ahhh, there is some suggestion........blah....blah.....blahhhhhh.

Pureland? Is that a term you invented? Or is it a historical world view of atheism?
Give me a break.

If you are talking about Buddhism then you are still wrong... the term is "pure land" .

A pure land is the celestial realm or pure abode of a buddhaor bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism. The term "pure land" is particular to East Asian Buddhism (Chinese: 淨土; pinyin: Jìngtǔ) and related traditions; in Sanskrit the equivalent concept is called a "buddha-field" (Sanskrit buddhakṣetra). The various traditions that focus on pure lands have been given the nomenclature Pure Land Buddhism. Pure lands are also evident in the literature and traditions of Taoism and Bon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_land

 

[Seattle]

So the atheists tell us....


At this stage I'm not sure what your point is .... that this is not "baggage"? That these ideas are beyond any cultural/ideological context (aka, coming direct from the "Pureland")?

Is it a myth that there are unicorns? How would you label those who consider unicorns to be a myth?

Is it your contention that history/culture is evidence for the supernatural?