I wonder why this is happening in an atheist country?

Well, according to the poster located here http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...pening-atheist-country-14.html#post1061828413 , the very definition of 'atheism' is dependent upon the person giving the definition... so, which one definition is correct? What is the source of the authority to declare that one definition is more suitable than the next? To me, the definition of 'atheism' would be this: "a belief system used by people who are confused on who they are and what their purpose in life is: atheism is also a belief system that allows no set of standards that would substantiate the claims made by the adherents of such a belief system."

 

How about using the CIA Factbook on France instead of potentially biased sources.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html

Personally I've never heard any athiest cite France as an example of the future nor would I from a secular humanist perspective. Of course others may have their own opinions but I don't see France as being a shining example of anything (except for some limited good wines).

Not a single secular humanist, and athiests are overwhelmingly secular humanist, would condone the actions of the criminals in this case.

Because people, regardless of whether they believe in god or not, violate the Rights of others does not imply that a philosophy that opposes these violations is wrong. It merely represents that people are wrong in their actions and nothing more.

First of all the Catholic Church was not guilty of the "Catholicisms slip" but instead was only guilty of not addressing it and covering it up. Finally, due to lawsuits that revealed the extent of the problem, the Catholic Church does seem to be addressing the issue even though it's decades late in doing so and some say it's not doing enough. I commend them for that effort today and if more needs to be done then I hope they will do that.

We also need to address other violations of the inalienable Rights of Individuals in society regardless of who's committing them. To some degree we are but the we often see the "Church" opposed to ending the violations. We have same-sex marriage today which is violating the Right of Every Individual to Equal Protection Under the Law and yet many religious institutions, including the Catholic Church, advocate this violation of Individual Rights under the law.

 

Atheism isn't a belief system, get over that because you're making yourself look foolish to the posters on this forum. It may be considered A belief, but never a system of beliefs. What is the absolute correct definition of atheism? There isn't one. What is the true definition of a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim? Words are usually defined by how most people use them in common nomenclature. Most atheists I know only stand by one principle held in common: the disbelief in the theists' claim that God exists. Beyond that, they are free to believe any other set of beliefs, ridiculous or not.

 

Where is your proof of claim?

 

Where is your proof of claim?

 

Even the two wildly different definitions featured in almost every definition back that statement up. One belief/doctrine, whatever, is not equatable to a belief system.

 

That is not a proof.... that is merely more rhetoric.

 

What exactly would you consider to be proof that atheism is not a belief system? First off, that burden of proof should fall on you since you made the claim that it was a belief system. But seriously, how is pointing out that no definition of atheism entails multiple beliefs or doctrines "rhetoric"? What other kind of evidence would even be possible in this situation?

 

Something tangible that would be easily identified as 'atheism'. Show me a thing out there in reality that has the universal label on it that is recognized as 'atheism'. Can't do it? Of course you can't do it, because atheism is not a real thing. It is a creature of the mind, and has as many variations in definitions as there are members and non-members of such a group.

As for my burden of proof. How many declared atheists are there on this forum alone? Quite a few I would guess. Well, within that 'quite a few' there are also 'quite a few' differing beliefs or notions about what 'atheism' is.... subsequently those quite a few differing beliefs make up a system of beliefs regarding atheism.

 

Really? I haven't seen any variation beyond the two espoused by most, if not all, dictionary definitions. Where are these other variations located at?

Once again, I haven't seen any atheist on this forum saying the definition of atheism is in any way variant to the ones found in dictionaries.

 

Well, I have presented what my definition of atheism is, Neutral has presented yet another variation, and even you have presented yet another.... Of course there are more... just read the forum and surely you will find others as well which are unique in their own way.

My goodness, you need to check your eyeglass prescription. The start of my discussion on this thread was based on the definition given by a non-theist (supposedly an atheist).

Now how about that tangible evidence? Have you found it yet? No? Well, maybe that is because atheism is just another one of those creatures of the mind.

 

Mmm... no... you and Neutral, from what I have read, are saying the exact same thing. That atheism is the belief that there is no god. I have said that atheism is the lack of belief in a God. Those are the exact same two definitions that are ubiquitous throughout dictionaries.

You mean Questerr's post?

"owever, it does not change the fact that atheism itself is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god.

It has zero positive or negative beliefs."

...THAT IS STILL ONE OF THE TWO VARIANTS.

Just because somebody else says it doesn't make it a different definition.

 

There is a fundamental flaw in the OP. Nations can have secular governments (generally based upon secular humanism) or they can have sectarian governments (which are based upon religious dogma). There isn't an "athiest" government as a secular nation does not disparage religious beliefs, it just doesn't base it's laws on religious dogma but instead based upon rational and logical arguments. A secular nation based upon secular humanism protects religious freedom but a sectarian nation denies religious freedom as it inherently discriminates against any that are not a member of the religion controlling the law. Sectarian governments are inherently tyrannical because of the religious dogma that controls the law. Secular governments may or may not be tyrannical but they are not inherently tyrannical.

With secular governments we could say we have a win-lose situation but with a sectarian government it is always a lose-lose situation for anyone that doesn't believe in the religion.

 

Sure seems like you failed to give this group an adequate education on what secular humanism is because they are declaring here that "Humanists...

...are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason and experience. We take responsibility for our actions and base our ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose in the here and now, individually and together."
http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

So, if that government in the UK were to be 'secular humanist' in its composition, according to the statement above, religion would be on its way out... why? Because of the atheist involvement.

 

In my humble opinion a society without religion will eventually fall apart. The simple reason is morality will constantly change through times, and seasons. What someone considered wrong one day will be considered alright in the future. In a secualr humanist society who do they look to when making law?. They have to look to themelves, and every person has a different perspective on what is right and wrong. A majority of people do not always do that what is right. Sometimes the majority can very much be in the wrong. There must be a consensus on law which comes from a higher authortiy, or at least believed to come from a higher authority. Why would one man accept the law from another who has just an equal mind and opinion. However if a man believes the law is coming from a higher authority even if this belief is wrong he is more likely to adhere to the law as it is coming from something greater than he is. Also religion gives a foundation for our morals that keep them in place and prevents our morality from changing overtime.

 

Uh, isn't that happening already in predominantly religious countries? We thought slavery was fine 200 years ago, that changed. We thought it was alright that women were inferior and children could work as child laborers less than 100 years ago. We thought that the subjugation of blacks to lowly schools and public facilities was alright until less than 50 years ago. By "we" I am using the royal we and suggesting that many people thought these things in America, most of them predominantly religious.

What you just described is a Democracy. You know, the type of government that our Republic falls under. And it has been a problem in our country (once again, slavery, women's rights, etc.).

 

You and who else thought that slavery was OK?

"we (w)
pron.
1. Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time. We are planning a trip to Arizona this winter.
2. Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer: "How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings?" (Virginia Woolf).
3. Used instead of I, especially by a writer wishing to reduce or avoid a subjective tone.
4. Used instead of I, especially by an editorialist, in expressing the opinion or point of view of a publication's management.
5. Used instead of I by a sovereign in formal address to refer to himself or herself.
6. Used instead of you in direct address, especially to imply a patronizing camaraderie with the addressee: How are we feeling today?"

 

Read the entire post, smart one. I explain that.

 

You explain what? You claim that you used the 'royal we'. That would infer that you are portraying yourself as a sovereign... ahhhh.. but look at definition number 5. "Used instead of I by a sovereign in formal address to refer to himself or herself."

Now who are the others that you are referring to, other than yourself, that thought slavery was OK? Also, why did you think that slavery was OK?

 

I am saying that we, American citizens, used to believe that these were morally acceptable things very recently.

 

I am saying that we, American citizens, used to believe that these were morally acceptable things very recently.

 

American citizens are a very large number of people even during the days of slavery. To use the term 'we' in relation to all of them is fallacious, as some of those American citizens did not believe those were morally acceptable things. (even more recently). Second part of the fallacious statement is vested in your alleged authority to speak for people that you never met and have died. Grasping for straws you are. You are saying "we" again, and that type of usage includes you. So my question stands: Why did you or why do you think that slavery and those other things you mentioned are OK?

 

I didn't include myself in that we, I spelled that out in the post. I'm sorry that you failed to read the entire thing before your mind exploded with the possibility of getting into another useless semantics argument. The point is that slavery and other morally repugnant things used to be acceptable to many American citizens. That is what I said and that's what I still meant. Incorporeal, grow up and try to actually come into a conversation discussing the actual topic instead of coming in, acting like a child, and questioning what I meant by "we" (which I had spelled out, if you had read it).

 

The words you spelled out are a matter of record on this forum. What you are now alleging (that you spelled it out) is a falsehood. In spite of your allegation of 'I spelled that out', there is the irrefutable and socially acceptable definitions of the term 'we'. Your arbitrary and private definition means nothing as it flies in the face of what is recognized as the definitions of the term 'we'. In those definitions, you are clearly identified as speaking/writing in regard to yourself. Like it or lump it, you are caught by the words that you have chosen to use. PRIVATE DEFINITIONS MEAN NOTHING.

 

And your semantic musings mean nothing to intelligent members on this forum and it means nothing to me. Okay, I may have used the wrong word and it confused you because you're so heavily dependent on delving into semantics. I'm sorry for that. I should have just said American citizens. Is this all you have to add to the conversation, honestly? I'm still waiting for you to explain what other variants of definitions apply to atheism as you have failed to do so as indicated on the previous page. You lose arguments, then come storming back later on to try again with arguing over what the definition of a totally different word is. It's annoying and pedantic.