The Danger of Secularism

[Q]

Seriously, there is more evidence to prove God's existence that you don't believe in, than there is evidence of them illegally wiretapping US citizens in the United States.

Oh, come on.

 

I propose that a new thread discussing the dangers of legislating from the pulpit be started.

[Vikinor]

Your religious ideals are an agenda as much as the so called "left-wing" agenda.

 

I always find it amusing that the religious people with an agenda are the first people to call another group on an agenda

 

Stop being a hypocrite. This country does not work on your misguided fairy tales.

 

.

 

 

I'm going to have to say that I strongly disagree with you. Now, while this country does have separation of Church and State, it is not nearly as recognized as it should be. So, yes this country has and does work on misguided fairy tales(Prop 8, Stem Cells). I don't believe that it is right, it is just the way some things have come to be. And it seems that until people can recognize when to separate their own personal beliefs and its effects others, then things won't be changing very soon. A large number of the United States population is unfortunately hypocritical.

 

Many are very quick to shout out that the founding fathers where religious, while they also seem to conveniently forget the separation of Church and State.

[True_Avery]

Isn't the wiretapping accusation the same one that there is no evidence and some of the accusers ended up having to apologize? Seriously, there is more evidence to prove God's existence that you don't believe in, than there is evidence of them illegally wiretapping US citizens in the United States.

Oh please.

 

There is no proof of the existence of god. Don't try to pull that on us.

 

And yes, there is proof of wiretapping.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170940,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37203,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179215,00.html

 

"Parts of the Patriot Act, including a section on "roving wiretaps," expire in December. Such wiretaps allow the FBI to get permission from a secret federal court to listen in on any phone line or monitor any Internet account that a terrorism suspect may be using, whether or not others who are not suspects also regularly use it."

 

Your turn. Give me conclusive proof of the existence of a god, as you've just admitted that there is such proof.

 

Unless you met them, which you haven't, or they wrote somewhere that they didn't believe in God, which they probably didn't do that either, quit trying to make it sound like they were atheists when they probably weren't.

Have you met them?

 

You haven't

 

Stop projecting your beleifs onto people you've never met before. Take a leaf out of your own argument and stop being a blatant hypocrite.

 

Separation of church and state proves your argument false.

 

Actually there is no evidence out there that disproves the existence of God. The point is that if you put government in as the ultimate Sovereign you end up with a toltalitarian regime, because there is in people's mind no higher authority.

So, god isn't a dictator at all then?

 

You are trading one dictator for another. Except now, one is real and the other is an imaginary friend.

 

And because there is nothing that disproves to mean it exists?

 

There is an invisible pink unicorn standing right behind you Garfield. Prove me wrong. You can't? Then it must exist by your logic.

 

And I would define atheism as a cult as well.

Then re-read the definition of atheism before you make such a blatantly ignorant statement.

 

 

One trick of a dictatorship is manipulating the vote, such as through intimidation, tampering with ballots, dead people voting etc.

Like manipulating it by bringing religion into politics?

 

You are pushing your religious agenda as much as any government is. Stop being a hypocrite and making yourself the exception.

 

You are trying to force your beliefs on people as much as the "government" is.

 

Also, nice dodges on ignoring my posts.

[SkinWalker]

Unless you met them, which you haven't, or they wrote somewhere that they didn't believe in God, which they probably didn't do that either, quit trying to make it sound like they were atheists when they probably weren't.

 

I'm only citing their writings. If you want direct citations, I'm happy to provide them. I just have one question: how many citations would be necessary for you to revise your opinion and agree that, in general, the Founding Fathers were not "highly religious" as you so fallaciously assert? I ask only that to prevent the goal post from constantly moving on me.

 

Actually there is no evidence out there that disproves the existence of God.

 

Why would this even be necessary? There is no evidence to disprove the purple dragon in my garage or the celestial teapot orbiting the other side of the sun, yet I doubt you'd consider either has good reason for belief. By your flawed (very, very flawed) logic, you must, therefore believe in my dragon and the teapot simply because I claim them true.

 

The point is that if you put government in as the ultimate Sovereign you end up with a toltalitarian regime, because there is in people's mind no higher authority.

 

Again, your logic is flawed to the point of being undereducated. I would recommend picking up a first year college textbook (any good public library will have one) on U.S. Government and perhaps you'd understand that government in the United States isn't given "ultimate" control and that it answers to the people.

 

Then I might suggest you also recommend a world history book (again, the library can be your friend) where you'll notice that nations in which the religious had significant influence nearly always resulted in instability and, often, utter failure. Therefore, the rights and morality provided by religion are flawed.

 

You might also care to look at World Health Organization data which correlate modern religious nations and states to violence and moral depravity. Secular nations are correlated to moral success and decreased violence (I have the citations to these findings and summaries of their figures if you would like them). Therefore, religious moral standards are ineffective. Therefore, religion is unsuccessful or, in many cases, a failure in establishing or providing moral guidelines or standards for society.

 

 

You have 2 problems with that argument. The first is there is the possiblity that God does exist, there is no way to disprove his existence.

 

I have no burden of proof. If you're making the supernatural and superstitious claim, then the burden of proof is on you. Your first "problem" is refuted. QED.

 

The second is that power corrupts people and those whom have power wish more power and tend to be afraid of losing power.

 

Historically, this has afflicted religious leaders and the superstitious more significantly than those with secular leanings. In addition, I've already pointed out that the success in our great nation is a result of the secular intent of our (mostly) secular Founding Fathers. They created the framework for a nation that exists with checks and balances that answer to the people -This is what provides our nation with success. Not religious superstition.

 

And I would define atheism as a cult as well.

 

Then clearly you're ignorant. I'm sorry, and I realize that your first inclination is to accept that statement as an ad hominem attack only, but it is, in fact, very descriptive. For, the only alternative is that you're being willfully obstinate in the face of logic and reason. Atheism as a philosophy is merely the absence of a belief in gods. As a physical state, it is existing in the absence of gods. I hold an atheistic philosophy, necessarily, out of logical and reasoned thought, but I contend that you and I are both atheists in that we both exist in the absence of any god. I acknowledge the unlikelihood of a god (no Zeus, no Ptah, no Atun-Ra, no Quetzacoatl, no Yahweh...); you, however, superstitiously and irrationally hold to the belief of a single god that has not a single good reason to be believed. At least I acknowledge my atheism. You're just in denial.

 

But the "cult" accusation isn't new. I'm well acquainted with it. It usually gets invoked when a theist is faced with the grim reality of the irrationality of his/her position -that defending his/her superstition from rational arguments is futile. It then becomes easier to acknowledge the irrationality of belonging to a religion or a cult within a religion and to, thus, accuse the atheist of belonging to the "religion of atheism" or the "cult" of atheism."

 

Yet, the description doesn't hold beyond some minor tropic or metaphorical devices which can be applied to baseball and concert goers. This is because there is a distinct lack of one element present in the superstitious adherence to religious cult doctrines: the perceived appeasement of a supernatural deity.

 

But here is the thing, if you don't have a check as to who determines what rights people has, then Government is Sovereign.

 

It is a good thing, then, that our Secular Founders established a system of checks and balances. See the Government textbook above.

 

If you look at Star Wars Episode III, you can see the danger that can sometimes happen, a real life example would be Germany when it put the Nazi party into power.

 

Look, I like Star Wars. Its why I'm here. But I'm not going to start drawing analogies of SW to real life in a serious discussion. I would also point out that Germany's Nazi party was success was due largely to the fact that they were able to take advantage of the superstitions of religious followers. Have you ever seen a Nazi or SS belt buckle worn on the dress uniform? The face reads "Gott Mit Uns." Therefore, religion and ideology are the dangers -not secularism. There is no evidence that Secular Thought is a danger and considerable evidence to the contrary.

 

One trick of a dictatorship is manipulating the vote, such as through intimidation, tampering with ballots, dead people voting etc.

 

How is this impossible or even less likely within a society that embraces religious superstition (hint: look at the religious nations of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Indonesia -compare and contrast with secular nations like Norway, Denmark and Japan)?

 

In short, you've made a very good case of why religious thought and superstition should be battled at every turn in a nation founded on secular ideals like the United States. It has renewed my interest in defending our nation from the superstitious and those that would impose their particular brand of 'god' on the rest of us.

 

For that I thank you.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

For some people it might, otherwise why is the government of China and North Korea still in existence. Seriously, survival of the fittest, the strong dominate the weak.

The Republic of China and the DPRK exist because of a series of events which had a lot to do with guns and armies and very little if any to do with religion or the lack thereof.

 

Lots of people love to bring up the atheist Communists when faced with the brutality of their religions, but what they consistently fail at is providing some sort of causation - ie. demonstrate how Stalin's brutality was caused by his atheism, more than, say, his white skin, mustache or tendency to write with his right hand.

[mimartin]

A friend of mine suggested that I read Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man and get back with him when dealing with this subject. May I suggest the same thing?

 

Before accusing Mr. Paine of liberal bias, again may I suggest looking at his Biography?