(October 3, 2014 at 6:02 am)Michael B Wrote: The only way to eliminate the influence of religion would be to eliminate religious people from society...

I disagree with this statement.

The way to 'eliminate' any ideology is to prevent it from propagating. You don't need to do this with physical force.

You don't even have to eliminate its source, just eliminate its ability to reproduce. Refuse to teach religion to those most susceptible to it, i.e., children, or refuse to teach it in isolation and instead promote all (and no) religions on a genuinely equal basis and I'd bet my bottom dollar you'd see religious adherence fall year on year.

In fact I can evidence that by looking at states that have introduced a workable and, above all, popular and supported secular systems into its government structures. Where religious neutrality flourishes, religion tends not to, though there are notable exceptions to this (India, Turkey etc).

(October 3, 2014 at 7:56 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 6:02 am)Michael B Wrote: The only way to eliminate the influence of religion would be to eliminate religious people from society...

I disagree with this statement.

The way to 'eliminate' any ideology is to prevent it from propagating. You don't need to do this with physical force.

You don't even have to eliminate its source, just eliminate its ability to reproduce. Refuse to teach religion to those most susceptible to it, i.e., children, or refuse to teach it in isolation and instead promote all (and no) religions on a genuinely equal basis and I'd bet my bottom dollar you'd see religious adherence fall year on year.

In fact I can evidence that by looking at states that have introduced a workable and, above all, popular and supported secular systems into its government structures. Where religious neutrality flourishes, religion tends not to, though there are notable exceptions to this (India, Turkey etc).

Yarr. Hell, this forum is a great example of how the influence of religion was halted for a great number of people without any kind of force.

Fidel

The point I was making (obviously a little poorly) is that you can't separate the influence 'religion' from the presence of 'religious people', or at least not in a democratic or remotely free society. Religion is not an abstract construct that exists independently of people. If you want people to be free you must accept religious influence in society. If if you really want to remove the influence of religion then you must somehow remove the religious people (or very heavily suppress them, but then of course you have given up any notion or pretence of a free society).

By suppressing religious education of children you have yourself given up any ideals of a free society. A society with such level of state-control (that seeks to suppress commonly held values and beliefs) is certainly not one I'd want to belong to, but perhaps atheists would all be happy with such totalitarianism.

Your response does also rather give the impression that atheism can't hold it's own without always wanting to lurch towards totalitarianism (which of course matches some of the significant and relevant history of atheism in politics).

*coughs* I don't think you quite read Fidel right there, Michael. Pretty sure he wasn't talking about top-down government enforcement (hence his point about religious neutrality being a good thing), he was talking about what people as individuals can do, I believe. And uh...

Quote:but perhaps atheists would all be happy with such totalitarianism.

Careful there.

(October 3, 2014 at 8:16 am)Michael B Wrote: Fidel

The point I was making (obviously a little poorly) is that you can't separate the influence 'religion' from the presence of 'religious people', or at least not in a democratic or remotely free society. Religion is not an abstract construct that exists independently of people. If you want people to be free you must accept religious influence in society. If if you really want to remove the influence of religion then you must somehow remove the religious people (or very heavily suppress them, but then of course you have given up any notion or pretence of a free society).

By suppressing religious education of children you have yourself given up any ideals of a free society. A society with such level of state-control (that seeks to suppress commonly held values and beliefs) is certainly not one I'd want to belong to, but perhaps atheists would all be happy with such totalitarianism.

Totally disagree with all that.

I understand your point, but I think you misunderstood mine. Religion propagates only by convincing people that it is true. It's nothing more than an ideological premise usurping other ideologies to gain the centre ground in people's minds. The actual validity of its claims are irrelevant.

Bracket out for a second that religious people exist, or, more accurately, people who believe in a religion and its practices exist (as this wasn't the point of my post - You can't 'stop' a religious person being religious unless they don't want to be anymore), there would be no more people ascribing to that ideology were nobody to come into contact with it.

I am not advocating that religious expression be forbidden, I am advocating the opposite; an equal playing field for all religions and all religious beliefs to be taught on an equal setting.

The UK is evidence of how not suppressing religious education but indeed highlighting that there are a myriad other religions out there and none of them should be given special preference results in a general trend of diminished religious subscription.

(October 3, 2014 at 8:16 am)Michael B Wrote: Your response does also rather give the impression that atheism can't hold it's own without always wanting to lurch towards totalitarianism (which of course matches some of the significant and relevant history of atheism in politics).

This makes no sense. Atheism has no political machinations, unlike it has to be said many organised religions.

I not once mentioned atheism, but rather secularism. You don't have to be an atheist if you're a secularist.

Recognise you're speaking to an egalitarian here, as well. equality of opportunity for all.

(October 3, 2014 at 8:19 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: *coughs* I don't think you quite read Fidel right there, Michael. Pretty sure he wasn't talking about top-down government enforcement (hence his point about religious neutrality being a good thing), he was talking about what people as individuals can do, I believe.

If that's the the case then I'm not following the argument. Surely as atheists you already don't teach religion to children? Who is it that needs to refuse to teach it? But perhaps Fidel can elaborate a little more.

---

(October 3, 2014 at 8:28 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Atheism has no political machinations

Again, this makes the mistake of trying to divide beliefs from people. There are plenty of atheists who have political machinations and would seek to make society more atheist. Do people really need reminding of the great atheistic political movements of the first half of the twentieth century? The widespread enforcement of atheism by the suppression of religion was a corner-stone of both the Russian and Chinese revolutions.

(October 3, 2014 at 8:34 am)Michael B Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 8:19 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: *coughs* I don't think you quite read Fidel right there, Michael. Pretty sure he wasn't talking about top-down government enforcement (hence his point about religious neutrality being a good thing), he was talking about what people as individuals can do, I believe.

If that's the the case then I'm not following the argument. Surely as atheists you already don't teach religion to children? Who is it that needs to refuse to teach it? But perhaps Fidel can elaborate a little more.

I'm not talking about atheists I'm talking about society.

You claimed that the only way to remove the impact/influence of religion on society is to remove religious people.

I am saying that's absurd and that, in fact, if you use the metric that the influence of religion on society is directly proportional to the number of religious people there are in society, removing them (physically, by force) is not necessary.

You can also remove the ability for them to propagate by either. 1) Physically preventing religion being teached (I am 100% for removing religious education that teaches one religion as true and others as false) or 2) Creating an equal playing field for all religions, including non-religious beliefs and ideologies, to be taught on an equal basis with no true value claims inherent within it.

The latter is the basis for UK education policy right now. The former would be a facet of a totalitarian state, I agree, but nowhere have I advocated it and nowhere have I inferred anything to do with atheism.

You've also made the mistake of presuming that as an atheist I don't want people to know about religion/teach religion. Why have to presumed this? Being an atheist doesn't preclude me from studying or teaching about religion. Indeed I'm a PhD student who actively studies it and teaches it. What I [i]don't[i] teach is that religion x = the truth whilst all others teach lies.

(October 3, 2014 at 8:34 am)Michael B Wrote: Again, this makes the mistake of trying to divide beliefs from people. There are plenty of atheists who have political machinations and would seek to make society more atheist. Do people really need reminding of the great atheistic political movements of the first half of the twentieth century? The widespread enforcement of atheism by the suppression of religion was a corner-stone of both the Russian and Chinese revolutions.

Atheists, not atheism. Your point is invalid, and that's bracketing out the spuriousness of the claims regarding political movements in the 20th century and atheism.

So how is "I am 100% for removing religious education that teaches one religion as true and others as false" compatible with any idea of freedom or equal playing fields?

Quote:The former would be a facet of a totalitarian state, I agree, but nowhere have I advocated it and nowhere have I inferred anything to do with atheism.

Of course you've advocated it: the suppression of religious education. You're clearly not just arguing that atheists should be able to choose not to teach religion (who would be doing that anyway?) as FatAndFaithless thought you might be saying. You are clearly advocating the removal (suppression) of religious education. That's such a clear and classical case of atheist totalitarianism, totally at odds with any libertarian ideals.

(October 3, 2014 at 8:44 am)Michael B Wrote: So how is "I am 100% for removing religious education that teaches one religion as true and others as false" compatible with any idea of freedom or equal playing fields?

Because you are creating an unequal playing field. You are using the structures of the state to promote one view being true and others being false rather than presenting a neutral case for all ideas and beliefs and letting the student decide for themselves or research for themselves.

If you think this = totalitarianism then I have to question your understanding of the word.

Quote:

Quote:The former would be a facet of a totalitarian state, I agree, but nowhere have I advocated it and nowhere have I inferred anything to do with atheism.

Of course you've advocated it: the suppression of religious education.

Where am I saying this? I'm saying the bloody opposite!

(October 3, 2014 at 8:44 am)Michael B Wrote: You're clearly not just arguing that atheists should be able to choose not to teach religion (who would be doing that anyway?) as FatAndFaithless thought you might be saying. You are clearly advocating the removal (suppression) of religious education. That's such a clear and classical case of atheist totalitarianism, totally at odds with any libertarian ideals.

One word to all of that: Bollocks.

I beseech people to read what I've actually written instead of misrepresenting me to the massive degree you are. I am advocating the teaching of religion on an equal basis (in line with the truth validity of those claims, i.e., 0) to allow students to decide for themselves.That's it.

I believe your issue is with the idea that saying "Christians believes that Jesus rose from the grave and they are 100% right whilst Muslims are 100% wrong" is wrong. Care to elucidate?

So Fidel (apt name, by the way), how do you teach religion on an equal, or even a truthful basis, if you don't let them teach claims that are fundamental to their faith?

You are clearly advocating suppression of religious education. Why not be honest about it and defend it rather than tying yourself in knots by trying to say at the same time that you're not advocating suppression of religious education and then saying that you don't believe religions should be able to teach that they have the truth?

It should be obvious to all (and to you really, I think) that you are advocating suppression of religious education.

So taking your example, the freedom of education I support is the freedom for Christians to teach their children (at home, at Church, in study groups, or at a school that parents choose to send their children to) that "Jesus rose from the dead". And I fully accept the freedom of Muslims (again at home, in Mosques, in study groups or in schools that people choose to send their children to) to teach their Children that "Mohammed was the last Prophet of God". That's the freedom we have in the UK (we have choice in schooling, representing the communities that the schools serve), and that's a precious freedom that exists in our pluralistic society. It's not perfect by any means, but I think we have one of the most mature pluralistic and multi-cultural societies, here in the UK. And it is based on freedom in the face of differences in belief.