Ask An Atheist/Anti-Theist

[Rationallity]

I've seen a few of these threads around and I thought it would be a fun idea to make one! I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and having thoughtful discussions with others. While some people can be rude, I believe that you should always respect other people so please be polite and I will too. Any other Atheists and Anti-Theists are free to put their own answers because "Atheist" is a very broad term that covers many groups of people with differing views! Please also note that I will answer accurately to the best of my ability and my views aren't shared by all Atheists. Also, some questions I may not be able to adequately answer.

[inactiveguy678]

umm you do know atheists and anti-theists are two different things. The only reason I labeled myself as both is that I have mixed feelings with certain religions such Taoism and Buddhism mainly because they don't seem to do as much damage on the larger scale because they are not as organised as Abrahamic religions.

I generally don't believe in god and religion but I also do not like and agree with most organised religions especially due to how they are implemented.

[Rationallity]

you do know atheists and anti-theists are two different things
I am aware of this but I wanted to put both because Atheist is a more common term that I'm sure everyone knows. Anti-Theism is an actual belief system centered around Atheism which is just the lack of belief in a deity. You can be both an Anti-Theist and an Atheist as I'm sure just about every Anti-Theist is.

[Tim the Enchanter]

Are you going to hell?

[Vlerchan]

Do you actively disbelieve in the existence of god?

If so, what material fact prompts you to select this belief?

[inactiveguy678]

Ok good just checking people here tend to jump the gun and see red whenever there is a controversial religious topic. however, I also learned anti-theism could also extend to formal religions as well which I think is a safer definition.

Not if you don't believe in it.

[Rationallity]

Are you going to hell?
I guess. By what is stated in the Bible I am but similarly I guess the different faiths will have to share me because a lot of faiths claim that by not believing in them you will face punishment. However, I don't believe in an afterlife and have accepted that.

[Rationallity]

Do you actively disbelieve in the existence of god?
I don't actively disbelieve, I just don't believe in the first place. It's simple but can be hard to comprehend. People can't chose what they believe. It's like falling in love. Can you look at whoever you want and make yourself fall in love with that person? Does that mean you are actively denying your love for that person? Of course not, you just don't love that person.
If so, what material fact prompts you to select this belief?
It's less what material I do have and more what material I don't have. As Sagan puts it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There is always a chance that a deity does exist but that is a very small chance. Then where did that deity come from? We run into the same discussion. Religion creates more questions than it answers and doesn't provide us with proof.

[Vlerchan]

I don't actively disbelieve, I just don't believe in the first place.
The point I am looking to get at is whether you're an atheist, or an agnostic, the former disbelieving, the latter lacking both belief and disbelief on grounds that nothing is known, or can be known, about the nature of god.

There is always a chance that a deity does exist but that is a very small chance.
I don't think we have the information set required to presuppose anything about the chance of a deity existing--i.e. that there is a small, or large, chance that a deity exists.

I am, in other words, agnostic.

[Rationallity]

I would put myself at around a 6 on the Spectrum of Probability.
I don't think we have the information set required to presuppose anything about the chance of a deity existing--i.e. that there is a small, or large, chance that a deity exists.
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins satisfies my views on this. It is true that there is always a possibility that there is a deity but the evidence against it is so large it makes this probability minuscule. If you ignore the Bible and ask "why would there be a god?" without thinking about any specific god it becomes more clear. Where did that god come from? What is its nature?

And then there is the question of which god. There are hundreds of faiths with substantial followings all of which are exclusive and claim to be the true one with the true god.

[Vlerchan]

I have never read that book so you will need to walk me through the arguments.

I am just going to presume though that the points raised below are part of the large mass of evidence against god's existence, though.

Where did that god come from?
Being ignorant about the nature of god's existence is not evidence against his existence.

What is its nature?
Please see above.

And then there is the question of which god.
Man's tendency to state more than he knows is not evidence against god's existence.

[inactiveguy678]

The point I am looking to get at is whether you're an atheist, or an agnostic, the former disbelieving, the latter lacking both belief and disbelief on grounds that nothing is known, or can be known, about the nature of god.


I don't think we have the information set required to presuppose anything about the chance of a deity existing--i.e. that there is a small, or large, chance that a deity exists.

I am, in other words, agnostic.

Commenting not arguing this sounds very in line with the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas on proving the existence of God.
1. motion
2. causation
3. contingency
4.degree
5. final cause or end

This was supplementary reading from school but I struggled through and read it!

[mattsmith48]

Rationallity you know Atheism is not a beliefs but the lack of?

Vlerchan You cannot prove a negative, it is not an Atheist's job to disprove the existence of a God it is the religious person who needs to provide reproducible and physical evidence to support his claim.

[Vlerchan]

you know Atheism is not a beliefs but the lack of?
If athiesm is a lack of belief, what separates athiesm from agnoticism?

I also open the question of what you would call me if I told you I hold a lack of belief in climate change. A climate change denier, I presume.

You cannot prove a negative
Yes, you can. Here's an example:

Here's the famous problem of evil, which works to prove a negative:

1. If omnibenevolent god exists, evil can not not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Omnibenevolent god does not exist.

(I believe this argument is wrong in it's first premise, but it's still an argument that's entirely logically consistent).

It would only be fallacious if I was using this to argue that god does exist, which I am not.

not an Atheist's job to disprove the existence of a God it is the religious person who needs to provide reproducible and physical evidence to support his claim.
I am claiming both sides of the argument are wrong because there is no information set to draw belief from.

To draw the conclusion that god exists is built on as fallacious a standing as to draw the conclusion that god does not exist.

[inactiveguy678]

This_gonna_be_good.gif and popcorn.gif

Oh to answer the atheist vs agnostic

atheist = absence of the divine (not just deity)
agnostic = uncertain of divine nature (hence its more of equating uncertainty to a hopeful positive presence of divinity)

Note I used divine vs deity since divine can imply transcendence with historical character such as Budha whose nature is disputed in the religion while deity implies a higher being.

[mattsmith48]

If athiesm is a lack of belief, what separates athiesm from agnoticism?

Agnostic is someone saying we don't know and probably never will. Atheist is someone saying we don't know, but with the evidence we have the existence of any God is very unlikely. All Atheists are a little agnostic to a certain point, but Agnostics are not Atheist.

I also open the question of what you would call me if I told you I hold a lack of belief in climate change. A climate change denier, I presume.

Nope I would call you a conspiracy theorist

Yes, you can. Here's an example:

Here's the famous problem of evil, which works to prove a negative:

1. If omnibenevolent god exists, evil can not not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Omnibenevolent god does not exist.

(I believe this argument is wrong in it's first premise, but it's still an argument that's entirely logically consistent).

It would only be fallacious if I was using this to argue that god does exist, which I am not.

That's not proving a negative, that is eliminating options. Since only one of the two is possible, by proving one you are eliminating the other because both options being true is impossible.

I am claiming both sides of the argument are wrong because there is no information set to draw belief from.

To draw the conclusion that god exists is built on as fallacious a standing as to draw the conclusion that god does not exist.

The conclusion that God does not exist comes from the lack of information or evidence. It is the innocent until proving guilty approach, which goes back to what I said that you cannot prove a negative. You can't prove someone didn't commit the murder, you have to prove he did do it. Its the same concept here, until you provide evidence that your God exist and because you can't that means there is no God. Its not the best way to do things, but who am I to judge those people.

[Vlerchan]

Agnostic is someone saying we don't know and probably never will. Atheist is someone saying we don't know, but with the evidence we have the existence of any God is very unlikely. All Atheists are a little agnostic to a certain point, but Agnostics are not Atheist.

OK. Belief that the existence of god is very unlikely is something I can work with.

Let's focus then on the evidence you believe supports that position. What is it?

---

You also have gnostic athiests but that's irrelevent.

Nope I would call you a conspiracy theorist
But I am not theorising anything. I am just stating an absence of belief.

Unless you believe that implies a positive claim.

That's not proving a negative, that is eliminating options. Since only one of the two is possible, by proving one you are eliminating the other because both options being true is impossible.
I'm not sure what you think a formal proof is, but that's the entire point of a formal proof.

What's notable is that I am not arbitrarily eliminating one--I am starting that evil exists, and given the statement of condition 1, this implies that god must not exist. Furthermore, it's not a constructed conclusion--if premise 2 was not true, the argument would fail.

We can do it another way:

1. If I have a migraine, I also have a throbbing headache.
2. I do not have a throbbing headache.
3. So, I do not have a migraine.

This also proves a negative.

Proving negatives, you see, is rather quite simple, and possible.

The conclusion that God does not exist comes from the lack of information or evidence.
If I have a lack of information of evidence about tigers, this does not suggest that tigers do not exist. To reach that conclusion would be fallacious, as I am sure you are aware.

It is the innocent until proving guilty approach, which goes back to what I said that you cannot prove a negative.
This is an approach to the sound application of the law but it is not a sound application of logic. It's worth also noting that 'guilt' and 'not guilt' are social constructions, which you'll find, truth and untruth are not. You're stating that the claim god exists is untrue.

You can't prove someone didn't commit the murder, you have to prove he did do it.
You can*, but this is irrelevant give the suggestion above.

---

* Demonstrate that one of the mens rea conditions don't hold.

Its the same concept here, until you provide evidence that your God exist and because you can't that means there is no God.
But I'm not asking you to claim there's no god, I am asking you to avoid the erroneous conclusion that god does not exist.

You're acting like logic requires it to be the case of one or the other, which is untrue.

[mattsmith48]

OK. Belief that the existence of god is very unlikely is something I can work with.

Let's focus then on the evidence you believe supports that position. What is it?

That there is no evidence that any God exist and that scientific research and theories showing that there is no need for a God. While not completely eliminating that option it is very unlikely.

You also have gnostic athiests but that's irrelevent.

The majority of Atheists are agnostic to some point.

But I am not theorising anything. I am just stating an absence of belief.

Unless you believe that implies a positive claim.

By denying climate change you are saying that 99% of scientists are liars or scheming hoaxers, that's as much of a conspiracy saying the Moon landing was fake or that the Earth is Flat.


I'm not sure what you think a formal proof is, but that's the entire point of a formal proof.

What's notable is that I am not arbitrarily eliminating one--I am starting that evil exists, and given the statement of condition 1, this implies that god must not exist. Furthermore, it's not a constructed conclusion--if premise 2 was not true, the argument would fail.

We can do it another way:

1. If I have a migraine, I also have a throbbing headache.
2. I do not have a throbbing headache.
3. So, I do not have a migraine.

This also proves a negative.

Proving negatives, you see, is rather quite simple, and possible.

You are not directly proving the negative, it is your lack of evidence for the positive that is proving your negative. Try again.

If I have a lack of information of evidence about tigers, this does not suggest that tigers do not exist. To reach that conclusion would be fallacious, as I am sure you are aware.

Someone who as the information about tigers can show you that information or even better just show you the tiger. With a God you can't do that because no one can give you evidence or show you a God.

This is an approach to the sound application of the law but it is not a sound application of logic. It's worth also noting that 'guilt' and 'not guilt' are social constructions, which you'll find, truth and untruth are not. You're stating that the claim god exists is untrue.


You can*, but this is irrelevant give the suggestion above.

---

* Demonstrate that one of the mens rea conditions don't hold.


But I'm not asking you to claim there's no god, I am asking you to avoid the erroneous conclusion that god does not exist.

You're acting like logic requires it to be the case of one or the other, which is untrue.

Its not the best analogy, but it is a good way to explain why God does not exist is not a fallacious claim or erroneous conclusion because of the lack of evidence

[Vlerchan]

That there is no evidence that any God exist and that scientific research and theories showing that there is no need for a God. While not completely eliminating that option it is very unlikely.
[1] That there exists no evidence supporting the position is not suggestion the evidence doesn't exist.
[2] I'm curious about these theories though their existence does not effect the likelihood of god existing in the slightest.

i.e. In both cases posed god doesn't exist doesn't follow.

By denying climate change you are saying that 99% of scientists are liars or scheming hoaxers, that's as much of a conspiracy saying the Moon landing was fake or that the Earth is Flat.
You suggested yourself that I wasn't a climate change denier but rather a Conspiracy Theorist.

You now seem to be suggesting that I am now in fact in denial--I'm "denying".

This supports the initial point I made that there's no material difference between a lack of belief and deniel or disbelief.

Cheers.

You are not directly proving the negative, it is your lack of evidence for the positive that is proving your negative. Try again.
The first premise of the argument is the two are inextricably linked. Thus when the supporting claim fails so does the principal claim. This is Principals of Mathematical Proofs material--I'd work to explain it but it's as basic as we can get with proving.

Let's start slow though perhaps:

1. If I have a migraine then I must have a throbbing headache.

I am suggesting that the former cannot happen without the latter happening. I'm sure lots of relationships like this can be imagined.

2. I do not have a throbbing headache.

This explains itself.

3. Therefore I cannot have a migraine.

Based on the first condition this must hide if this is the case.

Of course it's the lack of evidence for the positive that demonstrates the negative.

Someone who as the information about tigers can show you that information or even better just show you the tiger. With a God you can't do that because no one can give you evidence or show you a God.
If that was impossible for someone to present that evidence it would not make tigers inexistent because something being true isn't predicated on our capacities to communicate it.


Its not the best analogy, but it is a good way to explain why God does not exist is not a fallacious claim or erroneous conclusion because of the lack of evidence
You're just repeating the lack of argument.

[HeyCameron]

Vlerchan, do you think being agnostic is the only truly logical approach to the existence of God?

I've sometimes heard the phrase "militant agnostic" used in a tongue-in-cheek way to essentially say "I don't know and neither do you".

[Tim the Enchanter]

Vlerchan, do you think being agnostic is the only truly logical approach to the existence of God?

I've sometimes heard the phrase "militant agnostic" used in a tongue-in-cheek way to essentially say "I don't know and neither do you".

Tongue-in-cheek way?

[Spooky_Eli]

Tongue-in-cheek way?The phrase tongue-in-cheek is a figure of speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech) that describes a statement or other expression that the speaker or author does not mean literally, but intends as humor or otherwise not seriously.

[Rationallity]

you know Atheism is not a beliefs but the lack of? Yes, but Anti-Theism is a belief

mattsmith48 it is not an Atheist's job to disprove the existence of a God it is the religious person who needs to provide reproducible and physical evidence to support his claim.
Exactly, the burden of proof is on religion and not Atheists.

Atheism and Agnosticism are really quite similar. This is why I use the Spectrum of Probability as it is much more clear.
1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Vlerchan, I was hoping less for this to be a place for the debate about whether there is a god or not and more of a place to let people know a bit more about Atheism. There are much more qualified people arguing these very points and have been for a very long time. I can point you in the direction of some good sources. Though, at a certain point if every argument for something has been disproven except the argument that the thing exists, it greatly weakens the credibility of that point.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7kIy8fZavEni8Gzl8NLjOQ
https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248
https://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446697966/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0446697966&pd_rd_r=EF7RGCEA08RWRY2H2YB4&pd_rd_w=sRwdC&pd_rd_wg=DnpKL&psc=1&refRID=EF7RGCEA08RWRY2H2YB4

While I know that it is unsatisfactory to just post books for you to read and video for you to watch as my argument, I cannot successfully lay out the arguments in their entirety here as they can be long and numerous.

I also open the question of what you would call me if I told you I hold a lack of belief in climate change. A climate change denier, I presume.

In this instance the evidence is so strong in favor that by not believing you are "denying". The burden of proof in this case is the opposite of religion.

Quadruple posts merged.
Please edit your first post next time. ~Jinglebottom

[Vlerchan]

Vlerchan, I was hoping less for this to be a place for the debate about whether there is a god or not and more of a place to let people know a bit more about Atheism.
I'm not sure what else there is to discuss about atheism but I think I've made the points I need to make so I'll leave you to your q&a in peace.

Though, at a certain point if every argument for something has been disproven except the argument that the thing exists, it greatly weakens the credibility of that point.
Though I might add that this is an argument by association.

In this instance the evidence is so strong in favor that by not believing you are "denying".
And that it seems unreasonable to suggest that whether I am in denial of something depends on how strong it is supported.

For example it doesn't make my denial of pseudoscience less of a denial because it's pseudoscience.

---

Vlerchan, do you think being agnostic is the only truly logical approach to the existence of God?
Militantly so.

Though I also think it's quite an important distinction to make because I find it radically affects someone's approach to religion and religious freedom.

[inactiveguy678]

Atheism and Agnosticism are really quite similar. This is why I use the Spectrum of Probability as it is much more clear.
1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."


Ok since things settle down which of these 7 gradients in the Spectrum of Belief are you?

Personally, I'm more of a 7 in the strict sense that I absolutely don't believe in God. But if you take what I said in another thread and extend the definition of theism of to the divine (like including Bodhisatvas like Guan Yin, Budhha as a God etc) due to misinterpretation and folk inclusion of the Chinese. I think realistically I'm a 6 since I don't necessarily object when relatives take me to temple days and the fact that I take these rituals with still little consideration it eliminates me from the 7.

[Rationallity]

I consider myself around a 6 because it is impossible to disprove the claim that there is a deity but for day-to-day purposes its true. This is in the same way that nothing is definite not even gravity because nothing is ever definite.

[PlasmaHam]

From your perspective as a secular atheist, how important do you see religious freedoms as being to our society?

[Rationallity]

From your perspective as a secular atheist, how important do you see religious freedoms as being to our society?
I believe very strongly in secularism and believe that religious freedom is very important for all religions. I don't believe in special treatment of religion like is seen in the U.S. today. In my mind religion should have no influence in the government or over peoples rights. I guess what I'm saying is that people should be able to believe what they want and do what they want until it begins harming others or infringing on their rights. I'm sure there are situations where this wouldn't work and I could explain myself better but I won't do that right now.

[mattsmith48]

[1] That there exists no evidence supporting the position is not suggestion the evidence doesn't exist.
[2] I'm curious about these theories though their existence does not effect the likelihood of god existing in the slightest.

i.e. In both cases posed god doesn't exist doesn't follow.

At some point you have to stop waiting for the evidence and come to the conclusion that the constant lack of evidence means the answer is no.

You suggested yourself that I wasn't a climate change denier but rather a Conspiracy Theorist.

You now seem to be suggesting that I am now in fact in denial--I'm "denying".

This supports the initial point I made that there's no material difference between a lack of belief and deniel or disbelief.

Cheers.

There is a difference between denying science and not believing in bullshit, sorry religion.

The first premise of the argument is the two are inextricably linked. Thus when the supporting claim fails so does the principal claim. This is Principals of Mathematical Proofs material--I'd work to explain it but it's as basic as we can get with proving.

Let's start slow though perhaps:

1. If I have a migraine then I must have a throbbing headache.

I am suggesting that the former cannot happen without the latter happening. I'm sure lots of relationships like this can be imagined.

2. I do not have a throbbing headache.

This explains itself.

3. Therefore I cannot have a migraine.

Based on the first condition this must hide if this is the case.

Of course it's the lack of evidence for the positive that demonstrates the negative.

So were saying the same thing?

If that was impossible for someone to present that evidence it would not make tigers inexistent because something being true isn't predicated on our capacities to communicate it.

Why would it be impossible? We have tigers, we haven't driven them to extinction yet. And even then we would still have bones and other physical evidence of their existence like we have with other extinct species.

You're just repeating the lack of argument.

*lack of evidence

[PlasmaHam]

This is a question to both @mattsmith48 (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=101901) and @Rationallity (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=132612):

Do you believe that religious speech ought to be restricted moreso that secular speech. As in, do you believe that politicians ought to be restricted from making religious statements on the public stage? Do you believe that public institutions and parks shouldn't give religious speakers the same rights to speak their opinions as secular ones? Essentially, what I am asking is if free speech protections extend fairly to religious speech, or if it should be restricted for the "protection of the populace from dangerous ideas"?


There is a difference between denying science and not believing in bullshit, sorry religion.
Tell me then the difference between questioning man-made climate change and believing that biological gender is irrelevant? Is it not "bullshit" and "denying science" to insist that if a amputates his penis and starts taking estrogen, that he is in fact no different than a biological woman?

The secular religion of equalism has blinded you to your closed-mindedness in this regards. Your belief that all people should have full rights to chose what and who they are run straight against scientific fact. Yet you continue to believe it. Why then is your insistence that a woman who believes herself a man is actually a man, anymore rational than the belief that climate change may not be man-made or have catastrophe results?

[mattsmith48]

This is a question to both @mattsmith48 (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=101901) and @Rationallity (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=132612):

Do you believe that religious speech ought to be restricted moreso that secular speech. As in, do you believe that politicians ought to be restricted from making religious statements on the public stage? Do you believe that public institutions and parks shouldn't give religious speakers the same rights to speak their opinions as secular ones? Essentially, what I am asking is if free speech protections extend fairly to religious speech, or if it should be restricted for the "protection of the populace from dangerous ideas"?

As long as it is not affecting others, that's anything from inciting violence or hatred towards a group of people to promoting a religion to people who do not believe in that particular religion and anyone from any other religion would be able to make the same statement in the same setting there its fine.

Anything that is funded by tax payer money have to be secular. That includes politicians who can't make policies or laws based on their religious believes.

Tell me then the difference between questioning man-made climate change and believing that biological gender is irrelevant? Is it not "bullshit" and "denying science" to insist that if a amputates his penis and starts taking estrogen, that he is in fact no different than a biological woman?

The secular religion of equalism has blinded you to your closed-mindedness in this regards. Your belief that all people should have full rights to chose what and who they are run straight against scientific fact. Yet you continue to believe it. Why then is your insistence that a woman who believes herself a man is actually a man, anymore rational than the belief that climate change may not be man-made or have catastrophe results?

Incredible how you are so openly coming out against equality there.

What science exactly are you denying by saying anyone as the right to identify to the gender they want?

As for climate change while they are still research constantly being done on how bad its going to be and what will still be able to live on Earth it doesn't change that there is a scientific consensus, all non-corrupted scientists agree we are destroying this planet and killing everything that lives on it with all the shit (ghg) we put in the atmosphere.

[Vlerchan]

As in, do you believe that politicians ought to be restricted from making religious statements on the public stage?

Do you believe that public institutions and parks shouldn't give religious speakers the same rights to speak their opinions as secular ones?
To answer this question, I don't think secularism should be used as a bludgeon to silence speech--in fact, I think treating people differently on the basis of their religion is an active violation towards commitments to equality under the law.

Tell me then the difference between questioning man-made climate change and believing that biological gender [sic] is irrelevant? Is it not "bullshit" and "denying science" to insist that if a amputates his penis and starts taking estrogen, that he is in fact no different than a biological woman?
I don't think people make the claim that biological sex is irrelevant, and that there is no difference between trans- and cis-folk, hence the use of the differentiating language.

Yet you continue to believe it. Why then is your insistence that a woman who believes herself a man is actually a man, anymore rational than the belief that climate change may not be man-made or have catastrophe results?
The former claim is based on the documentation of there being no strict (p = 1) correlation between biological sex and involvement with genders norms classed masculine and feminine in western societies, and the movement away from suggesting full alignment as a matter of language. The latter claim, esp. the rejection of the man-madeness, is based on, at best, a handful of highly disputed studies that most professional practitioners believe are incorrect and many of which have posed substantive arguments in outlining the grounds of their incorrectness.

[inciting] hatred towards a group
Does this refer to any group. For example, neo-nazis?

promoting a religion to people who do not believe in that particular religion
Does this include Marxism, Capitalism and Trumpism (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3688293&postcount=50)?

Though, I think this is problematic on a number of levels.

For both religious and non-religious people, the idea that there is a best way to live our lives, and that way of life should be spread, can be a deeply held conviction and restricting religious people from acting on those opinions breaches any notion of equality under the law.

Furthermore, if you happened to care, it undermines freedom of religion and freedom of conscience (where for many religious people, actively spreading the word of their god is a fundamental part of their religion), which protect diversity and pluralism in our society.

It also almost certainly would, if expressed legally, push an implicit intolerance towards immigrants, especially Islamic immigrants, who, on average, hold a much deeper inclination toward their faith and would be most affected by efforts to rollback freedom of religion clauses--as with the burqa and niqab.

That includes politicians who can't make policies or laws based on their religious believes.
I think sanctioning people because they are different to you is wrong, to be honest.

[Rationallity]

I think sanctioning people because they are different to you is wrong, to be honest.
Laws based on religious belief almost either always put one group above others or restrict another group. The idea of secularism isn't to make an atheist world but to make a fair world where all are equally treated under a government that doesn't favor any particular group. Off the top of my head I can't think of any religiously based law that doesn't do what I said. U.S. anti climate-change laws are, while not solely based on religion, are mostly allowed because of religion. "In God We Trust"* is another example of this along with the 10 Commandments being put up in public schools and government buildings all across America. It creates a hostile environment for any non-Christian. Non of these even get into the level of religious mixing of government and church seen in say Saudi Arabia or other middle eastern countries where many of their laws are based solely on religion and cause hundreds of people to be executed by the government on blasphemy charges.

*I know courts have ruled on this but it is blatantly supportive of Christianity as it is the only mainstream religion that uses the word "God" with a capital "G".

[mattsmith48]

Does this refer to any group. For example, neo-nazis?

For the inciting violence part yes, the hatred part I was thinking more about groups like blacks, women, LGBTQ, people of a different religion, things like that.

Does this include Marxism, Capitalism and Trumpism (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3688293&postcount=50)?

Marxism and Capitalism are political and economic ideas, as long you don't worship it, its fine. Trumpism it would be good to define what exactly it is and what it means before giving an definitive answer, but it would like the other two, as long you stay with the policies and not go towards the worshiping part I guess its fine.

Though, I think this is problematic on a number of levels.

For both religious and non-religious people, the idea that there is a best way to live our lives, and that way of life should be spread, can be a deeply held conviction and restricting religious people from acting on those opinions breaches any notion of equality under the law.

Furthermore, if you happened to care, it undermines freedom of religion and freedom of conscience (where for many religious people, actively spreading the word of their god is a fundamental part of their religion), which protect diversity and pluralism in our society.

It also almost certainly would, if expressed legally, push an implicit intolerance towards immigrants, especially Islamic immigrants, who, on average, hold a much deeper inclination toward their faith and would be most affected by efforts to rollback freedom of religion clauses--as with the burqa and niqab.


I think sanctioning people because they are different to you is wrong, to be honest.

That's what separation of church and state is. Anything that is funded or payed for with tax payer money including government and the politicians cannot be used to make policies or laws based on a religion or to promote a religion to non-believers.

[Uniquemind]

Trumpism is definitionless?

I thought it was the thought process of “system 1” thinking made manifest on the international and national political stage as written by:

daniel kahneman‘s “Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow” book.


Mixed with sexual hunger and beliefs that a female’s sexuality can be bought or leveraged to assuage a male’s hunger for it.

[Vlerchan]

Laws based on religious belief almost either always put one group above others or restrict another group.
Laws--in general--tend to do this and it's not a special component of laws inspired by religion.

The idea of secularism isn't to make an atheist world but to make a fair world where all are equally treated under a government that doesn't favor any particular group.
That's equality under the law. Secularism is where the government doesn't prioritize any specific religious group in legislation and the execution of that legislation and so is neutral on issues of faith.

For example given equal allocations of funding to all religious schools--as is the case in Ireland--is secular despite funding being extended to religious schools. This is because government doesn't privilege a given word view and remains neutral on issues of faith.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any religiously based law that doesn't do what I said.
You'll find that clergymen played leading roles in the abolition [of slavery] and civil rights movements. Their engagement guided by religious values.

Though I'm not sure what religious-based means here because most legislators are religious and one would expect their religion does guide them in their efforts at all times (because that's how religion works).

In God We Trust"* is another example of this along with the 10 Commandments being put up in public schools and government buildings all across America. It creates a hostile environment for any non-Christian.
I think both of these violate the precepts of secularism.

For the inciting violence part yes, the hatred part I was thinking more about groups like blacks, women, LGBTQ, people of a different religion, things like that.
Why is it wrong to engage in hate speech against black or religious folk and not white supremacists or anti-theists?

Anything that is funded or payed for with tax payer money including government and the politicians cannot be used to make policies or laws based on a religion or to promote a religion to non-believers.
It's fine for those who aren't paid with tax funds to promote their religions though? I mean through public engagement.

This I should add is much stronger than the definition practiced across much of the West which just requires the government remains neutral on issues of religion.

Would you also be able to define 'based on religion'?

[mattsmith48]

Laws--in general--tend to do this and it's not a special component of laws inspired by religion.

Name one.

That's equality under the law. Secularism is where the government doesn't prioritize any specific religious group in legislation and the execution of that legislation and so is neutral on issues of faith.

For example given equal allocations of funding to all religious schools--as is the case in Ireland--is secular despite funding being extended to religious schools. This is because government doesn't privilege a given word view and remains neutral on issues of faith.

Why should the government fund religious schools when Churches don't even pay taxes? Also why should the government fund religious schools at all?


I think both of these violate the precepts of secularism.

Its the government favouring one religion over another by putting the Christian God on money, or in schools or the national anthem.

Why is it wrong to engage in hate speech against black or religious folk and not white supremacists or anti-theists?

Anti-theists would go with based on religious believes under the category not religious, with Atheism and Agnostics. So no hate speech. For white supremacists, neo-nazis and other racists assholes, how would you categories that. In the same way you would say you can't do hate speech on a group based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. How would you categories white supremacists? You can't hate someone because they are a dick?

It's fine for those who aren't paid with tax funds to promote their religions though? I mean through public engagement.

In a privately funded place with the exception of a working place, you can promote any religion you want.

This I should add is much stronger than the definition practiced across much of the West which just requires the government remains neutral on issues of religion.

I agree its stronger but not by that much stronger.

Would you also be able to define 'based on religion'?

Any policies that comes from your personal religious believes that if you weren't from that religion wouldn't have e.g. someone being anti-gay or anti-women because thats what it says in the bible

[PlasmaHam]

Name one.
Affirmative Action


Why should the government fund religious schools when Churches don't even pay taxes? Also why should the government fund religious schools at all? Because we care about children and shouldn't discriminate on the quality of education they get because you don't like the beliefs of the school they attend? You do know that most private schools in the USA, religious or not, are tax exempt, so you can't justify funding secular schools but not religious schools using the tax argument After all, secular states are neutral on the matter of religions, for you to say that religious organizations should be treated unfairly next to their secular counter-parts is not secularism, it is anti-religious hatred.


Its the government favouring one religion over another by putting the Christian God on money, or in schools or the national anthem.
The national anthem has no religious references in it.


Anti-theists would go with based on religious believes under the category not religious, with Atheism and Agnostics. So no hate speech. For white supremacists, neo-nazis and other racists assholes, how would you categories that. In the same way you would say you can't do hate speech on a group based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. How would you categories white supremacists? You can't hate someone because they are a dick?
You can make the argument that White Supremacy is a religion...

[Vlerchan]

Name one.
Restrictions on short-selling restrict traders--a group.

Laws banning fox hunting restrict hunters.

Taxation-and-redistribution prioritises the poor over the rich.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Why should the government fund religious schools when Churches don't even pay taxes? Also why should the government fund religious schools at all?
I'm not claiming this should be the case. I'm claiming it is the case and is consistent with the values of secularism.

(The reason is if the population believes that a religious education is vital for their children's moral development then it might be considered proper in order to uphold the ends of religious freedom.)

Its the government favouring one religion over another by putting the Christian God on money, or in schools or the national anthem
Like I said: violate the precepts of secularism.

Anti-theists would go with based on religious believes under the category not religious, with Atheism and Agnostics. So no hate speech. For white supremacists, neo-nazis and other racists assholes, how would you categories that. In the same way you would say you can't do hate speech on a group based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. How would you categories white supremacists? You can't hate someone because they are a dick?
You can still disparage or intimidate people based on their membership of these groups which is what hate speech is about. I'd also categorise white supremacists as a belief group.

In a privately funded place with the exception of a working place, you can promote any religion you want.
So not in a public space?

I agree its stronger but not by that much stronger.
There's a huge difference between (1) the government should be neutral in it's funding allocation and (2) the government can't fund certain occupations.

Any policies that comes from your personal religious believes that if you weren't from that religion wouldn't have e.g. someone being anti-gay or anti-women because thats what it says in the bible
But I can promote this sort of legislation of I state it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs?

[mattsmith48]

Because we care about children and shouldn't discriminate on the quality of education they get because you don't like the beliefs of the school they attend? You do know that most private schools in the USA, religious or not, are tax exempt, so you can't justify funding secular schools but not religious schools using the tax argument After all, secular states are neutral on the matter of religions, for you to say that religious organizations should be treated unfairly next to their secular counter-parts is not secularism, it is anti-religious hatred.

All children should have equal access to the same level of education from the moment they first enter the school to the moment they graduate from college or university. Private schools especially religious ones can teach any bullshit they want and by funding those schools you make the problem worst. If you really cared about children you wouldn't be supporting that. A secular state can be neutral on the matter of religion by giving all private schools religious and non-religious the same amount of money, that amount being 0.

The national anthem has no religious references in it.

I wasn't talking about your anthem


You can make the argument that White Supremacy is a religion...

You can still disparage or intimidate people based on their membership of these groups which is what hate speech is about. I'd also categorise white supremacists as a belief group.

Sure like you could make an argument that capitalism is a religion.

Restrictions on short-selling restrict traders--a group.

Laws banning fox hunting restrict hunters.

Taxation-and-redistribution prioritises the poor over the rich.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

I said one


So not in a public space?

Nope

There's a huge difference between (1) the government should be neutral in it's funding allocation and (2) the government can't fund certain occupations.

Government remains neutral if they don't fund any religious organisations.

But I can promote this sort of legislation of I state it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs?

That's why you need to add any kind of hate speech to it to close that loophole.

[Vlerchan]

Sure like you could make an argument that capitalism is a religion.
This doesn't address the point I made.

I said one
So long as we can agree that laws fitting the criteria Rationality specified account for an overwhelming number of laws.

Nope
Then the point I made earlier remains standing:

For both religious and non-religious people, the idea that there is a best way to live our lives, and that way of life should be spread, can be a deeply held conviction and restricting religious people from acting on those opinions breaches any notion of equality under the law.

Furthermore, if you happened to care, it undermines freedom of religion and freedom of conscience (where for many religious people, actively spreading the word of their god is a fundamental part of their religion), which protect diversity and pluralism in our society.

It also almost certainly would, if expressed legally, push an implicit intolerance towards immigrants, especially Islamic immigrants, who, on average, hold a much deeper inclination toward their faith and would be most affected by efforts to rollback freedom of religion clauses--as with the burqa and niqab.

Stopping people from engaging in public expressions of religious fervour violates their rights on multiple fronts and has a disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities.

Government remains neutral if they don't fund any religious organisations.
But it also remains neutral if it funds them all.

That's why you need to add any kind of hate speech to it to close that loophole.
People could make arguments that fit outside this loophole too though.

People could also just leave their reasons for supporting this legislation publicly unstated.

Irrespective the desired effect isn't going to occur.

---

This whole prong also has the quite undemocratic effect of working to make conservative bills you don't like harder to propose and pass.

Edit:

Private schools especially religious ones can teach any bullshit they want and by funding those schools you make the problem worst.
This is the reason the government mandates set curriculums schools are required to follow.