An attack on secularism?

[Tuuvi]

I ended up skipping some of this thread because I just stayed up all night because I couldn't sleep so I'm really impatient and there's a couple things I want to say.

Just because some religious people and organizations try to force their beliefs on others does not mean that all religion has the intention of doing so. Secular Humanists/Atheists aren't innocent of this crime either. When some atheists talk about religion, they use words and phrases like "fanatic", "fairy-tales", "imaginary friends", "big magic man in the sky", " superstitious", "dogma", "Jewish zombie", "delusion", etc. These kinds of words have the effect of ridiculing those with religious beliefs, and ridicule is one of the most common ways people attempt to control others.

I do not believe that its wrong for a person to let their religious beliefs influence their political views, and I don't really think its possible for someone to stop their religion of choice from influencing their political thinking to one degree or another, because religion and politics are the same thing, they are beliefs. Letting your religion and politics mix does not mean that your are trying to force your religion on others. If a politician's religious beliefs state that abortion is murder so he/she tries to ban abortion, he/she is not trying force his beliefs on the whole country; what that person is trying to do is prevent something that he/sees as immoral and unjust. I can't even think of a way someone could try to force a whole country into believing that abortion is wrong through law and government. A real example of trying to force your religion on others would be writing a law that says everyone has to go to church on Sunday, or requiring a test on the contents of the bible in order to graduate from school.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Letting your religion and politics mix does not mean that your are trying to force your religion on others.

Thankyou!

[ajaxfetish]

Now, lets look at PVC's statement, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy" one.

I'm sorry, PVC, but this statement is a correctly punctuated list. If I say "I went to the store to buy milk, bread, and broccoli," the three products are independent of each other. There is the potential for confusion in Beskar's sentence, since the item with you as possessor comes first (and because you're known to be religious and religion is often associated with 'Anti-H'), but on a careful reading it can't be interpreted as you possessing all three viewpoints.

I made three references; to yours, the Anti-H one, and the "Help the Needy one"

This violates English punctuation standards. A semi-colon is used to separate like elements. It could be used to separate items within a list (especially if the items have internal commas), but not to separate an independent clause from the list items. A colon where the semi-colon is would be acceptable.

On the non-grammatical issue at hand, I have yet to see Beskar ground his principle of universal equality, in spite of claiming he could defend it in many ways. He spent his time saying it has nothing to do with God, apparently as a way of avoiding explaining what objective rationale there is for it.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sorry, PVC, but this statement is a correctly punctuated list. If I say "I went to the store to buy milk, bread, and broccoli," the three products are independent of each other. There is the potential for confusion in Beskar's sentence, since the item with you as possessor comes first (and because you're known to be religious and religion is often associated with 'Anti-H'), but on a careful reading it can't be interpreted as you possessing all three viewpoints.


This violates English punctuation standards. A semi-colon is used to separate like elements. It could be used to separate items within a list (especially if the items have internal commas), but not to separate an independent clause from the list items. A colon where the semi-colon is would be acceptable.

On the non-grammatical issue at hand, I have yet to see Beskar ground his principle of universal equality, in spite of claiming he could defend it in many ways. He spent his time saying it has nothing to do with God, apparently as a way of avoiding explaining what objective rationale there is for it.

Ajax

I'll concede to the Grammarian, not least because he agrees with me on the important point.

[Beskar]

On the non-grammatical issue at hand, I have yet to see Beskar ground his principle of universal equality, in spite of claiming he could defend it in many ways. He spent his time saying it has nothing to do with God, apparently as a way of avoiding explaining what objective rationale there is for it.

That's false, I just countered the assertion saying there is nothing divine about it. Egalitarianism has nothing to do with god, though you could argue that a 'god' may will people being treated as equals on certain dimensions, doesn't make any form of equality as a god driven only enterprise. Then there is humanism which looks towards the values and concerns of humanity, again devoid of any higher presence.

Then you could try to argue about "divine purpose" and "inherent meaning of life", but the fact is, these concepts are absurd due to the contradictionary realities of the universe and the human mind.

Simply going "god is everything, prove me wrong" isn't a great place to start, as invalidates itself due to its own unfalsifiability clauses.

Though, I will be honest, you won't get much more out of me untill in a couple of weeks time. If you want to bring it up then, I will have all the free time, however, I need to finish my Masters thesis and time really isn't in my hands.

[ajaxfetish]

Simply going "god is everything, prove me wrong" isn't a great place to start, as invalidates itself due to its own unfalsifiability clauses.

It's because you're looking at the issue this way that you're not answering PVC's challenge. You're framing the issue as "Everyone is equal because God said so" vs. "Everyone is equal, but not because God said so." In order to ground your non-deistic belief in human equality, you need to frame the issue as "Everyone is equal" vs. "Everyone is not equal." If I claim that people are demonstrably unequal, how would you go about convincing me that I am wrong?

Ajax

[Beskar]

[removed, simply because it was incomplete forum error bug]

[ajaxfetish]

That is a completely different subject itself, as it is "people should be treated as equals on certain dimensions" (the modern concept of equality/egalitarianism) versus "We should actively discriminate on race, hair colour, sex, etc".

And why should people be treated as equals on certain dimensions?

Ajax

[Beskar]

And why should people be treated as equals on certain dimensions?

Ajax

This is not the topic nor simply I have the time.

Quoted from wikipedia:

Studies have shown that social inequality is the cause of many social problems. A comprehensive study of major world economies revealed a correlation between social inequality and problems such as homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population.

[Beskar]

Hate it when the forum bugs out. Now to re-write an entire post:

That whole framing is incorrect, as the equality which is being mentioned is the egalitarian and humanistic views of equality, that we should treated as equals on certain dimensions, and we are as such, all equals.

So it isn't "Everyone is equal" vs. "Everyone is not equal.", as it is entirely the wrong framing of the current situation and that is not even for discussion. By claiming people are demonstratibly unequal (one person has darker skin than another), it does not mean that people should be treated and regarded as equals in greater society on various dimensions, such as legal rights and responsibilities and a host of other points. To be more accurately framed in this discussion, it would be "Everyone should be treated equal on certain dimensions" vs. "we should discriminate people based on their inequalities, even in those certain dimensions". As such, views such as 'racism' would come under the latter, as where viewed in the modern concept and definition, people of all races are equals and such be treated as such, 'racism' is based on the superiority of a 'race' over others, or the inferiority of a 'race'.

The correct framing directly refers to the comment by PVC:
"I can't see a way to defend the principle of universal equality without atleast resorting to some form of Deism."

Since any form of equality expressed by myself is in the modern culturally accepted definitions and standards, as such recognised in civil rights movements, egalitarian ideology, humanism, etc and there is a great course of literature discribing and dealing with these matters which do not involve a diety at any time in the process, which therefore more closely related the original framing in your post, which you mistakenly say is inaccurate, which is "everyone is equal because God said so" vs "everyone is equal, but not because God said so".

Also, we are hidieous off-topic.