Seperation of atheism and state

[Zoraxe7]

Now, separation of church and state is good and all that, but does separation of church and state also apply to a government not taking an official pro-atheism/non-religious stance?

The soviet union had no "separation of state and atheism" as it were, because its leaders were mostly atheists that took anti-religious movements and the state was officially atheist. Meaning the communist party was an atheist organization.

The Palace of the Soviets project being one big example of why a state shouldn't adopt atheism as its official stance. The palace of the soviets would have symbolized the state taking over the role of religion as it was going to be built on the site of the destroyed cathedral.

[RazorHawk]

How exactly would this be applicable though? As far as I know, atheists don't have cathedrals or temples, so what would define a physical location as being considered as an atheist location? Also, I don't really describe atheism as a religion, but more as a decision to not follow religion. Its pretty much the same as religions being a drink to fill your glass with, and atheism is just the choice to keep your glass empty.

But to be really honest, I don't think any religion should be separated from the state that it exists in. No religion should be separate from that country's laws, and they shouldn't have immunity over taxes. Like the rest of us, they should be forced to pay their fair share. These religions make plenty of money, and since they're located in a community that is always being maintained by the state, they should be paying their share of the money that goes into that maintenance.

[RubberTrucky]

I think what you're getting at is commonly known as freedom of religion.

But I do feel that the state should never change that policy and actuallly goes to pursue religion.

[Imperator]

At 8/24/10 08:46 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Now, separation of church and state is good and all that, but does separation of church and state also apply to a government not taking an official pro-atheism/non-religious stance?

No, because it's nonsensical. Atheism is no more a "belief" or platform than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. It's one of the reasons why despite accounting for (recent polls suggest) up to 20% of the country, no politician has pandered to the "atheist community". There's no such thing. It's not a stance, and it's not a platform. You find atheists as divided as you can get.

There's an old theist trick to classify things in their favor:

Atheism: Belief god doesn't exist
Theism: Belief god does exist
Agnosticsm: Belief knowledge of god is impossible
Gnostic: Belief knowledge of god is possible

And then to mix and match to get things like "atheistic agnosticism" or "Agnostic theism".

But it's specious phrasing.
I don't "believe" god doesn't exist. It's not a belief, it's a reasoned conclusion based on the weight of evidence, and the pattern the evidence forms. I wouldn't claim to "know" in any absolute terms, nor would I ever claim to "believe".

It's a trick to get theists to say things like "atheism is a religion" or classify it as a belief or faith structure.

The reason it's a trick is because "belief in absence" is NOT the same as "absence of belief".

So the question is nonsensical.

The Palace of the Soviets project being one big example of why a state shouldn't adopt atheism as its official stance. The palace of the soviets would have symbolized the state taking over the role of religion as it was going to be built on the site of the destroyed cathedral.

The set up of the separation of Church and State in the US is indeed making the law ATHEISTIC. Religion has no bearing on the law, they are separate. No stance of god occurs in the state. This is atheism. The US is an example of what an atheist state system looks like, if there ever was one. It's the very premise of the separation. So to set up a separation from a "pro-atheist" stance is essentially to DE-separate the space between state and religion. In other words, for your premise to work, the state must become "pro-theist".

As to your topic of Russia:
This isn't a valid conclusion because the premise wasn't valid to begin with, as I showed above. Stalin set up a system of human theism; the state he set up ran under THEISTIC precepts, based on the older, earlier Czar totalitarian system.

Yes, Stalin was atheist, but to suggest, as is typically suggested by people looking to make specious arguments against atheism, that atheism somehow "caused" things, is again to base a conclusion around a false premise.

This is the fundamental mistake when discussing Stalin, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Mao, or anyone else, and claiming their atheism somehow "caused" the murder and genocide. As shown, the premise under which these conclusions are drawn, is itself quite untenable.

[Imperator]

The reason it's a trick is because "belief in absence" is NOT the same as "absence of belief".

Although it strangely doesn't bother it too much, this should read:

"Belief of absence" is not the same as "absence of belief".

[Chris-V2]

This just feels like toying with the terminology, I don't understand how being a theistic state and a state seperate from athiesm would be any different.

[Gario]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: It's impossible to exercise the 'Separation of Church and State' without the State taking a pro-agnostic view on their political views. The entire idea of separation of the Church from the State is a non-theistic one, so to exercise it is to be pro-agnostic. You're looking for a combination of mutually exclusive conditions, which isn't possible.

The government isn't allowed to take a strictly atheist stance, though, since unlike agnostics, atheism is the belief that there is no god (which is contrary to the agnostics, who claim that they don't have enough proof to believe in one... the difference is subtle, but significant). USSR actually did not exercise separation of the church and state, because they enforced a religion upon the people - the belief that there is no god.

As much as people want to claim that atheism isn't a religion, it IS centered on a solid belief against a god, and their lives are dictated by this belief. If the person simply doesn't believe there's a god then they're probably agnostic, not atheistic. I've been corrected by many, many agnostic & atheistic people on this point, and that's the consensus I've been forced to accept, at this time, so if you call yourself an atheist and are describing what I'm calling an agnostic then this is just so we can understand where I'm coming from. Semantics can muddy an argument faster than religion, if we let them go unchecked.

So yeah, separation of church and state implies it's not going to support atheism, but the very fact that a country employs the separation of church and state means it's supporting agnosticism, by definition.

[Imperator]

At 8/24/10 09:34 PM, Gario wrote: The government isn't allowed to take a strictly atheist stance, though, since unlike agnostics, atheism is the belief that there is no god

Does nobody pay attention anymore?
There is a difference between "belief of absence", and "absence of belief".

As much as people want to claim that atheism isn't a religion, it IS centered on a solid belief against a god, and their lives are dictated by this belief.

Then I will put on my list of hobbies:
Does not collect stamps
Does not play hockey
Does not read Goosebumps
Does not go to Church

And I must say, I spend quite a good deal of time practicing these hobbies.

As much as you would like to believe otherwise, atheism is no more a religion than those lack of activities are activities.

For the very subtle reason I already listed.

If the person simply doesn't believe there's a god then they're probably agnostic, not atheistic. I've been corrected by many, many agnostic & atheistic people on this point,

And yet, repeat the mistake.

and that's the consensus I've been forced to accept,

Why would you continue to hold a position on which you've been corrected?

at this time, so if you call yourself an atheist and are describing what I'm calling an agnostic then this is just so we can understand where I'm coming from. Semantics can muddy an argument faster than religion, if we let them go unchecked.

The semantics are on your end. There is no muddiness on mine as to what atheism is. And I am quite certain EVERY atheist on this board would back me in saying you are incorrectly describing atheism as a belief, and as a religion.

[Ganon-Dorf]

The state should operate behind a veil of ignorance, it shouldn't condemn or promote any belief but just do it's job in running the damn country.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/24/10 08:46 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Now, separation of church and state is good and all that, but does separation of church and state also apply to a government not taking an official pro-atheism/non-religious stance?

in a way, yeah. if a government has decided that it shouldn't be endorsing one religion over another then the subtext there is that the government has decided not to denounce religion in its entirety either. if the government's stance towards the multitude of religious beliefs was "YOU'RE ALL WRONG" then the idea of "WE AIN'T PLAYIN FAVORITES" wouldn't have even made it into the picture.

At 8/24/10 09:05 PM, RazorHawk wrote: How exactly would this be applicable though? As far as I know, atheists don't have cathedrals or temples, so what would define a physical location as being considered as an atheist location?

if atheism is considered not a belief but a "lack of a belief" (semantic B.S. that some people seem to think is significant...) then as a parallel you wouldn't have any "atheist locations", you'd have a lack of religious locations. so, if the government took an explicit pro-atheism/anti-religion stance then that'd probably be expressed as something a bit more heavy than just the removal of tax-exempt status, like maybe the destruction or conversion of all places of worship to something more... 'practical' or 'utilitarian' instead.

[Imperator]

At 8/24/10 10:05 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: if atheism is considered not a belief but a "lack of a belief" (semantic B.S. that some people seem to think is significant...)

If that semantic BS is used to classify atheism as a religion (which it has), I'd say it's significant.

Considering I'm the ONLY person on these boards to have actually learned ancient Greek, I still can't believe people fight me on these differences, and the importance of the distinctions between them.

The fact that the guy I addressed not only gave definitions for atheism, but said he was corrected BY ATHEISTS, on those definitions, should tell you there's a significant difference, shouldn't it?

I mean, we could use Dawkin's scale, but I'm sure someone would object to that too.

then as a parallel you wouldn't have any "atheist locations", you'd have a lack of religious locations.

Following so far.

so, if the government took an explicit pro-atheism/anti-religion stance then that'd probably be expressed as something a bit more heavy than just the removal of tax-exempt status, like maybe the destruction or conversion of all places of worship to something more... 'practical' or 'utilitarian' instead.

Anti-theism, anti-religion, and atheism are not the same things.

An anti-theistic, or anti-religion government would certainly fit the description of destroying place of worship or turning them into secular institutions. I would go further and say an anti-theistic government would most likely ban religious worship, or a particular or any kind, outright.

A pro-atheist government, or an atheist state, is as I said, what we already have. The absence of religion in the state, or the absence of religion in law.

You lumped all three together inappropriately.

A stupid conclusion based on a faulty premise.

And you don't think the distinction is significant? You're living proof of it's significance.

[Imperator]

I'll go further and say a pro-atheist government or state would simply refrain from building any religious institutions, or refrain from promoting any religious affiliation in the state.

My god, it almost sounds like the US.....because it is.
The US State is an atheistic State: It is absent of religion.

It wouldn't go so far as tearing down religious institutions (that's anti-theism).

[Gario]

At 8/24/10 09:57 PM, Imperator wrote: Does nobody pay attention anymore?
There is a difference between "belief of absence", and "absence of belief".

With all due respect, I was defining it how I've always heard it being defined by my own agnostic/atheist friends. I've been told this difference many times, and have been told to define it that way, so I do. I added the disclaimer saying I understand that other people define it differently just so we didn't get into this discussion.

:Then I will put on my list of hobbies:
Does not collect stamps
Does not play hockey
Does not read Goosebumps
Does not go to Church

:And I must say, I spend quite a good deal of time practicing these hobbies.

:As much as you would like to believe otherwise, atheism is no more a religion than those lack of activities are activities.

... semantics. Hold on, I'll define atheism (as you defined it) as agnosticism (as I defined it), and lo and behold I agree with you! Let's define Atheism (as I defined it, correctly or not) as Humanistic Theism (as you've defined it) and you'll see why neither of us agree with it! Correcting me is fine, but creating a straw man doesn't get either of us anywhere, and you know it.

:Why would you continue to hold a position on which you've been corrected?

:The semantics are on your end. There is no muddiness on mine as to what atheism is. And I am quite certain EVERY atheist on this board would back me in saying you are incorrectly describing atheism as a belief, and as a religion.

Look at my post count - how the hell should I know what everyone on your board is going to define it, especially if I've always heard it defined otherwise on the boards I regularly use? I've only posted in this forum for a few days, at best, and I'm not going to dredge through old threads to see how people have defined one term or another. I really don't care what we call it, or even who's right or wrong, frankly - if agnostic (as I defined it) = atheism (as you defined it) then whoopty do.

I honestly don't see why you're getting into this discussion with me, seeing as we completely agree 100% about this topic, according to our posts - a simple correction would've saved you time and energy. Equivocating my meanings to make yourself look smart doesn't get either of us anywhere, especially when we're in unison about the topic that matters.

[Imperator]

I honestly don't see why you're getting into this discussion with me, seeing as we completely agree 100% about this topic, according to our posts - a simple correction would've saved you time and energy. Equivocating my meanings to make yourself look smart doesn't get either of us anywhere, especially when we're in unison about the topic that matters.

Then I'll apologize for being hasty.

I deal with the issue quite a bit, both on here and IRL, and sometimes forget who I have, and haven't talked to already. So I sometimes forget I'm talking to someone new, and it feels like I'm repeating myself a fair bit. And I get a lot of people saying the "distinction doesn't matter", and then go on to claim I'm just as religious as any theist. This, as I'm sure you could understand, can be rather maddening.

And there is a lot of confusion in terms. Atheist, agnostic. Atheistic agnostic, agnostic atheist. Gnostic atheist. Irreligious. Nontheism. Implicit atheism, explicit atheism. Secularism.

The list grows as time goes. Lotta overlap, lotta terms seen as umbrella terms, inclusive terms, and others are quite specific. Not gonna claim to even pretend to know them all, or the fine grade of distinctions between them. WILL tell you mine:

Atheism has wiggle room, but is quite clear on other regards. It's not a religion. It's not a "belief", in the same way as theism, and it isn't a "faith" in the same way religion is. Doesn't even have "faith" in the same way a religion does.

Some say it's the rejection of gods, others say it's simply lack of belief (and those might classify these points as Strong or Weak, or use a variety of terms to signify the difference).

But there are no rituals, there is no belief in a supernatural order, there is no moral code, divination, organizational parameter, world view, or prayer. It's not a religion, by any sense of the word.

And I make the example that everyone is atheist, on some level. Because Christians don't believe in Thor, I would say they are atheist with respect to Thor, to make that distinction on why atheism is not a religion, relevant to the Christians I talk to.

Perhaps your friends feel differently, that's fine, not gonna argue it. I would never define my atheism as a religion, and I consistently find myself having to defend that assertion, so I hope you can forgive my brashness a bit.

Cheers.

[orangebomb]

Atheism is not supposed to be a religion, therefore it shouldn't be lumped with seperation of church and state because atheists don't believe in any god, nor do they have any place of worship. Now what people are probably thinking right now is that the USSR is the total opposite because they never supported church and state seperation,

I say, How could that be? Atheists have no means to worship a god, nor do they want to, {no duh}. There were no official religious business in the Soviet Union to begin with anyway, so the seperation argument really doesn't make a lot of sense IMO.

In short, atheism is not a religion both in a technical and a religious defenition, it's more of a philosophy.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/24/10 10:24 PM, Imperator wrote: Considering I'm the ONLY person on these boards to have actually learned ancient Greek

*golf clap*

you still seem to misapply English terms you know lots about, though.

e.g. :

At 8/24/10 09:22 PM, Imperator wrote: The set up of the separation of Church and State in the US is indeed making the law ATHEISTIC. Religion has no bearing on the law, they are separate. No stance of god occurs in the state. This is atheism.

that's like saying a cake recipe is atheistic because it doesn't include an opinion of God in the instructions. not-including X as a part of Y's ingredients is not the same thing as believi--oops, "coming to a reasoned conclusion" that X doesn't exist even outside of Y's domain.

At 8/24/10 10:24 PM, Imperator wrote: I still can't believe people fight me on these differences, and the importance of the distinctions between them.

yeah, you made a distinction between "belief/disbelief in something's existence" and "belief/disbelief that knowledge about that something is possible" ...and yet, when it comes to the state not endorsing any opinion about that something, you connect it to "disbelief in something's existence"??? what???

An anti-theistic, or anti-religion government would certainly fit the description of destroying place of worship or turning them into secular institutions. I would go further and say an anti-theistic government would most likely ban religious worship, or a particular or any kind, outright.

i'm making the presumption that a "pro-atheist" government would basically be an "anti-theist" government. yes, i understand things are rarely that simple, like how being "pro-choice" doesn't mean a person is "anti-life". that being said, i disagree with your claim that the U.S. is an atheist state anyway, so whatever.

A pro-atheist government, or an atheist state, is as I said, what we already have. The absence of religion in the state, or the absence of religion in law.

for someone so deeply invested in the meaning of words to make his argument... why are you conflating "absence of religion in law" with "disbelief in God" when those are two clearly different scenarios? being that the law does not explicitly express either belief OR disbelief in God and offers no opinions concerning the existence of deity(s)... you calling it atheist instead of agnostic is what sounds like the stupid conclusion, ESPECIALLY since you know so much about what the terms are supposed to be describing and even went into a whole spiel about what they mean.

that the law promotes neither belief nor disbelief strikes me as clearly agnostic, NOT atheist. that the law recognizes that religion itself exists is an implied acknowledgment that belief(s) regarding deity(s) exist; that the law has been shaped to favor no one system of belief nor even a "reasoned conclusion" regarding the existence or non-existence of God, again, strikes me as clearly agnostic, NOT atheist.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/24/10 11:03 PM, Imperator wrote: And I make the example that everyone is atheist, on some level. Because Christians don't believe in Thor, I would say they are atheist with respect to Thor, to make that distinction on why atheism is not a religion, relevant to the Christians I talk to.

also... this has always struck me as a kind of silly, ridiculous argument to even bother trying to make. you're taking what is a naturally broad term and applying it individually, as if it really retains the same meaning then. just because we don't have the lexical convenience of fears (all sorts of _____aphobics out there) to describe belief in the existence/non-existence of specific gods doesn't mean you can take a broad term like 'atheist' and slap it in wherever you think it fits.

...

like... "Because Bob eat poultry but doesn't eat beef, he is vegetarian with respect to cows." no... Bob isn't a vegetarian with respect to cows, he just doesn't eat cows. a person with a belief in deity A but not deities B-Z isn't actually an atheist the same way Bob isn't actually a vegetarian.

like... if a person can read and write AT ALL, they're literate. to try to argue that they're "illiterate with respect to other language X" seems to me sort of pointless. in the case of atheism it comes off as a attempt to make the word seem more attractive e.g. "hey we're ALL atheists!" ...but i highly doubt you'd find people using the same line of reasoning to promote the idea that "hey we're ALL illiterates!"

...

it's basically just rhetoric and spin. that we all believe certain concepts but not others, that we all eat certain foods but not others, that we all read certain languages but not others... they're all givens. they all go without saying. the dude who came up with this 'example' did so to make his position of "i don't believe in any deities period" seem no different than the position of "i believe in at least one deity out of bazillions" ... but they are most CERTAINLY very different positions. to make it seem otherwise strikes me as either dishonest or retarded or both, and pointless either way. like... "oh hey super religious guy, did you realize that you're actually 99.99% atheist because you only believe in one god out of ten-thousand? EL OH EL!" yeah, like that type of shit is gonna make it easier for people to understand one-another. :|

whatever though... this should probably be a response to Sam Harris instead since the argument originates from him, not you. :P

[MrFlopz]

Why can't people grasp the fact that atheism is a negative and therefore makes no positive claims. There is no such thing as a government run by atheism. What you are thinking of is a secular government that persecutes religion. Keep the government secular for obvious reasons but don't allow them to persecute people for their beliefs. Telling people "you are no allowed to believe in Jesus" is extremely fucked up if you take the time to think about it.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/25/10 12:32 AM, MrFlopz wrote: Why can't people grasp the fact that atheism is a negative and therefore makes no positive claims. There is no such thing as a government run by atheism.

Actually that is very wrong. A government can openly assert that there is no god and thus it is an Atheist government.

Secular means just existing outside the sphere of religion. Disinterested is a good word to describe how a secular government thinks of religion.

[MrFlopz]

Hey Imperator, you wouldn't happen to subscribe to Thunderf00t by any chance? That guy is the man.

[Imperator]

whatever though... this should probably be a response to Sam Harris instead since the argument originates from him, not you. :P

Then go for it, cause I got no idea who that is.

I do agree about the spin though, probably why every theist on here has tried to tell me "you're a religion".

It's true. Drakim, Pox, Rav, and I all go to atheist church every Tuesday.

Have a good one chief.

[Imperator]

At 8/25/10 12:38 AM, MrFlopz wrote: Hey Imperator, you wouldn't happen to subscribe to Thunderf00t by any chance? That guy is the man.

Nope.

If you want, throw me a link or PM me.

[MrFlopz]

At 8/25/10 12:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/25/10 12:32 AM, MrFlopz wrote: Why can't people grasp the fact that atheism is a negative and therefore makes no positive claims. There is no such thing as a government run by atheism.

Actually that is very wrong. A government can openly assert that there is no god and thus it is an Atheist government.

Secular means just existing outside the sphere of religion. Disinterested is a good word to describe how a secular government thinks of religion.

Actually, I wouldn't describe that as an atheist government. This is what I meant by atheism making no positive claim. "There is no God" so a positive claim. However, "I do not believe in God" is not. Do you see the difference? Contrary to popular belief, atheists do not know there is no God. They simply do not believe in him.

Just break down the word. "A" is not the same as "Anti". An atheist is not an anti-theist. The A simply means "without", as in without religion. A government that is without religion would not dictate "there is no God".

[Gario]

Hmm... seeing the results of this thread, I'm guessing the confusion between agnosticism, atheism, anti-theism, etc. is actually very common, so it's understandable why you lashed out, Imperator.

This topic has gone from 'Semi-interesting-even-if-incorrect topic' to 'How do we define a word?'... which is not only completely irrelevant to actual discussion and argument, but something that can be easily solved by going to a dictionary (or, in my case, Dictionary.com, since I don't have one on me).

1.) the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Now we can see why there is confusion, because both definitions that have been tossed around in here are correct. In this circumstance, civil people would either allow the context to speak for them, or (if the context is unclear, like much of this thread) would define the definition modestly, as to disambiguate the term and allow for meaningful discussion to continue.

Not gonna happen in this thread, though, I'm sure.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/25/10 12:40 AM, Imperator wrote: Then go for it, cause I got no idea who that is.

considering your line of study and the topics you seem interested in discussing i seriously doubt you're entirely unaware of who Sam Harris is... ESPECIALLY since you're using his argument practically verbatim.

I do agree about the spin though, probably why every theist on here has tried to tell me "you're a religion".

y'know, i figured that you would have composed some sort of educated response to what *i* had said to you regarding our 'atheist state' as opposed to you responding to what "every theist on here" (besides myself, apparently) has "tried to tell you"... but, i guess not. sorta disappointing considering your mastery of language and all.

this is basically all i got from you:

"i don't know who Sam Harris is (i just steal his arguments); also, suggesting that atheism is a religion is wrong (even though you never suggested that)."

It's true. Drakim, Pox, Rav, and I all go to atheist church every Tuesday.

Have a good one chief.

lol i don't even know what to do with this. is "appeal to three other atheists on the forum" a recognized logical fallacy? no? oh well. it sure makes for a flaccid retort though.

take care buddayyyyy.

[Imperator]

At 8/25/10 12:53 AM, MrFlopz wrote: Actually, I wouldn't describe that as an atheist government. This is what I meant by atheism making no positive claim. "There is no God" so a positive claim. However, "I do not believe in God" is not. Do you see the difference? Contrary to popular belief, atheists do not know there is no God. They simply do not believe in him.

This is usually qualified by saying you're a "strong" or a "weak" atheist.
Personally, I think Dawkin's 1-7 atheism scale (wiki it) is proficient enough in most circles to solve the problem.

I'm often disagreed on this by jackasses who want to tell me I have an atheist religion.
So I'll simply refer to the scale and say I'm at a 6.99.

Or say I take the same stance as Russell. Agnostic in philosophical terms, atheist for popular use.

Just break down the word. "A" is not the same as "Anti". An atheist is not an anti-theist. The A simply means "without", as in without religion. A government that is without religion would not dictate "there is no God".

Fuck it. I propose the Dawkin's scale to be used for the purposes of the conversation. A nice easy little scale, pretty straightforward, that we can all just agree on for now.

I'm 6.99 on the scale.

And $10 says if there's disagreement, it comes from a theist.

[Imperator]

At 8/25/10 01:26 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: considering your line of study and the topics you seem interested in discussing i seriously doubt you're entirely unaware of who Sam Harris is... ESPECIALLY since you're using his argument practically verbatim.

It's probably been said on here a dozen times, and I picked it up along the way.
That or "great mind think alike".

Even after a google search, I still don't really know who Sam Harris is. So best bet is on me picking it up here from someone.

y'know, i figured that you would have composed some sort of educated response to what *i* had said to you regarding our 'atheist state' as opposed to you responding to what "every theist on here" (besides myself, apparently) has "tried to tell you"... but, i guess not. sorta disappointing considering your mastery of language and all.

"I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect. "
~Edward Gibbon.

Ok, that was mean....
But there wasn't a point really.

lol i don't even know what to do with this. is "appeal to three other atheists on the forum" a recognized logical fallacy? no? oh well. it sure makes for a flaccid retort though.

Fair enough, maybe I didn't read close enough, or maybe I read into your post too much and inferred something that wasn't there.

But that was the point about calling atheism a religion, in any sense (which I do believe is what the OP was suggesting).

In any case, I think this is precisely why the term "non-theist" came about. So if nothing else, hooray for us, we just reinvented the wheel.

take care buddayyyyy.

I posted the "Dawkin's atheism scale" as a median to the problem. Fair nuff?

[poxpower]

At 8/25/10 12:30 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

(all sorts of _____aphobics out there) to describe belief in the existence/non-existence of specific gods doesn't mean you can take a broad term like 'atheist' and slap it in wherever you think it fits.

He just uses the word "atheist" because there's no word for how someone doesn't believe in Thor.

It's a very correct usage in that people don't believe in Odin for exactly the same reasons others don't believe in the Christian God. There is no difference whatsoever.

People understand instantly how Odin is stupid, but they can't seem to be able to turn it back on themselves and they cite a bunch of reasons that would never EVER convince them of Odin if the other party was trying to convert them.

Like "Odin is real because it was written in the stone tablets which he wrote!".
Or "Odin is real because I feel him in my heart and I know it's him!"
Or "Odin is real because I prayed to him for my grandma and it worked!" and so on.

Every religion makes these exact claims, yet they all just believe in their own.

There's a word for that: morons.

D

[aviewaskewed]

Usually we don't disagree too much on stuff Imp but...we're going to now. You REALLY think the US is an atheist state? I mean, ideally it is, in practice, no way jose. We have God in every major patriotic song except the Star Spangled Banner. God is in The Pledge of Allegiance. Many of our politicians openly practice their religion and base their politics on their religion, and the Christian religion is strongly and seemingly irrevocably in bed with the Republican party (before that, the Dems). So I'm not sure you can really say based on all that we're an atheist state, we're not a theocracy sure...but I think it's pretty clear with the stuff I mentioned, and what we see when we look at the kind of fear and hate that comes up when non-western religions try to gain a foothold in this country, that we're very silently a Christian nation that has varying degrees of tolerance for other ideologies.

[Imperator]

At 8/25/10 01:45 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Usually we don't disagree too much on stuff Imp but...we're going to now. You REALLY think the US is an atheist state? I mean, ideally it is, in practice, no way jose.

In practice, no.
With all the junk we have about religion in the state, despite the separation, no.
I thought I had said "closest thing" to an atheist state, but maybe I left that out, or it disappeared in the rubble of the post.

De jure, I think it's what the US law is supposed to represent. A legal system unencumbered with religion.
Perhaps I should simply stick to "secular".

Many of our politicians openly practice their religion and base their politics on their religion, and the Christian religion is strongly and seemingly irrevocably in bed with the Republican party (before that, the Dems).

I particularly like the ones who say they use their religion or get their inspiration to make decisions from their religion.

They probably wouldn't like it if a fellow politician said they consulted the Sibylline Oracles before a meeting with the Pres, or eviscerated a chicken and read its entrails to get inspiration on how they should vote, which is how I feel about them reading the Bible for work.

So I'm not sure you can really say based on all that we're an atheist state, we're not a theocracy sure...but I think it's pretty clear with the stuff I mentioned, and what we see when we look at the kind of fear and hate that comes up when non-western religions try to gain a foothold in this country, that we're very silently a Christian nation that has varying degrees of tolerance for other ideologies.

De facto. No.
De jure? I think that was the intention. No religion in politics. No religion based politics. A law system without religion.

That was the point I was trying to make anyway.
If someone had asked me "how that would differ from a secular state?" I'd concede though. There's a weakness in the argument through the terminology.

I suppose it could even be considered anti-theistic, in expressly keeping out religion from politics (or so the ideal), but it would depend on the perspective, in terms of whether you view the act as "pushing" religion out, or simply not accepting its influence in the role of the state.