Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

[Musika]

Eventually, yes. And biology, and engineering, and basic first aid etc etc.

Well better late than never.

And a popular concept (not "conception")

No, I think conception is the right word. "Concept" carries airs of objectivity, and in that context, it's not warranted.
But anyway, kind of you to correct my word usage to subtly empower your perspective, but no thanks.

among theists as well. Google the "wedge document."

Arguing against God on the strength of empirical science suffers the exact same problem as arguing for Him on the same authority.

 

[Musika]

.

Why don't you then tell me all about the "Heydays" of the Soviet Union?

I've already suggested a wiki page or two, if the mood to apply critical thinking (instead of bias, confusion, etc) strikes you.

You were there, right?

Perhaps, if your wish is to influence public opinion, you should try writing a book of your experiences in Russia.
.

 

[Musika]

So it's not an atheist doctrine. It's a Soviet Russian doctrine. You might even be able to stretch it to a communist doctrine. But it is not an atheist doctrine.

So, after much pulling of teeth, do you finally understand that there's no such thing as an atheist doctrine? Do you understand that various people in various places at various times can embrace various doctrines and yet those doctrines are not atheist doctrines even if some of the adherents happen to be atheists?

The doctrine of atheism is something along the lines of "God is a myth", "Religion is a man made contrivance", etc. Throw that mix in an aggressive political framework and you get a language of persecution, violence and destruction against those who hold views to the contrary.

IOW there is nothing about atheism that prevents it from being used as an agressive means to justify political violence.

This is not a quality inherent to atheism. It is a quality inherent to values. There is no means to deprive values of their double edged nature.

 

[spidergoat]

Throw that mix in an aggressive political framework and you get a language of persecution, violence and destruction against those who hold views to the contrary.

Yes, but atheism itself has no such framework. Throw atheism in with humanism and you get something different.

IOW there is nothing about atheism that prevents it from being used as an agressive means to justify political violence.

Nor should there be, as it's only a term to express disbelief in god.

 

[sideshowbob]

The doctrine of atheism is something along the lines of "God is a myth", "Religion is a man made contrivance", etc.

That's an opinion, not a doctrine.

Throw that mix in an aggressive political framework and you get a language of persecution, violence and destruction against those who hold views to the contrary.

We already had those. Persecution of one religion by another religion is far more common than persecution of religion by secularism. Secularism tries to prevent conflicts between religious groups by treating all religions equally.

IOW there is nothing about atheism that prevents it from being used as an agressive means to justify political violence.

There is the fact that it has no doctrines, no organizations, no members. Organizations can use (misuse) atheism for whatever purpose but that is no reflection on atheism itself.

 

[Musika]

Yes, but atheism itself has no such framework. Throw atheism in with humanism and you get something different.

Nor should there be, as it's only a term to express disbelief in god.

Agreed.
Hence the memesters original pretext (or should I say "pastetext") about persecution being owned exclusively by theists is bogus.

 

[spidergoat]

And you can say the exact same thing about political institutions arising from religious thought.

Religions have specific teachings and worldviews as expressed in their sacred texts.

The disbelief causes a schism, and all schisms have the capacity to take expression in a political language.
This notion that atheism is some sort of world view impervious to politicsl language is simply naivety

Religions cause schisms, you could say they invented them. What about that?

I maintain atheism can't determine it's political implications, since it's an open question. Lack of political direction in itself can't be considered harmful.

 

[Musika]

That's an opinion, not a doctrine.

It's schismatic, so it's no just a mere "opinion". It is bringing very specific assessments.

We already had those. Persecution of one religion by another religion is far more common than persecution of religion by secularism. Secularism tries to prevent conflicts between religious groups by treating all religions equally.

Secularism is seperation of government from religion. It doesnt prevent governments from persecuting religions or even religions from persecuting each other or even governments from persecuting each other.

There is the fact that it has no doctrines, no organizations, no members. Organizations can use (misuse) atheism for whatever purpose but that is no reflection on atheism itself.

Atheism also has no views about religion or God.
No wait up. It does.
Oh well, there goes the opportunity for it to remain free from the baggage of schisms.

If atheism didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.

 

[Musika]

Religions have specific teachings and worldviews as expressed in their sacred texts.

And atheism has specific views of those world views (which amounts to a worldview in and of itself), hence the schism.

Religions cause schisms, you could say they invented them. What about that?

Takes two to tango.
Even dialectical progression requires thesis and antithesis.

I maintain atheism can't determine it's political implications,

Beyond being schismatically opposed to theism, probably not. And vice versa.

since it's an open question. Lack of political direction in itself can't be considered harmful.

Its not a question of political direction but political volume.

 

[Jeeves]

If atheism didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.

If witchcraft didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If wealth didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If ethnicity didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If gender identity didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If immigration didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If space exploration didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If steel production didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.

 

[sideshowbob]

It's schismatic, so it's no just a mere "opinion".

How can it be schismatic when there's nothing to schism? One opinion is separated from another opinion - whether it's about gods or ice cream - but schism requires organization and atheism ain't got none.

Atheism also has no views about religion orGod.
No wait up. It does.

No. It really doesn't. Atheism is literally no views about gods. Gods are invisible to atheists, off the radar, just like pixies.

If atheism didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be(mis)used in any politicalcontext.

Nonsense. The fact that you can use a pencil or a hot fudge sundae as a weapon doesn' t make them schismatic.

 

[Jeeves]

Psst. He doesn't know what schism means; he thinks it's synonymous with polarization in society.

 

[Goldtop]

.

I've already suggested a wiki page or two, if the mood to apply critical thinking (instead of bias, confusion, etc) strikes you.

And, I'm sure you're glancing through a wiki page would easily refute my having lived there, or is that not a much better example of bias?

Perhaps, if your wish is to influence public opinion, you should try writing a book of your experiences in Russia.

I had no idea you considered yourself public opinion? Is Wiki public opinion?

My experience there went from the boring to the extreme, from the mundane to the insane, from beautiful women to white gloves with ak47's.

I even saw "Dead Fred".

 

[billvon]

No, I think conception is the right word. "Concept" carries airs of objectivity, and in that context, it's not warranted.

Concept is the correct word. Your use of "conception" is a good indication of how religion has taken over for critical thinking in your arguments.

Arguing against God on the strength of empirical science suffers the exact same problem as arguing for Him on the same authority.

Exactly right. There is no empirical evidence either way. Glad you see that.

 

[iceaura]

And atheism has specific views of those world views (which amounts to a worldview in and of itself),

No, it does not.
Many quite different and often conflicting views fall into the grab-bag category of "atheist".

 

[Musika]

Concept is the correct word. Your use of "conception" is a good indication of how religion has taken over for critical thinking in your arguments.

Exactly right. There is no empirical evidence either way. Glad you see that.

Yet for some reason, you can't back down from the notion that religion is a fabrication on the strength of empirical science. This is precisely the sort of ping pong problem atheists have in describing and implementing their atheism.

 

[Musika]

And, I'm sure you're glancing through a wiki page would easily refute my having lived there, or is that not a much better example of bias?

If you are trying to claim that the hearsay of your living there for 12 months contradicts over a century of well documented data, then yes, wiki trumps you.

I had no idea you considered yourself public opinion? Is Wiki public opinion?

There are footnotes to the wiki page if you want to chase things up.
At the very least, if the strength of your argument is "But hey, I lived there for a year about 70 or so years after the events in question", at the very least, you need to pad out your ideas, and this is probably not the right forurm for it ... hence the suggestion to get in to private publishing. It is just like the people who start discussions here along the lines of "I have discovered a new breakthrough in science". The ressult of the inevitable pinata festival tends to be "Contemporary science disagrees". If you want to save face, write a book or articles. If you want to use sciforums as a platform for rewriting history, face the pinata festival.

Of course its just my opinion, but I bet if you wrote the book, you would just find yourself out of pocket or at the centre of a greater pinata festival, so I don't expect you to actually take the path of a sincere person with knowledge because you are not a sincere person with knowledge. You are just a person pulling stuff out of your asshole, regardless whether its your ideas of Stalin attending confession or daily life under his rulership, in the attempt to win an argument on the interwebs.

My experience there went from the boring to the extreme, from the mundane to the insane, from beautiful women to white gloves with ak47's.

I even saw "Dead Fred".

Yet the fact that you couldn't distinguish Catholicism from Russian Orthodoxy tends to ring of the superficial stereotypes of a 3 day trip in transit, or worse,

 

[Musika]

How can it be schismatic when there's nothing to schism?

I find it hard to believe you have never participated in a discussion with diametrically opposing views of God or religion .... mainly because you are doing it at this very moment.

One opinion is separated from another opinion - whether it's about gods or ice cream - but schism requires organization and atheism ain't got none.

Organization is a more advanced development arising from difference of opinion. The direction and nature of that development (whether you are going to buy s coffee cup from their website or not or whether you are going to kill your opponent and 3 generations of their family or not) is not a given, but it's schismatic premise ("I'm right. You're wrong") is not negotiable.

No. It really doesn't. Atheism is literally no views about gods. Gods are invisible to atheists, off the radar, just like pixies.

The fact that you categorize God as belonging to the same category as a pixie is an obvious maneuver that puts you at odds with others who hold different views.
What you are going to do next (argue with someone about it on the internet, laugh at a meme, read a book supporting the view, buy a coffee cup from the website, crowdfund a charity or shoot someone and send their family to the gulag), simply reflects the different levels and flavours of organization you have available before you, according to your means and desire.

Nonsense. The fact that you can use a pencil or a hot fudge sundae as a weapon doesn' t make them schismatic.

Unless you have a tendency to argue with pencils and hot fudge sundaes, I fail to see the relevance.
.

 

[Musika]

No, it does not.
Many quite different and often conflicting views fall into the grab-bag category of "atheist".

Want to play with topologies, and you can say the same thing about "theist".

 

[Musika]

If witchcraft didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If wealth didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If ethnicity didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If gender identity didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If immigration didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If space exploration didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.
If steel production didn't have the capacity to be schismatic ("us" and "them"), it would have no means to be (mis)used in any political context.

If that was supposed to challenge and not support something I said, I can't see where it is successful.