Atheism isn't cause - secularism is! Discuss!

[Cormac]

Secularism is weak. It relies upon economic propserity to succeed. Prosperity isn't always sustainable given the fluctuating realities of this physical world we inhabit. A stronger idealism is required which like a successful religion is robust over historic time. Otherwise the good idea behind this idea will vanish as soon as Rum stops plugging it.

I don't think so. If well articulated, it could be MORE unifying than a religion. On the basis of "This is all there is, and we're all in it together".

In times of austerity when there's only so much to go around, would that work as well as a 'us & them' policy?

Depends on how austere times are. If they're as austere as Seth expects, we'll be in a Mad Max scenario - so the "Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves" rule would apply.

[Mad Militant]

Could one benefit from the other?

[Rum]

I think they could. But my point as ever about atheism is that it is a mistake to characterise it as a coherent movement with an identity. To me that would be like trying to organise people who didn't believe in fairies or elves into a coherent group with a specific identity, whereas I think the real potential strength of atheism is that it is in effect a neutral stance which says that in the absence of evidence to the contrary elves, fairies and gods don't seem to exist. This puts the onus on those who believe in superstitious entities to provide evidence rather than, as is so often demanded by them, the reverse.

Secularism on the other hand can take the stance that there are so many mutually exclusive points of view about religion and religious ideas that it isn't practical to run modern day complex societies full of people with all sorts of wacko ideas if they bring them to the communal table.

As an aside I also think this is likely to promote rationalism and therefore more atheism, though I have no particular desire to do that as long as those silly religious people leave me alone.

[Ronja]

Meh - I agree so much with the OP (at first sight - won't promise naught about tomorrow morning...) that I can't think of anything to say. Sorry!

Anyway, here's a nice smiley at least

[floppit]

Reading up about Madalyn O'Hair led me to looking at the 'formal' atheist movement a bit earlier on. Her successor talks about 'organising' atheists as a force etc.

I think this is misguided. As we have often discussed here, atheism is the absence of something and does not therefore make a natural rallying point for ideology or even values as such.

Secularism on the other hand is about making sure church and state (or religion and state) are kept separate as a general rule. This *is* a 'cause and does provide a rallying call. What is more it is actually possible to be religious and take a secularist viewpoint.

What do you think?

I think what you've written is right, the only problem is that democracy throws a spanner in the works - until the majority choose separation of religion and state.

[mistermack]

6 Hail Marys, 10 Glory Bes, and 5 Our Fathers for you, my penitent son.

Also - see you in the vestry after, so you can suck me off help me prepare for this evening's novena...

Wee Irish boy crying by the side of the road.

A man asks "What's wrong?"

Boy says "Me Ma is dead"

"Oh bejaysus" the man says "Do you want me to get Father O'Riley ?"

Wee boy replies"No thanks Mister, oim really not in the mood for sex roight now."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll go with the one that lets me firebomb churches.

[Cormac]

6 Hail Marys, 10 Glory Bes, and 5 Our Fathers for you, my penitent son.

Also - see you in the vestry after, so you can suck me off help me prepare for this evening's novena...

Wee Irish boy crying by the side of the road.

A man asks "What's wrong?"

Boy says "Me Ma is dead"

"Oh bejaysus" the man says "Do you want me to get Father O'Riley ?"

Wee boy replies"No thanks Mister, oim really not in the mood for sex roight now."

Hehheh

[hiyymer]

Reading up about Madalyn O'Hair led me to looking at the 'formal' atheist movement a bit earlier on. Her successor talks about 'organising' atheists as a force etc.

I think this is misguided. As we have often discussed here, atheism is the absence of something and does not therefore make a natural rallying point for ideology or even values as such.

Secularism on the other hand is about making sure church and state (or religion and state) are kept separate as a general rule. This *is* a 'cause and does provide a rallying call. What is more it is actually possible to be religious and take a secularist viewpoint.

What do you think?

What's secularism? Does that have something to do with secs?

[mistermack]

I agree that secularism is an important step, it's highly desirable, because it counters the people who want to indoctrinate children. Everybody has a right to believe what they want to, but I think that the indoctrination of children is a crime, just as much as chopping off their foreskin, or clitoris.
Also, worming religion into state ceremonies should be banned in any country that really believes in equality and freedom.

I do think that secularism should be entirely separate from atheism. It's got more chance of making progress anyway, if it's not atheists who are prominently pushing it.

Atheism is a worthwhile cause, I'm happy to argue for it, but I don't really give a toss if people disagree, I just hate to see kids leant on to believe in woo.

[Tero]

Them people on religion are so emotional, they won't understand secularism. They want to help everyone. Stray cats, people starving in Somalia, anybody out there willing to be converted for some food and shelter.

I don't know. I think we should send more guns to Somalia and get it over with. The bad guys just steal the aid food anyway and convert it to guns, after they have eaten.

[hiyymer]

Reading up about Madalyn O'Hair led me to looking at the 'formal' atheist movement a bit earlier on. Her successor talks about 'organising' atheists as a force etc.

I think this is misguided. As we have often discussed here, atheism is the absence of something and does not therefore make a natural rallying point for ideology or even values as such.

Secularism on the other hand is about making sure church and state (or religion and state) are kept separate as a general rule. This *is* a 'cause and does provide a rallying call. What is more it is actually possible to be religious and take a secularist viewpoint.

What do you think?

Secularism is the work of the devil. The trouble with the world is that people aren't close enough to Jesus.

[Cormac]

Reading up about Madalyn O'Hair led me to looking at the 'formal' atheist movement a bit earlier on. Her successor talks about 'organising' atheists as a force etc.

I think this is misguided. As we have often discussed here, atheism is the absence of something and does not therefore make a natural rallying point for ideology or even values as such.

Secularism on the other hand is about making sure church and state (or religion and state) are kept separate as a general rule. This *is* a 'cause and does provide a rallying call. What is more it is actually possible to be religious and take a secularist viewpoint.

What do you think?

Secularism is the work of the devil. The trouble with the world is that people aren't close enough to Jesus.

By close enough, do you mean penetrated a few inches into his rectum?

[hiyymer]

Secularism is the work of the devil. The trouble with the world is that people aren't close enough to Jesus.

By close enough, do you mean penetrated a few inches into his rectum?

I'm not sure. I was paraphrasing my born-again little sister. Maybe I should ask her. Naw.

[Exi5tentialist]

Religion and capitalism are symbiotically entwined. It is not possible to overthrow one without the other. Similarly, secularisation runs in parallel with reformism. Its adoption as an ultimate goal is an early step towards understanding that a revolution against capitalism is impossible unless we revolt against ourselves as the people who make up a capitalist world. Since most of us are not willing to entertain this level of self-revolution, we settle for seemingly lesser targets: in this case, secularism rather than atheism.

By the way, atheism is not defined as the absence of a belief in God. It is either disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God - an either/or choice for each of us, a choice between a clearly defined rejection of the existence of God on the one hand, or a looser 'absence' on the other. Atheism therefore contains within it a similar choice as the one we are presented with in choosing between secularism and atheism, or revolution and reform, or atheism and agnosticism. Which we choose depends on how closely we identify with the current economic system.