Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hello all,
Something I hear alot on here { and something I have said myself } Is that Atheists and unbelievers have a real problem with religious folk of any type trying to impose laws based on their religious beliefs into society. Myself, being an unbeliever of any organized religion, also thought this way.
Though, Not to long ago I thought about this for a little while and I now see what I percieve to have been an error in my way of thinking The following quote is what inspired me to start this thread.
Now the question I would like to pose to you is, wouldn't this be the same as a democrat saying to a republican "as a democrat, I don't really care if you are a republican until you choose to attempt to impose what you believe into society" ???
Or for instance, wouldn't it be the same as someone who was pro-life telling somone who was pr-choice that "they didnt care what they believe"......etc. etc. ????
Do you think this is the same? If no, then how not? If yes, than wouldn't this defeat the purpose of a democracy where majority rules? Lastly. isn''t it only fair that the religious get to impose their ideas into our laws if they infact have a mojority?
Short answer is analogies usually don't work and that is why I find it difficult to see your point. Equating Ds and Rs who dont listen to each other to an atheist vs believers "battle" is not the same thing. In case of former, there are EXISTING laws in place (US Constinution) that BOTH Ds and Rs need to abide by. They can listen to each other or simply ignore each other - a framework of rules is still in place. It is this framework that some seek to change via worldview while the other side can afford to ignore the attempt.
Also, in cases of arguments between Ds and Rs, say in economics, one can look at empirical data to see if the supply side theory is working, if cutting taxes improves revenue, etc. At least some people can discuss tangible / real specifics. In case of religion, it is all faith - so the method of "proof" is (to an atheist) truly "light". As an atheist all I have to ask some one is to first convince me which of the 1000s of god is true and then we can talk. Thankfully, it is often the end of discussion or the answer is "mine". One usually cannot force-feed faith (suspension of reasoning) to atheists. However, Ds and Rs may be able to discuss economics because there is empirical data in place but none for the 1000s of gods that exist.
Most democracies recognize the possibility of the tyranny of the majority and make it explicitly difficult for majorities to change these rules in a way that monirities are negatively impacted.
From a practical point of view for atheists, forgetting that the religious cannot even agree on definition of a true "god" among the 1000s of gods, and the fact most religious follow what they are simply born into (some faith, eh?), most religions of each type have significant differences in terms of interpretation of the holy book they follow. Fragmentation dilutes power of the 'majority'. So, unless one is looking at afghanistan type of situations where something is forced on you, democracies will survive and prosper without significant modifications from the religious and the heathens. Which is good since worldview type of stuff should be personal and we all need to focus on a bunch of other issues impacting all of us.
Hello all,
Something I hear alot on here { and something I have said myself } Is that Atheists and unbelievers have a real problem with religious folk of any type trying to impose laws based on their religious beliefs into society. Myself, being an unbeliever of any organized religion, also thought this way.
Though, Not to long ago I thought about this for a little while and I now see what I percieve to have been an error in my way of thinking The following quote is what inspired me to start this thread.
Now the question I would like to pose to you is, wouldn't this be the same as a democrat saying to a republican "as a democrat, I don't really care if you are a republican until you choose to attempt to impose what you believe into society" ???
Or for instance, wouldn't it be the same as someone who was pro-life telling somone who was pr-choice that "they didnt care what they believe"......etc. etc. ????
Do you think this is the same? If no, then how not? If yes, than wouldn't this defeat the purpose of a democracy where majority rules? Lastly. isn''t it only fair that the religious get to impose their ideas into our laws if they infact have a mojority?
I understand your question, and it is a good one. Although you are essentially comparing a myth with reality. Laws (constitution) are real, sins are not. This would be the same as trying to pass legislation on the tooth fairy. Some people do not believe in the tooth fairy.
Hello all,
Something I hear alot on here { and something I have said myself } Is that Atheists and unbelievers have a real problem with religious folk of any type trying to impose laws based on their religious beliefs into society. Myself, being an unbeliever of any organized religion, also thought this way.
Though, Not to long ago I thought about this for a little while and I now see what I percieve to have been an error in my way of thinking The following quote is what inspired me to start this thread.
Now the question I would like to pose to you is, wouldn't this be the same as a democrat saying to a republican "as a democrat, I don't really care if you are a republican until you choose to attempt to impose what you believe into society" ???
Or for instance, wouldn't it be the same as someone who was pro-life telling somone who was pr-choice that "they didnt care what they believe"......etc. etc. ????
Do you think this is the same? If no, then how not? If yes, than wouldn't this defeat the purpose of a democracy where majority rules? Lastly. isn''t it only fair that the religious get to impose their ideas into our laws if they infact have a mojority?
What you are trying to answer is an impossible situation. Even without government, you would still have some "ruled" by others. What people who want a situation like this are saying, from what I can see, is that you can't base you ideas on anything. How do you do that? No decision is based on nothing. If I wear a blue shirt today, it is because it was clean at the time, or I could find it and not the others, or because it matched this or that. No decision is based on Nothing.
Someone has someone else' beliefs imposed upon them with every conceivable outcome I can imagine. If you have a problem (for whatever reason) with L-shaped desks, for example, and your boss decides your office will have one, then you have to life with that if you want to keep your job. This isn't necessarily because your boss knows you don't like these desks and he just wants to be mean, it could be because one was already available or it was free or the other choices we not practical or whatever. The only way to not "impose" upon someone else is for NO decisions to be made, and even then, people who are in favor of decisions being made aren't going to get their way - so there is really no way to avoid it completely.
I understand your question, and it is a good one. Although you are essentially comparing a myth with reality. Laws (constitution) are real, sins are not. This would be the same as trying to pass legislation on the tooth fairy. Some people do not believe in the tooth fairy.
Actually sins are real. They just aren't concrete. What one person sees as a sin may not be what others sees as a sin. You are right that laws are real, but if we, as society, decide not to punish people for breaking this or that law, then THAT effectively no longer exists.
I understand your question, and it is a good one. Although you are essentially comparing a myth with reality. Laws (constitution) are real, sins are not. This would be the same as trying to pass legislation on the tooth fairy. Some people do not believe in the tooth fairy.
It doesn't matter whether people want to pass laws based on the tooth fairy, dreams, voodoo economics, quack science, fetishes, or anything else. If enough legislators support the idea and it meets constitutional muster, that's that.
Short answer is analogies usually don't work and that is why I find it difficult to see your point. Equating Ds and Rs who dont listen to each other to an atheist vs believers "battle" is not the same thing. In case of former, there are EXISTING laws in place (US Constinution) that BOTH Ds and Rs need to abide by. They can listen to each other or simply ignore each other - a framework of rules is still in place. It is this framework that some seek to change via worldview while the other side can afford to ignore the attempt.
How long will this "framework" remain in place if it is ultimately opposed by the majority?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
Also, in cases of arguments between Ds and Rs, say in economics, one can look at empirical data to see if the supply side theory is working, if cutting taxes improves revenue, etc. At least some people can discuss tangible/real specifics.
...so far, so good...
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
In case of religion, it is all faith - so the method of "proof" is (to an atheist) truly "light". As an atheist all I have to ask some one is to first convince me which of the 1000s of god is true and then we can talk. Thankfully, it is often the end of discussion or the answer is "mine". One usually cannot force-feed faith (suspension of reasoning) to atheists. However, Ds and Rs may be able to discuss economics because there is empirical data in place but none for the 1000s of gods that exist.
It's been a good number of years since the introduction of the philosophies of Kant and Hume. In this day and age, why should I or anyone else be convinced that faith requires a suspension of reasoning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
Most democracies recognize the possibility of the tyranny of the majority and make it explicitly difficult for majorities to change these rules in a way that minorities are negatively impacted.
Please provide an example or examples of democracies that "make it explicitly difficult for majorities to change these rules."
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
From a practical point of view for atheists, forgetting that the religious cannot even agree on definition of a true "god" among the 1000s of gods, and the fact most religious follow what they are simply born into (some faith, eh?), most religions of each type have significant differences in terms of interpretation of the holy book they follow. Fragmentation dilutes power of the 'majority'. So, unless one is looking at afghanistan type of situations where something is forced on you, democracies will survive and prosper without significant modifications from the religious and the heathens. Which is good since worldview type of stuff should be personal and we all need to focus on a bunch of other issues impacting all of us.
With respect to a controlling majority, this is a nonsense statement. By definition, a majority is a subset consisting of more than half of it's members - the quality or state of being greater. The Afghanistan type model will only remain in place as long as it possesses the power. If it looses the support of the majority and the majority has the power to make a change - eventually, it will.
I will try and keep it short (see blue below) - I have no desire to argue every sentence since it is deviating from the basic thrust of the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
How long will this "framework" remain in place if it is ultimately opposed by the majority?
Good - get enough traction and change laws - and find out it is not easy in the US because not everyone in a majority thinks exactly the same way. In other words, basics in the US law will not change much.
...so far, so good...
Good
It's been a good number of years since the introduction of the philosophies of Kant and Hume. In this day and age, why should I or anyone else be convinced that faith requires a suspension of reasoning?
To me it absolutely does - refer to the meaning of "faith". Again - better addressed as different thread. Like OP said, we dont need to listen/ convince each other - at least I wont as I think it is a wast of time.
Please provide an example or examples of democracies that "make it explicitly difficult for majorities to change these rules."
US constitution. Try to change a law via amendment and see how easy it is to get 3/5ths of the states to agree. If it were so easy, abortion (for which the right gets its tail up high) would have been illegal. Look at India - muslims have rights that hindus cannot take away.
With respect to a controlling majority, this is a nonsense statement. By definition, a majority is a subset consisting of more than half of it's members - the quality or state of being greater. The Afghanistan type model will only remain in place as long as it possesses the power. If it looses the support of the majority and the majority has the power to make a change - eventually, it will.
No - simple majority will not get you poop. Else laws would have changed everytime we oscillated between Ds and Rs. Also I mentioned even within the religious majority, there are divisions and many christians for example do believe in evolution - not everyone within a majority thinks exactly the same way. Personally, I will be happy to keep fanatics of any religion out. Most of my friends are religious and not fundie-types and I have zero issues with their religion as they dont bug me to convert. Not everyone is sitting around plotting a "majority" takeover.
[snip]
Please provide an example or examples of democracies that "make it explicitly difficult for majorities to change these rules."
[snip].
There's the Constitution, separation of powers, checks and balances.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
}
