A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism - Page 62

Brian-E · 2013-11-19, 14:00

Nice to see you back, David.

I think the cartoonist touches on both senses of the word "cause". Yes, the meaning of "cause" as in "cause and effect" is mentioned when one of the characters says that Hitler's and Stalin's atheism did not cause them to do terrible things. But now read the rest of the cartoon: there is also talk of atrocities committed "in the name of" religion, and by comparison Hitler and Stalin decidedly not going to war in the name of atheism. That's clearly the type of "cause" for which you would fight or campaign.

Brian-E · 2013-11-20, 16:28

Here's a new article which explains what secularism involves and dispels various myths about it.

Quote:

Secularism Seeks to Balance Everyone's Religious Freedoms Fairly - Why Would Anyone Oppose That?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/step...b_4286260.html

davieddy · 2013-11-21, 04:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Nice to see you back, David.

I think the cartoonist touches on both senses of the word "cause". Yes, the meaning of "cause" as in "cause and effect" is mentioned when one of the characters says that Hitler's and Stalin's atheism did not cause them to do terrible things. But now read the rest of the cartoon: there is also talk of atrocities committed "in the name of" religion, and by comparison Hitler and Stalin decidedly not going to war in the name of atheism. That's clearly the type of "cause" for which you would fight or campaign.

This discussion adds extra piquancy to James Dean's "Rebel Without a Cause".

cheesehead · 2013-11-23, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Here's a new article which explains what secularism involves and dispels various myths about it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/step...b_4286260.html

To the title question ("Why Would Anyone Oppose That?"):

1) because secularism dethrones whichever religion is most powerful in the affected region at that time, believers of that religion will oppose such dethroning, and

2) because secularism challenges the idea that proper maintenance of society requires worshiping a deity, believers of all deity-based religions will oppose it, and

3) because to balance everyone's religious freedom fairly means denying that any religion is the "only true religion", believers of any religion that claims to be the only true religion will oppose it.

chalsall · 2013-11-23, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

To the title question ("Why Would Anyone Oppose That?"):

Very insightful observations, thoughts and summary.

Thanks Richard!

Brian-E · 2013-11-23, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Very insightful observations, thoughts and summary.

Thanks Richard!

+1 !

...with the proviso that, of course, that there are plenty of religious secularists too, i.e. not all believers by any means are so arrogant as to elevate their particular religion above all others and think that this is necessary for power, societal maintenance or denial of other people's rights to believe what they do, but you didn't say that, Richard, and I'm quite sure you didn't mean it either.

cheesehead · 2013-11-24, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

...with the proviso that, of course, that there are plenty of religious secularists too, < snip >
but you didn't say that, Richard, and I'm quite sure you didn't mean it either.

Of course, my statements pertained to those who would oppose secularism (as asked in the article title), saying nothing about those who would support secularism.

davar55 · 2013-12-24, 14:14

Do agnostics care about the word GOD in IN GOD WE TRUST
on all current American money? Or are they agnostic in
principle about other topics? If GOD was replaced by JESUS,
wouldn't others complain? Or by ALLAH? Then why shouldn't
ATHEISTS complilain about the status quo?

retina · 2013-12-24, 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Do agnostics care about the word GOD in IN GOD WE TRUST
on all current American money? Or are they agnostic in
principle about other topics? If GOD was replaced by JESUS,
wouldn't others complain? Or by ALLAH? Then why shouldn't
ATHEISTS complilain about the status quo?

That is very good skillz at lumping all agnostics into one group. Everybody is different and cares about different things. I personally don't care about the current physical implementation of American [sic] (here I presume you mean USA) money.

Batalov · 2013-12-24, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by davar55

Do agnostics care about the word GOD in IN GOD WE TRUST
on all current American money?

Actually, it makes all those banknotes with a typo more collectible. Clearly, there's a typo in the word GOLD. It is a bit weird that they haven't noticed yet.

davar55 · 2013-12-27, 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Batalov

Actually, it makes all those banknotes with a typo more collectible. Clearly, there's a typo in the word GOLD. It is a bit weird that they haven't noticed yet.

That typo has been around since 1954, a long long time.

2013-12-24, 14:14	#679
davar55 May 2004 New York City 5×7×11² Posts	Do agnostics care about the word GOD in IN GOD WE TRUST on all current American money? Or are they agnostic in principle about other topics? If GOD was replaced by JESUS, wouldn't others complain? Or by ALLAH? Then why shouldn't ATHEISTS complilain about the status quo? Last fiddled with by davar55 on 2013-12-24 at 14:17

2013-11-19, 14:00	#672
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 7×467 Posts	Nice to see you back, David. I think the cartoonist touches on both senses of the word "cause". Yes, the meaning of "cause" as in "cause and effect" is mentioned when one of the characters says that Hitler's and Stalin's atheism did not cause them to do terrible things. But now read the rest of the cartoon: there is also talk of atrocities committed "in the name of" religion, and by comparison Hitler and Stalin decidedly not going to war in the name of atheism. That's clearly the type of "cause" for which you would fight or campaign.