(January 3, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: And finally, just because my handle is 'Fidel' doesn't mean I'm a communist numbnuts.

When did i call you a communist? My quote was.

Quote:You of all people should realize communism introduced "state atheism" FIDEL....

Assuming that since you use that handle, then you should know something about communism.

Apparently i was right.

(January 3, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: And two points to clear up before we finish. I have studied communist philosophy already. Specifically the ideas of Georges Sorel and the comparative discourse between his writings on violence and the philosophies employed by various Wahhabi sects throughout the middle east over the past century.

Huggy we are a secular for various reasons so all religion is on equal ground.
If we weren't secular at all look at the middle east we would be killing each other over who's religion is true or not.
Secularism people love it so no one feels their religion is lesser than another. Though unfortunately.... even if we are a secular country
Atheist the minority gets treated quite horribly by theists.

(January 2, 2015 at 11:44 pm)ronedee Wrote: I have no answers: for myself, or for my children; I just tell them, that is the way life has become. Get used to it. ... And don't trust anyone!

(January 3, 2015 at 8:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(January 2, 2015 at 11:44 pm)ronedee Wrote: I have no answers: for myself, or for my children; I just tell them, that is the way life has become. Get used to it. ... And don't trust anyone!

So he want's his kids... be like....

(January 3, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 3, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: And finally, just because my handle is 'Fidel' doesn't mean I'm a communist numbnuts.

When did i call you a communist? My quote was.

Quote:You of all people should realize communism introduced "state atheism" FIDEL....

Assuming that since you use that handle, then you should know something about communism.

Apparently i was right.

(January 3, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: And two points to clear up before we finish. I have studied communist philosophy already. Specifically the ideas of Georges Sorel and the comparative discourse between his writings on violence and the philosophies employed by various Wahhabi sects throughout the middle east over the past century.

You made an inference. The only reason you brought up communism, and indeed the only reason you wrote FIDEL in bold was because you saw a link between my handle and Fidel Castro. What I know or don't know about communism is irrelevant to the post you cited that I wrote in reply to Rondee. You brought up the link which, again, has no relevance to this subject.

You've made a point in your previous reply of 'secularism vs religion'. Why? This is wholly incorrect and a gross misrepresentation of what secularism is. Again, secularism guarantees religious freedom. It gurantees the freedom of and from religious imposition by creating a neutral public space. Why do you think it is against religion?

You've muddied the water of this debate by introducing utterly superfluous and irrelevant points of discussion with the hope of inferring a link (atheism/secularism etc). My only initial point to date was the seeming link between prosperity and irreligious societies, or at the very least states that employ a fair and secular system of governmental structures. That's it.

Now, how about replying to the rebuttals of your initial erroneous reply?

(January 3, 2015 at 8:47 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Now, how about replying to the rebuttals of your initial erroneous reply?

He's not able to graps the concept without thinking secularism=atheism=communism.

(January 3, 2015 at 8:52 pm)abaris Wrote:

(January 3, 2015 at 8:47 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Now, how about replying to the rebuttals of your initial erroneous reply?

He's not able to graps the concept without thinking secularism=atheism=communism.

communism doesn't even...
doesn't even support secularism....

(January 3, 2015 at 8:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: No, I must congratulate you sir for having the ability to convolute a very simple concept.

you seem to think I'm making a case for a religious society, which I'm not.

Let's take a road for example.

A road is designed with gutters on the left and right for the trash to wash into. It is never good to be far left or far right of any issue it's best to remain in the center.
This applies to pretty much anything whether it be politics or religion.

It's ok to be conservative about somethings, and liberal about others. Taking one side OR the other is just nonsense.

that being said, a totally religious society is not the answer, neither is an atheist society, but one that gives the people freedom to choose.

So the point I was making was a societies happiness had nothing to do with secularism vs religion, but freedom of choice.

My point

Esquilax wasn't saying anything convoluted, he was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

Secularism is not the antithesis to 'religion'. Secularism is not atheism.

Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.

Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.

Tell us what your definition of secularism is. Where do you think it came from and what do you think it seeks to achieve?

---

(January 3, 2015 at 8:52 pm)abaris Wrote:

(January 3, 2015 at 8:47 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Now, how about replying to the rebuttals of your initial erroneous reply?

He's not able to graps the concept without thinking secularism=atheism=communism.

That's what I fear.

(January 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 3, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Increased secularism isn't state atheism...

My point is, if you're going to make a case against religion by stating

"the most secular, least religious societies also tend to be some of the most prosperous financially and socially, and also the happiest."

then look at the Societies/governments that removed religion completely, and you would see that they tended to be hellholes , making that statement utter nonsense.

Societies that are free to live how they please and treated fairly (no injustice/corruption) are the happiest.

Your argument fails because you do not recognize that Communism was pursued with religious fervor, religious zealotry -- and blind faith.

I agree that they were definitely awful places to live, the Eastern Bloc countries in the 60s and 70s, from what I've read. But they weren't awful because they lacked god. They were awful because they lacked democracy, political freedom, and economic opportunity. Religion doesn't supply any of those qualities, and cannot take any credit for them here in America.

(January 3, 2015 at 8:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: No, I must congratulate you sir for having the ability to convolute a very simple concept.

Might I remind you that all this came about because of your apparent inability to see the difference between the terms "secular" and "state enforced atheism"? You want to talk about a simple concept...

Quote:you seem to think I'm making a case for a religious society, which I'm not.

No, I was being charitable and thinking you actually had a cogent point, and were making the argument that atheism is bad for society. It seems, however, that I was wrong, and that you had no cogent point at all, as your entire position is pinned to your inability to understand that secular societies are not rigidly atheist societies.

I opted to think maybe you were talking about things. It turns out you were just flashing your ignorance of simple terms for all to see.

Quote:Let's take a road for example.

A road is designed with gutters on the left and right for the trash to wash into. It is never good to be far left or far right of any issue it's best to remain in the center.
This applies to pretty much anything whether it be politics or religion.

Nope. Sorry, sometimes one side of an issue or another is just definitively right about something. The answer doesn't always lie "somewhere in the middle." Spare me the South Park moralizing.

Quote:It's ok to be conservative about somethings, and liberal about others. Taking one side OR the other is just nonsense.

Except now you're talking about evaluating each claim on an individual basis, not taking the middle of the road on every issue. I fully agree with the former, but find the latter ridiculous.

Quote:that being said, a totally religious society is not the answer, neither is an atheist society, but one that gives the people freedom to choose.

So the point I was making was a societies happiness had nothing to do with secularism vs religion, but freedom of choice.

My point

And given that nobody but you was ever talking about an atheist society, your point was never even remotely germane to the topic under discussion.