Atheism

 

All this Mumbo Jumbo is totally meaningless. Call me what have you but these types of posts only confirm to me Westerners think in structured, unesoterically.

 

If not A, then only B.

 

Why cant A & B exist together in different amounts?

 

I dont know about Christianity, but in Islam war and destruction isnt a focal point of the religion nor its 5 tenents (5 pillars).

 

Yes there are people who have claimed to war in the name of God (not in the name of Aryanism, or White Power, or oil, or strategic geographic location: Kashmir) but you have to understand things in context.

 

Well, in Islam, everything is governed from having sex to taking a sh*t to eating, to yawning, to praying, to managing your Will, to clipping your nails. Everything has ettiquete. Even war.

 

Yes you will see people fighting in war, as you will see people saying "Allhamdulillah" when they are done washing their hands after pooping. Or when people recite a prayer before loving their wife. The more religious a person is the more he does.

 

As for the current state of affairs, the US financed and trained Al Qaeda to fight the soviets.

The Irani people had a revolution because they disposed of the US Puppet: Shah Pahlavi.

The Arab world is pissed off because America is fighting for imperial ambitions in Iraq: geostrategy, oil, Israel.

 

This man has it.

Another absence we filll it with is economy.

 

The Ancient Egyptians built pyramids for the glory of their gods (and kings who were gods post partem). The Muslims built fine madrassas and masjids. The christians built churches. The aztecs built pyramids to sacrifice to god.

 

In secular nations they build fine buildings clutteredf in one place called a "downtown". They work 8-10 hrs in a day to keep money flowing in their pockets. Soon they realize energy is going to be a problem. They see all the energy is in a hostile part of the world. They realize they need energy.[/quote]

Nice try, but secularism doesn't cause people to build buildings. People inherently desire construction and growth. That's civilisation itself. So your conclusion here fails, secularism doesn't lead to a country invading the Middle East. Lack of resources affects societies of all ideologies, and those without ideologies.

New reason: were going in for democracy. Not into N Korea, the psychopath who has his people praise him like god and who threatened to bomb the pacific seaboard for whatever reason.   no - iraq - the american backed dictator who fell out of favor when his usefulness was finished (iran-iraq war).   walla, how the human mind thinks.

Another attempt, which also fails to show a causal link between secular government and war.

As for saying that secularism doesnt explicitly cause war, but religion does ... please show me where in the books of buddhism or islam or christianity does it say "Go to war, for that beith the 14th commandment".

I've read Deuteronomy in the Old Testament (applies to Christianity and Judaism), the idea that God will made his believers a chosen people and give them the right to carry out not just war but actual genocide against non-believers seems pretty awful. We must also remember that religion is not just what is written down, it is also what is practiced by the leaders who invented the religion to begin with. So it is unsurprising that for the next century after the inception of Islam, that that religion engaged in a headlong campaign to conquer as much of the world as it could. Do you really expect the Bedouins to have gone a fraction of the distance in the absence of religious fervour and inspiration?

Here let me ask you a better reason, because i already know where your mind is taking you to. Why not attack Honduras? What about Russia, why not attack them? Why not attack China? Why USA? DOes the Quran say "Attack USA, for you will be rewarded"? Or do you think its based on politics?

The US attacked Iraq in my mind for one of two reasons. Either they thought they were going to win and make a lot of political and economic capital in the process. Or special interest groups made the government pursue a war it knew was unwinnable, but would profit those same special interest groups.

Its almost like your nearsighted.

 

 

 

Foreign Policy is not dictated by Secularism, as Mughaal has been saying. He likes to use the US as an example, but seems to fail to grasp it at all. It's been the Neo-Conservative movement, one that Bush and Cheney are apart of that was driving our foreign policy in recent years. One that also likes to promote itself to Christians, and claims to champion their Pro-Life idealogies, yet still goes out of it's way to attack Iraq as you put Mughaal.

Bush like to use the word "god" and says that he speaks to him often and that he guides him. This isn't what secularism promotes, there wouldn't be a push for pro-life policies, and it's mostly been the Christian Right who are staunch supporters for this war. While the moderates, those against Religion becoming apart of our government, have been protesting this war, obviously for various reasons, but the secular in Western Society seem to be very anti-war, just look up anything about the "Left" and compare to to the "Right" in our politics. Right is usually pro-war and Christian. 

The idea behind this thread is a classic topic here (and in many other forums) - whether most violence in the history of humanity was caused by religion or not. But the approach is often flawed as people use baseless equivocations and redefinitions to change one notion with another until they'll achieve the rhetorical value they need to accuse the other side.

 

Key word right there, Communist.

I can say the same thing for any totalitarian regime. Communism is actually a misnomer as a theoretical communist society doesn't have even such thing as the state. Many of the communist countries (especially in the Eastern Europe) were called "Socialist Republics" in the official propaganda kept reminding the people how close they are on their way to communism.

 

Communism has it's own book on ideals, much in the same way as religion.

You can't find a single man or group on this planet without an ideal. Excluding insane or dead people, of course. Any coherent action follows an ideal, a goal.

 

But it's different from the US's which is largy Secular too, but the US follows a Capitalism idealogy, which can run with any other.

I don't understand your point. US's democracy as well as USSR's communism are both secular governments. This is undeniable and un-nuanceable. A discussion on capitalist vs communist economy, for instance, doesn't add any additional significance to the fact they are both secular, nor makes one of them a theocracy.

 

So, I disagree, there isn't any strong philosophy that goes along with Secularism. People don't follow it because there are no teachings or ways of life

I have no idea what "strong philosophy" is in this context, nor did I mention it, therefore you're not disagreeing with me. Not to say that not every philosophy's purpose is to teach somebody how to live his life.

 

It's an idealogy that creates conflict.

Every ideology creates conflicts. Even the ideology of freedom and equality.

 

Secularism in Western society is ment to grant freedoms, and thats where it ends and other idealogies pick up.

I very much doubt that. I think that your reply illustrates an overall confusion between the "Western values", having them all mixed in a cocktail and try to make them as undeniable single value. That's a tyrannical ideological approach if anything, against the freedom which it pontificates.

 

Because there isn't a established way of life for Secular people, being Secular means you can be Christian too.

I have no idea what "secular people" means. But if I try to understand it I find an unresolvable contradiction. Secular people - people not bound to religion. How could one be a Christian then?

 

In the best way I can describe Secularism is by calling it a soft philosphy, in that there aren't set values, or ways of life.

You can describe secularism as you like it (to me, those people who compare Communism with religion but cherish Secularism and Capitalism, please also note the capitalization, are religious in the way they use the term), however I recommend you dictionaries and a more rigurous approach without equivocating words to promote some values for an universal truth and state of welfare everyone should be happy to have.

 

 

 

It makes sure there isn't favortism that a religious backed nation may have.

Do you think religiousness and backwardness (backwardness related to what, what is the direction the people should go forward?) are correlated?

 

And what does that prove, that one man is power hungary, how does Secularism foster such thoughts? There aren't any teachings from it.

I am not saying that, all I am saying is that secularism is not a garrant for democracy, freedom, capitalism and whatever other equivocations are practiced when you put the US as a reference. Authoritarian (politically, economically) regimes are as secular as any other.

 

There were no Secular idealogies

Those ideologies who have secularism among their core claims, who regard religion irrelevant to the approach or the topic they address.

 

it's just a meaning of sperating something from religion which means it's a broad definition seeing as it can go with anything.

Really? Even with pasta?  

 

The US still has very strong Christian values despite being secular, and athiest are seen as the most untrust worthy of any demographic in the US.

I am a bit confused. I don't understand when you talk about people or about the state, or about anything else. It's impossible to have religious values and be secular at the same time, only if you mean a simple coincidence. "Thou shall not kill" is not necessarily a religious value, it can be reached also through ethics or other type of inferences (utilitaristic, for instance). So you can have a secular state's law and a theocratic state's law having a similar position against homicide.

 

What I'm saying is it's impossible to blame Secularism because there isn't a idealogy to follow on the national level, no one rallies around it.

I agree with you on that. However in my view if one praises secularism for freedom and writes it with capitals or he blames it for wars, he commits the same fallacy.

 

Thats what I said. But Secularism is more of a definition.

Primarily yes, but ideologies are created through definitions. Once you say "secularism is good" you have an ideology. It means there's a belief that secularism is good, that there's a value of secularism.

 

Religious descrimination is forbidden by law in the US, and the government doesn't favor anyone of religious background. This despite the US government mostly being of Christian background, and the President usually always being Protestant. Even though voted in by Christians, they still have made any laws for absolute Christian rule and values, why? Because we have Secular laws.

I think here's the aforementioned confusion (equivocation) between individuals and state. 

 

Secular in that they don't believe in pushing their beliefs. I'm not talking about atheist. Like I said, secular is more of a definition, not something to follow. I'd say most Americans are Secular in thinking in that they don't believe in pushing their own Religious values on others, and I believe that comes from our country promoting everyone is equal and not favoring anyone. Sorry, I haven't exactly been writing my thoughts in the best of ways, kind of embarrassing

I think you mean "tolerant people".

 

Secular in the dictionary says relating to something Worldly.

Secularism in most dictionaries I've checked is about a separation of religion (in some institutions or in a philosophical/moral system). The word secular can have much more meanings, it's polysemantic. One of these meanings is "not belonging to a monastic order" which I believe is the one you have interepreted as "worldly".