Shell B already showed that Genkaus. But thanks.

Genkaus do you know what the terms 'de jure' and 'de facto' mean?

(March 10, 2013 at 2:13 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat. I believe we shouldn't force the majority to not implement religion or religious laws while they believe in their religion. I believe we should convince the majority religion is wrong - therefore - they must try to base their laws on "good will" "perception" and "logic".

Yeah right! Tell me how that's working out for you. Most of the people aren't convinced by arguments of reason and logic. And they are very easily riled up to violently support their religion through demagogues. Usually the way it works is that the government forces the legislation, the people protest for a time but hopefully by the time for next election, they see results and realize that its a good thing after all.

---

(March 10, 2013 at 10:34 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Genkaus do you know what the terms 'de jure' and 'de facto' mean?

Yes.

(March 10, 2013 at 10:35 pm)genkaus Wrote: Yeah right! Tell me how that's working out for you.

Maybe some magical kind charisma will do it....hmm...I will write a book aimed at the Muslim community, then tell you how it goes. I will risk my life (writing against Islam is very risky). But I need to do more research which is why I'm reading about moral psychology right now and other books.

genkaus, it seems like you and other users want to create a definition of atheism that soley based on 'de jure' considerations. I don't understand why that is. Why not define atheism based on the practical effects that atheism tends to have?

(March 10, 2013 at 10:15 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You know, if the bible had actually said anything about that, hundreds of years before rock was a thing, that'd be pretty impressive.

Well according to the stories, ol' Yahweh has something of a hardon for rocks, be they cast at adulterers and homosexuals or having babies dashed against them.

(March 10, 2013 at 10:47 pm)jstrodel Wrote: genkaus, it seems like you and other users want to create a definition of atheism that soley based on 'de jure' considerations. I don't understand why that is. Why not define atheism based on the practical effects that atheism tends to have?

First of all, do you understand what 'de jure' means? Its a legal term, applicable in legal contexts, which this is not.

Secondly, there are no practical effects stemming from 'atheism'. Atheism is simply a small aspect of a person's philosophy and that is not the same for all atheists. So, it'd be impossible to define it - or rather, redefine it, since it already has a definition - based on your imagined practical effects.

Quote:Secondly, there are no practical effects stemming from 'atheism'. Atheism is simply a small aspect of a person's philosophy and that is not the same for all atheists.

This is self evidently wrong. De jure is a legal term but it is widely used in philosophical contexts. The question of what something is by law or by definition is important, but the question of what something is in fact, is also important.

To become an atheist obviously is one of the most important decisions that people make in their whole life, that will vastly affect the way that they see their responsibilities to others and the role they have in the world, which virtually every society in history has considered to be the most important part of being human.

Do you really think that atheism has only "a small" effect on peoples understanding of the world? I would guess that this is common in people who do not emphasize daily practice and integrate their worldview in what they do, and who do not make serious efforts to ensure that their morality is always adhered to. Obviously the decision to reject God as a justifying principle for morality is one of the most important aspects of atheism, whether it directly specifies an understanding of morality or not.

While it's not unheard of, most atheists do not "reject God", so much as not accept God (or any god). Please learn the difference, because it's giving me a headache the amount ot times it's been explained to you.

As for not accepting this god as a justifying principle for morality, I would hope that's something humans deserving of the name do as a matter of course, for the sake of society.

I'm not really sure why you're here, jstrodel, other than to troll the forum. You obviously have nothing to learn. You are, after all the Supreme Knower of all Things Atheist. Is it to teach us what we are? Almost none of us agrees with your definition of what and who we are, so why are you trying to convince us? Or, maybe you're a Poe. I dunno. It doesn't matter. I won't be engaging with you any longer.