Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

[Musika]

Ahhh, you are implying........
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.

I have already explained the term

 

[Musika]

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

Its not clear why such people would even require a label, unless there is some way that the non/existence of unicorns establishes a world view.

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

Um, no.
My contention is that history/culture provides a very obvious bread crumb trail of "baggage". As such, it is absurd to discuss atheism, with its big muddy boots, as something that can walk through the kitchen without leaving a trace.

 

[Seattle]

Its not clear why such people would even require a label, unless there is some way that the non/existence of unicorns establishes a world view.


Um, no.
My contention is that history/culture provides a very obvious bread crumb trail of "baggage". As such, it is absurd to discuss atheism, with its big muddy boots, as something that can walk through the kitchen without leaving a trace.

Why would people who find no evidence for God require a label? Unicorns and God both affect my world view about the same. People who believe in unicorns aren't as disruptive of society as people who believe in God but that's about it.

"God" doesn't have the effect on society that you think. All those effects are Man. There is no God.

 

[Goldtop]

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?

I am rich and educated, but I still see no reason why I should treat you any differently. How do you think I should treat you compared to someone else?

Even in terms of biology, one of the greatest threats to a mammal is its own species due to competitiveness.

Competition isn't a threat, it's a challenge. What does this have to do with biology?

There is nothing about identifying one's own species that automatically defaults to spontaneous feelings of equality.

Yeah, there is, it's called being human.

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.

I don't even know what that means. Isn't everything material? Why would you need to say that?

Certainly you are conveniently ignoring at least the last 300 years of religion to avoid coming to the conclusion of its unique combination.

No, I was not.

It is actually material designations that divides society (to which, religious institutions may, just like anything else in society, be susceptible to).

What is a material designation? I really don't what you're talking about.

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.

Then, if not tribal, why was it called the Roman "Empire"?

As for the notion that religion causes war, you certainly couldn't say that if you were looking at religion originating in India.


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.

Huh?

 

[billvon]

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

Nonsense. You cannot be free from air; that does not mean you are a "victim of air."

 

[billvon]

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?

Rights under the law are the same; at least, as same as we can make them.

Having the same rights under the law, of course, does not mean 'everyone is equal.' A 5'2" guy will never have the same opportunities in professional basketball that a 6'8" guy has.

 

[Musika]

Rights under the law are the same; at least, as same as we can make them.

Having the same rights under the law, of course, does not mean 'everyone is equal.' A 5'2" guy will never have the same opportunities in professional basketball that a 6'8" guy has.

The grounding for the basis of equal rights is then obviously not a material calculation.

 

[Musika]

I am rich and educated, but I still see no reason why I should treat you any differently. How do you think I should treat you compared to someone else?

Regardless of how you do or do not decide to treat others that are materially inferior to yourself, the fact that you would both be treated equally according to law is the point.

Competition isn't a threat, it's a challenge. What does this have to do with biology?

When the challenge is about resources that determine facility or even life and death, it most certainly is a threat. For instance if someone breaks into your house with a weapon, is that a threat or a challenge?
As for what this has to do with biology, if you examine the premise of cooperation within communities, it has nothing to do with equality within a species. Given that human communities are overlaid with the same behaviours, it certainly is unusual that a notion of equality should find itself at the core of many of it's communities. Examination reveals that it's historical precedence is religious. Of course now we take it for granted, but at the time, the notion of establishing a nation under God (and not a monarch) in which all persons were equal (and not stratified by class) was extremely radical.

Yeah, there is, it's called being human.

Which, as already explained, defaults to competitive behaviour and/or stratified unequal classes, not cooperative behaviour or uniform inclusiveness.

I don't even know what that means. Isn't everything material? Why would you need to say that?

Clans and communities have a model of cooperation based on varigated (poltical, economic, consumerist, etc) rights. This is the normal state of affairs in all species. Yet in the case of humans the idea has come in vogue that there is a grander model of equality beyond this varigated (material) model. If you cannot provide some material test that grants everyone a uniform result, you do not have a material basis for equality.

No, I was not.

Well, yes you are.

What is a material designation? I really don't what you're talking about.

It is designation within the community. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the alpha within a wolfpack or the different estates in the feudal system (circa 300 + years ago) or even different roles according to current models of power and luxury.

Then, if not tribal, why was it called the Roman "Empire"?

Romans weren't fussed so much by place of birth, religious affiliation, etc. If you paid your bills and didn't disturb the political status quo, practically anyone could join.

Huh?

You know, like the world's major (major, in the sense of establishing influence) religions having originated in two parts of the world : The middle east and india.?

And the DOI, the political document that introduced all this "all people are equal" (something many people in the world are now very defensive of) to a very formal and legally binding format?
It was set in motion by events about 300 years ago.

 

[Musika]

Why would people who find no evidence for God require a label?

The standard reasons I imagine : politics, values, etc .... aka, the standard "baggage"

Unicorns and God both affect my world view about the same.

Yet here you are, publicly discussing issues about religion and God.

People who believe in unicorns aren't as disruptive of society as people who believe in God but that's about it.

The fact that you equate "belief in God" to "social disruption" proves my point.

"God" doesn't have the effect on society that you think. All those effects are Man. There is no God.

Your atheist beliefs aside, at the very least, at this stage it should be clear why your bringing unicorns to the discussion is completely irrelevant.

 

[Goldtop]

Regardless of how you do or do not decide to treat others that are materially inferior to yourself, the fact that you would both be treated equally according to law is the point.

When the challenge is about resources that determine facility or even life and death, it most certainly is a threat. For instance if someone breaks into your house with a weapon, is that a threat or a challenge?

You're shifting the goal posts. First, you said competition is a threat, now you're saying someone breaking into my house with a weapon is a threat. Competitions aren't crimes.

As for what this has to do with biology, if you examine the premise of cooperation within communities, it has nothing to do with equality within a species. Given that human communities are overlaid with the same behaviours, it certainly is unusual that a notion of equality should find itself at the core of many of it's communities. Examination reveals that it's historical precedence is religious. Of course now we take it for granted, but at the time, the notion of establishing a nation under God (and not a monarch) in which all persons were equal (and not stratified by class) was extremely radical.

Which, as already explained, defaults to competitive behaviour and/or stratified unequal classes, not cooperative behaviour or uniform inclusiveness.

Clans and communities have a model of cooperation based on varigated (poltical, economic, consumerist, etc) rights. This is the normal state of affairs in all species. Yet in the case of humans the idea has come in vogue that there is a grander model of equality beyond this varigated (material) model. If you cannot provide some material test that grants everyone a uniform result, you do not have a material basis for equality.

why do you keep using the word, "material"?

It is designation within the community. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the alpha within a wolfpack or the different estates in the feudal system (circa 300 + years ago) or even different roles according to current models of power and luxury.

Romans weren't fussed so much by place of birth, religious affiliation, etc. If you paid your bills and didn't disturb the political status quo, practically anyone could join.

No, not just anyone. The Romans were the epitome of a tribe.

You know, like the world's major (major, in the sense of establishing influence) religions having originated in two parts of the world : The middle east and india.?

And the DOI, the political document that introduced all this "all people are equal" (something many people in the world are now very defensive of) to a very formal and legally binding format?
It was set in motion by events about 300 years ago.

Uh, okay.

 

[Musika]

You're shifting the goal posts. First, you said competition is a threat, now you're saying someone breaking into my house with a weapon is a threat. Competitions aren't crimes.

I am not sure what part of the planet you are from, but in the parts I am familiar with, people commonly break in to houses to take things (as opposed to anonymously distribute their wealth to the less fortunate or something). The premise for burglarly tends to be the acquisition of things from the "have's" by the "have-not's". Aka, competition 101

why do you keep using the word, "material"?

Because it establishes the problem with your proposal to promote equality at the expense of anything associated with religion. If you say two people are equal in height or skill, you can measure it and no one will ask any questions. If you want to allude to a grander type of equality for all people and simultaneously advocate that everything is material, it begs the question why you are struggling to bring any sort of test or valid measurement to your claim?

No, not just anyone. The Romans were the epitome of a tribe.

I never said "just anyone". They were very particular about the bills and the political status quo. I wasn't even suggesting there was nothing tribal about them. I was suggesting they were very relaxed about it according to the standard of their contemporaries (which enabled them a greater success over them).

The actual epitome of tribalism lies within the middle east ( which inevitably got culturally exported with it along with religious doctrine of the region). It is so endemic it is still an issue in the region today.

If you examine religion (or even politics) that is sourced from different regions, you don't find such strong overbearing tribalistic tendencies

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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.

///
Why are you afraid to answer the question? Will it hurt you?

<>

 

[Musika]

///
Why are you afraid to answer the question? Will it hurt you?

<>

Inasmuch as dealing with loaded questions is painful, yes.

 

[Goldtop]

I am not sure what part of the planet you are from, but in the parts I am familiar with, people commonly break in to houses to take things (as opposed to anonymously distribute their wealth to the less fortunate or something). The premise for burglarly tends to be the acquisition of things from the "have's" by the "have-not's". Aka, competition 101

Again, crime is not competition.

So, you live somewhere steeped in crime and it appears crime seems normal to you. I would suggest moving out of that neighborhood immediately.

Because it establishes the problem with your proposal to promote equality at the expense of anything associated with religion. If you say two people are equal in height or skill, you can measure it and no one will ask any questions. If you want to allude to a grander type of equality for all people and simultaneously advocate that everything is material, it begs the question why you are struggling to bring any sort of test or valid measurement to your claim?

What is this obsession with the word material?

I never said "just anyone". They were very particular about the bills and the political status quo. I wasn't even suggesting there was nothing tribal about them. I was suggesting they were very relaxed about it according to the standard of their contemporaries (which enabled them a greater success over them).

The actual epitome of tribalism lies within the middle east ( which inevitably got culturally exported with it along with religious doctrine of the region). It is so endemic it is still an issue in the region today.

If you examine religion (or even politics) that is sourced from different regions, you don't find such strong overbearing tribalistic tendencies

Yeah, you do find that.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Inasmuch as dealing with loaded questions is painful, yes.

///
So you do not believe there is a god.

<>

 

[Musika]

///
So you do not believe there is a god.

<>

Obviously that wasn't the loaded component of your q.
Try again.

 

[Musika]

Again, crime is not competition.

So, you live somewhere steeped in crime and it appears crime seems normal to you. I would suggest moving out of that neighborhood immediately.

Acquisition of resources is competition. Doing it illegally is a crime. Hence theft is but one aspect of competition.

What is this obsession with the word material?

What word would you prefer I use?

 

[Goldtop]

Acquisition of resources is competition. Doing it illegally is a crime. Hence theft is but one aspect of competition.

Not by any stretch of the definition.

What word would you prefer I use?

That's funny, why are you using the word at all? Everything is material, why state the obvious?

 

[Musika]

Not by any stretch of the definition.

Then it just leads us to question what part of the planet you are familiar with.

That's funny, why are you using the word at all? Everything is material, why state the obvious?

Because your ideas about equality do not sit well in such apparently "obvious" parameters.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

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

a psychological anthrapologist should study this idea.
it seems to me that if people insist on always making a leader who is deemed to be superior to others, then the intrinsic nature of the psychology is to define non equality.
though i can see several ways around this singular perspective it would be most interesting to read a schollars discussion of it.
Theologins may conclude that Dogma is the tenet of circumstance.