Atheists and theists: Endless confrontations

[Bram Kaandorp]

There's an issue with, say, people not working on a Sunday even though some of them are Jews, Muslims or atheists. That's an example of an abuse of religious preference. (Though one that's accepted by most people).

Count me out of that one.

What about people who pass laws against murder, say, because they think it's wrong because of the Ten Commandments? Is that an issue of abuse of religious power?

If the Ten Commandments are their only reason, then I really doubt whether they should be allowed to stay in our society. We don't need people who don't do something solely because an ancient book tells them so. Suppose they discard the book, what then?

Then there are the grey areas in between. Someone thinks that the state should support marriage. Is his opinion less valid because he's a Christian? If he's an atheist, is his view more valid?

Good question. I'd say that if someone wants to pass a law "because the bible says so" without any other argumentation, then it might still be a good law, but pushed for the wrong reason.

 

[Dinwar]

Is that an issue of abuse of religious power?

I'm going to say that any attempt to make people outside of one's religion live by the standards of one's religion is a violation of their rights. That means that yes, I would consider outlawing murder specifically because your religion condemns it to be wrong (there are many, many secular justifications--starting with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...."). The issue isn't necessarily WHAT the law is, but HOW it came about. I mean, it's really simple: If I'm not a member of your religion I'm under NO obligation to live by its standards. I'm a citizen and resident of the USA, so I am obligated to live by their standards; but religion is a private matter, and forcing me to abide by the laws of your religion is a violation of my rights (specifically, the First Ammendment).

I get that religion will influence what laws are passed (politics is based on ethics); however, if your argument is religious in nature it's wrong, and should not be permitted in government--because the counter-argument is "I'm not of that faith", and such an argument demolishes any religious argument. If you can come up with a secular argument, that's another story.

ETA:

I'd say that if someone wants to pass a law "because the bible says so" without any other argumentation, then it might still be a good law, but pushed for the wrong reason.

I'd rather have the wrong law for the right reason than the right law for the wrong reason. If our reasoning is correct, we can fix the error. If our reasoning isn't, we won't even SEE the error.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I'd rather have the wrong law for the right reason than the right law for the wrong reason. If our reasoning is correct, we can fix the error. If our reasoning isn't, we won't even SEE the error.

Exactly.

 

[paiute]

.

This reminds me the Soviet Union.

============================

You just Godwinovitched your own thread.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

You just Godwinovitched your own thread.

It's still going, isn't it?

Great play on words though.

 

[westprog]

The scale of the disrespect makes it impossible to equate what atheists do with what theists do. I mean, a disrespectful atheist mocks religion (and, in my experience anyway, everything else). A disrespectful theist passes laws making me less than a second-class citizen. Or, you know, murders me. Or threatens my wife (it's happened). There's a BIT of a difference there.

That's probably true, in the USA, in the 21st Century. In the last hundred years, though, there are plenty of examples of atheists killing and imprisoning people for their religious beliefs. There's nothing inherently tolerant about atheism, or intolerant about religion.

 

[westprog]

I'm going to say that any attempt to make people outside of one's religion live by the standards of one's religion is a violation of their rights. That means that yes, I would consider outlawing murder specifically because your religion condemns it to be wrong (there are many, many secular justifications--starting with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal....").

Why should a secular justification be privileged? Why is something a bunch of slaveowners thought up OK just because it doesn't refer to religion?

The issue isn't necessarily WHAT the law is, but HOW it came about. I mean, it's really simple: If I'm not a member of your religion I'm under NO obligation to live by its standards. I'm a citizen and resident of the USA, so I am obligated to live by their standards; but religion is a private matter, and forcing me to abide by the laws of your religion is a violation of my rights (specifically, the First Ammendment).

I get that religion will influence what laws are passed (politics is based on ethics); however, if your argument is religious in nature it's wrong, and should not be permitted in government--because the counter-argument is "I'm not of that faith", and such an argument demolishes any religious argument. If you can come up with a secular argument, that's another story.

ETA:

I'd rather have the wrong law for the right reason than the right law for the wrong reason. If our reasoning is correct, we can fix the error. If our reasoning isn't, we won't even SEE the error.

Fixing bad law is a lot easier said than done.

 

[Dinwar]

A fair point. I was specifically addressing today's climate--those actions taken by atheists which theists consider offensive (book writing, public speeking, that sort of thing) and those taken by theists which atheists consider offensive (using the law to force one's religion on others, protecting child rapists, mass murder, etc). Historically, the issue of respect is much more murky.

 

[PGH]

One group thinks the other believes in nonsense that will waste their time, thinking and money.

The other group thinks the first group believes in nonsense and deserves to be tortured and burned for all eternity.

The scales are nowhere near equal in the "respect" category.

 

[westprog]

Count me out of that one.



If the Ten Commandments are their only reason, then I really doubt whether they should be allowed to stay in our society. We don't need people who don't do something solely because an ancient book tells them so. Suppose they discard the book, what then?

There are examples from recent years of people not allowed to stay in society because of their connection to the Ten Commandments. That didn't work out too well.

Good question. I'd say that if someone wants to pass a law "because the bible says so" without any other argumentation, then it might still be a good law, but pushed for the wrong reason.

 

[Dinwar]

Why should a secular justification be privileged?

"Secular" merely means "no-religious"--meaning that it doesn't rely on religious arguments. Again, any religious argument--ANY such argument, bar NONE--can be entirely destroyed by the statement "I don't believe in that particular religion." Thus, any religious argument in the political sphere is nothing more than a group trying to enforce its code of conduct on people who ARE NOT MEMBERS of that group.

Why is something a bunch of slaveowners thought up OK just because it doesn't refer to religion?

See that man you're fighting? That yellow stuff he's made of is called "straw".

I never said that all secular arguments were valid--only that religious arguments in politics are invalid. If you want to discuss what arguments I consider valid in government we can, but it'll have to be in another thread. Here I'm simply pointing out that religious people have forced their particular views on those outside of their faiths many times in my country (USA), while the secular view amounts to "Do what you want, just don't hurt anyone who doesn't agree to it first". Religious people view not abiding by their laws as offensive--even if you're not a member of that religion. That's what they mean by "respect".

Fixing bad law is a lot easier said than done.

Possibly. But the first step is to know it's bad law to begin with. If your reasoning is flawed, you'll never know.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

There are examples from recent years of people not allowed to stay in society because of their connection to the Ten Commandments. That didn't work out too well.

My point was that if the only thing preventing someone from committing murder is the bible, and someone else proved that the bible is not a good book of reference for anything, then what is there to prevent the person from murdering?

I'm not saying that "someone who holds the bible in high regard is incapable of contributing to society in a meaningful way". I would never say that.

I'm saying that people who purely depend on the bible (and nothing else) for their morality are missing some vital pieces of information, such as the changes which have happened over the past millennia since its publication.

Also, they are missing the inherent feeling of care which prevents most people from committing murder, or else they wouldn't really need the bible for morality.

I think that most people who say that "without the bible, there is no morality" are actually perfectly capable of being moral people without the bible.

It's the small group who actually do need the bible which I worry about.

 

[westprog]

My point was that if the only thing preventing someone from committing murder is the bible, and someone else proved that the bible is not a good book of reference for anything, then what is there to prevent the person from murdering?

I'm not saying that "someone who holds the bible in high regard is incapable of contributing to society in a meaningful way". I would never say that.

I'm saying that people who purely depend on the bible (and nothing else) for their morality are missing some vital pieces of information, such as the changes which have happened over the past millennia since its publication.

Also, they are missing the inherent feeling of care which prevents most people from committing murder, or else they wouldn't really need the bible for morality.

I think that most people who say that "without the bible, there is no morality" are actually perfectly capable of being moral people without the bible.

It's the small group who actually do need the bible which I worry about.

The same thing which stops atheists from murdering people will stop disillusioned Bible believers from murdering people. Even the people who deny the reality of morality aren't killing their neighbours.

The assumption that people who follow the bible must be de facto psychopaths who are a dangerous threat to society isn't born out by reality.

 

[westprog]

"Secular" merely means "no-religious"--meaning that it doesn't rely on religious arguments. Again, any religious argument--ANY such argument, bar NONE--can be entirely destroyed by the statement "I don't believe in that particular religion." Thus, any religious argument in the political sphere is nothing more than a group trying to enforce its code of conduct on people who ARE NOT MEMBERS of that group.

See that man you're fighting? That yellow stuff he's made of is called "straw".

I never said that all secular arguments were valid--only that religious arguments in politics are invalid. If you want to discuss what arguments I consider valid in government we can, but it'll have to be in another thread. Here I'm simply pointing out that religious people have forced their particular views on those outside of their faiths many times in my country (USA), while the secular view amounts to "Do what you want, just don't hurt anyone who doesn't agree to it first". Religious people view not abiding by their laws as offensive--even if you're not a member of that religion. That's what they mean by "respect".

Possibly. But the first step is to know it's bad law to begin with. If your reasoning is flawed, you'll never know.

So what makes a secular argument valid? How do we decide? Why is a religious argument worse than an invalid secular argument?

In any case, arguments aren't the issue - it's votes and opinions.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

The same thing which stops atheists from murdering people will stop disillusioned Bible believers from murdering people. Even the people who deny the reality of morality aren't killing their neighbours.

The assumption that people who follow the bible must be de facto psychopaths who are a dangerous threat to society isn't born out by reality.

Not only that, but it wasn't even what I said.

 

[Dinwar]

So what makes a secular argument valid?

Either read my posts or don't respond. I've already addressed this:

I never said that all secular arguments were valid--only that religious arguments in politics are invalid.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Either read my posts or don't respond. I've already addressed this:

Westprog seems either very fond of straw men, or he has reading difficulties.

He failed to understand my post as well.

 

[Dinwar]

How do we decide? Why is a religious argument worse than an invalid secular argument?

In the (vane) hope that you'll read and comprehend what I'm saying:

Any group only gets to make rules for people within that group. Trying to force people outside of that group to follow the group's rules is wrong. Religion tries to force people of other religions and of no religion to obey their rules--in the USA it's Blue Laws and the like, in the Islamofacist countries it's women wearing burkas, and so on. Thus, religious people are in the wrong.

An invalid secular argument is not necessarily superior--however, there's not the built-in factor of an ingroup trying to force its norms on the outgroup. It's not necessarily automatically invalid, and therefore is worth listening to.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

In the (vane) hope that you'll read and comprehend what I'm saying:

Any group only gets to make rules for people within that group. Trying to force people outside of that group to follow the group's rules is wrong. Religion tries to force people of other religions and of no religion to obey their rules--in the USA it's Blue Laws and the like, in the Islamofacist countries it's women wearing burkas, and so on. Thus, religious people are in the wrong.

An invalid secular argument is not necessarily superior--however, there's not the built-in factor of an ingroup trying to force its norms on the outgroup. It's not necessarily automatically invalid, and therefore is worth listening to.

But what if there are religious people who don't count themselves as members of the secular group?

What if there are religious groups who want their laws to apply to everyone else, because they believe everyone is part of their group?

Suppose there is a religious group who think that they can ignore all secular laws, since they don't apply to religious people? You know, like the people who have a public prayer on a public school.

Don't get me wrong, I think those people are not in the right, but to them it is perfectly normal to disregard what they perceive to be unjust laws.

 

[Dinwar]

Suppose there is a religious group who think that they can ignore all secular laws, since they don't apply to religious people?

"Secular" and "religious" aren't opposites--one can be religious and secular. A priest can hold office, so long as he doesn't pontificate from the office. "Secular" merely refers to this world--and we're all members of this world. In the case of the USA, we're all residents of the nation--one's religeous beliefs are irrelevant to that consideration. Secular laws are those passed by our government for its residents and citizens; thus, merely being a member of a religious group does not mean that you get to sidestep the law (there have been SCOTUS cases about that--the theists always loose). The only way to say that you're outside of the group for which those laws are passed is to renounce your citizenship and terminate your residency in the United States--in other words, leave the territory.

What if there are religious groups who want their laws to apply to everyone else, because they believe everyone is part of their group?

I get to choose what groups I'm part of, not the religious group. Again, we can only tell ourselves what to do--we don't get to tell other people what to do. In this case, religeous organizations don't get to dictate to me what group I'm a member of. I get to choose that (Freedom of Association, which includes freedom to NOT associate with people, and is one of the rights in the Bill of Rights in the USA). Besides, to simply accept that the religious groups get to decide who's in them (which would result in a select group deciding in practice--religious tend to be strict hierarchies) will necessarily lead to contradictions. Baptists can say that we're all Baptists, while Satanists can say that all red-heads are Jedis. Because the religions are mutually exclusive, this creates a contradiction--one cannot be Baptist and Satanist at the same time. The only way to work around this is to allow individuals to choose--Freedom of Association--or the necessary consequence of some fact of reality--such as being within the territory controled by some government, or having certain diseases (a relative of mine with MS has rules that I don't need to follow, for example).

Don't get me wrong, I think those people are not in the right, but to them it is perfectly normal to disregard what they perceive to be unjust laws.

Simply put, they're wrong. So long as they choose to remain in the United States, they must operate under its laws (though they can advocate changing them). The group is defined as anyone who lives here. And they're free to leave it whenever they so choose. I'm not saying "Love it or leave it", which is the Is/Ought Fallacy; I'm just saying that if you live here you're necessarily part of the group "Residents of here".