Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Which has more power at the moment: atheism/secularism or religion? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Atheism isn't necessarily synonymous with secularism. Whereas atheism is an active disbelief in God, secularism is merely the idea that politics and religion don't mix hence the state and media should not actively try to propose a certain religious belief such as Christianity just as they should not try to actively propose anti-religious values and use coercive powers actively destroy churches and peaceful religious organisations.

    All politics should be secular and no prestigious religious arch-bishop or otherwise should have influence over politics or actively try to propose any form of political belief.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Atheism isn't necessarily synonymous with secularism. Whereas atheism is an active disbelief in God, secularism is merely the idea that politics and religion don't mix hence the state and media should not actively try to propose a certain religious belief such as Christianity just as they should not try to actively propose anti-religious values and use coercive powers actively destroy churches and peaceful religious organisations.

    All politics should be secular and no prestigious religious arch-bishop or otherwise should have influence over politics or actively try to propose any form of political belief.
    I agree. I'm a strong supporter of secularism, but I think a state which promotes atheism or gives special status to atheists is just as bad as one which does the same for a religion. I think the state should be entirely neutral to religion and hold no opinion on whether god exists or not. The state should protect freedoms of all kinds and there should be no need to single out religious freedoms as a special case.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    Why?

    Unfortunately you have been misinformed. An ostrich egg is a prolate spheroid while the earth is a oblate spheroid. As you can see from the pictures, they are completely different shapes. Oblate spheroids are like wheels. Prolate spheroids are like tubes.

    Of course, the average person on the street knows very little about science, especially geometry. So while most notable scientists are atheists, I don't think the general conflict of Islam/Christainity with science has much to do with religion's decline in supposedly 'educated' countries. A better correlated factor is prosperity - those (like many in the West) who have comfortable lives do not find religion as attractive compared to those who have less predictable, more uncertain lives. So, to finally answer the OP's question: secularism has more power the more developed and equal a country is, while religion still holds great power in less developed (or more unequal) countries. As most of the world is still developing, that gives great power to religion. But as the rest of the world slowly becomes more developed and equal, we can expect religion to fade away.
    ooo, ur posh . thanks for pointing out my misinterpretation, Kolya. well it depends on which way you hold it i guess (pic) actually, thanks alot. i wasnt giving a 100% correct explanation but if u see the ostrich egg in the link, i'm sure you'll agree it's the same shape as the earth. please note the specificity, my friend. OSTRICH egg. if you see other eggs, eg. of a chicken, it isnt spherical by any means (lol i cant describe it as poshly as you) but you get the point, right. like i said, ostrich eggs resemble the shape of the Earth, squashed in 1 dimension in appearance, otherwise spherical hope you see where i'm coming from
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Atheism isn't necessarily synonymous with secularism. Whereas atheism is an active disbelief in God, secularism is merely the idea that politics and religion don't mix hence the state and media should not actively try to propose a certain religious belief such as Christianity just as they should not try to actively propose anti-religious values and use coercive powers actively destroy churches and peaceful religious organisations.

    All politics should be secular and no prestigious religious arch-bishop or otherwise should have influence over politics or actively try to propose any form of political belief.
    yeees, i didn't think secularism and atheism should be related. well said
    • Offline

      14
      (Original post by ash92:))
      ooo, ur posh . thanks for pointing out my misinterpretation, Kolya. well it depends on which way you hold it i guess (pic) actually, thanks alot. i wasnt giving a 100% correct explanation but if u see the ostrich egg in the link, i'm sure you'll agree it's the same shape as the earth. please note the specificity, my friend. OSTRICH egg. if you see other eggs, eg. of a chicken, it isnt spherical by any means (lol i cant describe it as poshly as you) but you get the point, right. like i said, ostrich eggs resemble the shape of the Earth, squashed in 1 dimension in appearance, otherwise spherical hope you see where i'm coming from
      I'm afraid you're being misled by the pictures, boss. :sad: The earth does not resemble an ostrich egg. If you had scale models of the two, you would see the significant difference between them. Imagine you have a wheel. And imagine you have a cucumber. Can you hold a fat wheel so it looks like a cucumber? I'm afraid you can't! They are fundamentally different shapes. Similarly, the earth is like a very fat wheel, and an ostrich egg is like a fat cucumber. You can't hold them so they're the same.

      Trust me on this: I'm a mathmo. :p:
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      You’re mistaken.

      Who are you to tell people which version of God’s word is the “right” one? Could it be because you happen to have been brought-up in a secular environment, and therefore you happen to respect certain secular values? What about the people who have been brought-up in different environments? Is their interpretation, therefore, “wrong”? Who are you to go around & arrogantly declaring that people have “erroneous” beliefs on something as contentious as the word of God! You have a single frame of interpretation, out of a potential infinite list.
      I have yet to see a coherent and convincing argument for any of the major religions condoning the killing of innocent civilians. If you can put forward one, go ahead.

      Please do go ahead and offer an argument for the justification of killing innocent civilians in the manner we have witnessed, using religious scripture as your source. The reason you can't do this is because it's unjustifiable.

      And your plea to my 'secular values' is hilarious.

      Religion doesn’t sanction anything. Religion says what people think it says. Don’t you understand that religion is all about interpretation? The people who use violence as a means to spreading Allah’s word (Jihad) genuinely believe that that is the correct interpretation. For them, that is God’s wish.

      The problem is not on my part, in terms of consistency or whatever …
      A load of crock. Of course religion sanctions things. You have such a primitive thought-process on this subject. There are areas within religion, on topics not covered definitively that may be considered open to intepretation, but you want to say that all of religion is open to intepretation?

      And you're next point shows an elementary mistake. This was never an arguement about Jihad. It was about killing innocent civilians. There is no doubt Jihad, permissible under certain criteria, is a part of Islam. What you're erroneously trying to insinuate here is that Jihad allows the killing of innocent civilians, there by muddying the waters.

      And here's your inconsistency: Islam didn't fly two planes into the twin towers just the same way atheism didn't massacre people in Stalin's soviet union. To stay consistent, why don't you apply this thinking "You're simply picking incidences where atheists were involved in killing people, and saying "arh, atheism makes people kill"." to the actions of muslims bombing buildings? I can't argue that atheism sanctioned those actions, namely because atheism doesn't sanction anything, just the same way you can't argue Islam sanctions the murder of innocent civilians.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Well if religion didn't exist, I would probably be spending Christmas on some way awesome planet in a different solar system which science would have allowed for, whilst eating some weird ass mutant turkey with the flavour of a thousand vaginas.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Kolya)
      I'm afraid you're being misled by the pictures, boss. :sad: The earth does not resemble an ostrich egg. If you had scale models of the two, you would see the significant difference between them. Imagine you have a wheel. And imagine you have a cucumber. Can you hold a fat wheel so it looks like a cucumber? I'm afraid you can't! They are fundamentally different shapes. Similarly, the earth is like a very fat wheel, and an ostrich egg is like a fat cucumber. You can't hold them so they're the same.

      Trust me on this: I'm a mathmo. :p:
      lol, ok. whateva makes u happy but i'm still not convinced, especially by the example of a wheel and a cucumber lol
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by edd360)
      Well if religion didn't exist, I would probably be spending Christmas on some way awesome planet in a different solar system which science would have allowed for, whilst eating some weird ass mutant turkey with the flavour of a thousand vaginas.
      :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:
      HAHA, Daaayum!
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by MrGuillotine)
      I have yet to see a coherent and convincing argument for any of the major religions condoning the killing of innocent civilians. If you can put forward one, go ahead.
      (Original post by MrGuillotine)
      Please do go ahead and offer an argument for the justification of killing innocent civilians in the manner we have witnessed, using religious scripture as your source. The reason you can't do this is because it's unjustifiable.

      And your plea to my 'secular values' is hilarious.



      A load of crock. Of course religion sanctions things. You have such a primitive thought-process on this subject. There are areas within religion, on topics not covered definitively that may be considered open to intepretation, but you want to say that all of religion is open to intepretation?

      And you're next point shows an elementary mistake. This was never an arguement about Jihad. It was about killing innocent civilians. There is no doubt Jihad, permissible under certain criteria, is a part of Islam. What you're erroneously trying to insinuate here is that Jihad allows the killing of innocent civilians, there by muddying the waters.

      And here's your inconsistency: Islam didn't fly two planes into the twin towers just the same way atheism didn't massacre people in Stalin's soviet union. To stay consistent, why don't you apply this thinking "You're simply picking incidences where atheists were involved in killing people, and saying "arh, atheism makes people kill"." to the actions of muslims bombing buildings? I can't argue that atheism sanctioned those actions, namely because atheism doesn't sanction anything, just the same way you can't argue Islam sanctions the murder of innocent civilians.
      Hey buddy, totally agree with the idea behind what you say. the thing is THERE IS NO RELIGION THAT JUSTIFIES KILLING OF INNOCENTS. anyone who does so and claims to be committed to a religion is a crazed, manipulative psychopath that needs to get his facts straight and use the very little, if any, common sense that he has
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      You have to explain to me how you get from the definition of the beliefs of an "extreme atheist" to how that very belief encourages violence.

      What does an extreme atheist mean? Surely, it means extreme scepticism over the existence of God.

      I have yet to hear anyone on this thread make the link.
      I think to directly link atheism with violence is a very loose sort of thing to say. Religion and atheism often come as part of a wider cultural package, rather than being completely centred on one system of belief. For instance, Islam is not just a belief in Allah, it is a political and economic system as well, but that is all part of the parcel. So when you have Islamic terrorists, they may believe they are defending an entire way of life in their country/community, rather than following a direct command to go and kill the infidel. I think this issue has been oversimplified.
      Also bear in mind that Atheism in its current form has not been around for that long, the denial of the supernatural on the basis that it cannot be proved scientifically is recent (relatively) whilst societies with a belief in a deity of some form have been around for much longer. In probability terms when there have been aggressive secular societies around for much longer the atrocities committed by such societies will increase, not to say that they will do that on the basis there is no god, but there will be a basis for the said offences.
      We need to examine the people and the exact situation behind the violence, Religion can sadly be used to make people do horrendous things, which is shocking and no-one is asking anyone to say that that is o.k. But there will be violence due to other causes, not just religious ones, it may be used as a screen but directly linking the belief in a 'God' to extremism and violence , whilst it has a basis, is a mass generalisation.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ash92:))
      lol, ok. whateva makes u happy but i'm still not convinced, especially by the example of a wheel and a cucumber lol
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid

      They look like different shapes to me.

      I guess if this goes any further it should be in a different thread. It's not really related to the topic.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Psyk)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid

      They look like different shapes to me.

      I guess if this goes any further it should be in a different thread. It's not really related to the topic.
      lol true. sorry, what look like different shapes?
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ash92:))
      lol true. sorry, what look like different shapes?
      On the Wikipedia page. On the right is a prolate spheroid, which looks like an ostrich egg, and on the left is an oblate spheroid, which looks like the earth.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Psyk)
      On the Wikipedia page. On the right is a prolate spheroid, which looks like an ostrich egg, and on the left is an oblate spheroid, which looks like the earth.
      ooh, ok mate. well the only difference is the direction of elongation, right? so my point was turn the ostrich egg with the side that has a larger diameter being in the horizontal plane
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by ash92:))
      ooh, ok mate. well the only difference is the direction of elongation, right? so my point was turn the ostrich egg with the side that has a larger diameter being in the horizontal plane
      No that wouldn't work. If you did that it might look right from one side, but not from the top or the other side. With an oblate spheroid like the earth, if you look at it from the top it should look like a circle. If you put a prolate spheroid on it's side it would look like an ellipse from above.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Psyk)
      No that wouldn't work. If you did that it might look right from one side, but not from the top or the other side. With an oblate spheroid like the earth, if you look at it from the top it should look like a circle. If you put a prolate spheroid on it's side it would look like an ellipse from above.
      what about the shape "geoid"? that's what the earth's shape is now specifically described as
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
      No, the original answer should have been "no". Nobody has killed people on the grounds of scepticism about God. You're simply picking incidences where atheists were involved in killing people, and saying "arh, atheism makes people kill". Hitler was a vegetarian, presumably vegetarianism is a sick cult of death?

      Religions, on the other hand, claim to be been doing God's work . This includes the Crusaders, the Inquisition, witch trials, Hitler himself with the aid of the Vatican, terrorist bombings, and so forth and so on.

      Edit: Theism is a belief system, and atheism isn't. Therein lies your flaw.
      Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. Couldn't help myself.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by JCC-MGS)
      You mean to say that when a group called the Cult of Reason which preaches the sovereignity of the human intellect over the abuses of clericalism ransacks a church and kills the priests inside, that act is inspired by something other than atheism and it's merely a coincidence that I'm drawing imaginary links to
      Yep. It's inspired by antitheism, an actual belief system based on the belief that theists should be persecuted/killed, rather than atheism, which is simply the lack of a belief in God.

      atheism=/=antitheism
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere)
      Yep. It's inspired by antitheism, an actual belief system based on the belief that theists should be persecuted/killed, rather than atheism, which is simply the lack of a belief in God.

      atheism=/=antitheism
      They were still atheists. Yes it wasn't just plain atheism that drove them to kill people, but neither is it just plain theism that drives people to kill. It's always something more specific.
     
     
     
    Reply
    Submit reply
    TSR Support Team

    We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

    Updated: December 29, 2010
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.