A political party with mainstream political views, but against ALL forms of religion!

[Garp]

Extremist muslims wouldn't be blowing themselves up if it wasn't for Islam existing in the first place.

Obviously, religion isn't the cause of every act of terrorism, but at the moment it's about 90% of the cause of most attacks (israel, palestine, iraq, afghanistan, america and ireland in the past)

What aboslute rot.

Religion in this case is just being used as a pretext, not the cause, a way to satisfy the conscience. What they preach and practice cannot be found anywhere in their holy book, just like Christian Extremists seem to be missing the rather large and clear instruction "Thou shalt not Kill" (more accurately translated to "Thou shalt not Murder").

What you're talking about is what communism tried to achieve. Albania proclaimed itself as the words first Athiestic state back in the 80s.
Guess what happened within weeks of communism faililng about 15 years ago?
90% muslim, 8% christian, 2% atheism, exactly the same kind of split as had existed before communism.

Like it or lump it, more of the world professes to have a faith than those that profess to nowt. Any party that expects to succeed had best look to remain "neutral" rather than "anti" religion.

What you're looking for is a "Secular Humanist" party. Good luck finding one... Most secular / humanists show strong socialist leanings, towards communism. in Theory thats supposed to be the Labour party.....

 

[Van_Dammesque]

Ask me if we should apply ethical and moral guidelines through common sense and I will say yes.

Religion to me is a framework of guidelines that should be applied with common sense in mind. That is fit for purpose no matter how old it is.

Well I'm not denying that the christian morals and laws have not made this country what it is today. I would argue though that for the future we can view the religous framework from a historical perspective and use common-sense to define laws etc.. without the mumbo-jumbo supernatural elements.

Infact if it were not for Henry the 8th we would probably be a strict catholic country and standardised written english and therefore the true birth of the UK would prbably not have happened. My point is Henry the 8th released this country from the strict shackles of catholism (SP?) and looked what happened, we blossomed into one of the finest/leading countries of the world. Imagine if we releases all shackles?

 

[Van_Dammesque]

What aboslute rot.

Religion in this case is just being used as a pretext, not the cause, a way to satisfy the conscience. What they preach and practice cannot be found anywhere in their holy book, just like Christian Extremists seem to be missing the rather large and clear instruction "Thou shalt not Kill" (more accurately translated to "Thou shalt not Murder").

What you're talking about is what communism tried to achieve. Albania proclaimed itself as the words first Athiestic state back in the 80s.
Guess what happened within weeks of communism faililng about 15 years ago?
90% muslim, 8% christian, 2% atheism, exactly the same kind of split as had existed before communism.

Like it or lump it, more of the world professes to have a faith than those that profess to nowt. Any party that expects to succeed had best look to remain "neutral" rather than "anti" religion.

What you're looking for is a "Secular Humanist" party. Good luck finding one... Most secular / humanists show strong socialist leanings, towards communism. in Theory thats supposed to be the Labour party.....

In theory communism works!

What would happen if the conscience could not be satifisied with a faith or indoctranation?

Why not let children grow up without any religous pressure from their parents or society and let them decide when, say, they 16 years old? I wonder how many would be religious? Probably a lot would philisophical but not religous.

 

[Bar]

Imagine if we releases all shackles?

Anarchy? Civil War?

The problem with releasing all shackles is people need boundaries. We all need to know what is and what is not acceptable.

Why not let children grow up without any religous pressure from their parents or society and let them decide when, say, they 16 years old? I wonder how many would be religious? Probably a lot would philisophical but not religous.

Just my personal opinion but I think you are going to find people going back to the church more and more. Its a place to find a community and where people want to know each other. That aspect is sadly missing in todays society and I truly believe people will go back to the church.

I have nothing to back this up other than a gut feeling.

 

[Van_Dammesque]

Anarchy? Civil War?

The problem with releasing all shackles is people need boundaries. We all need to know what is and what is not acceptable.

I meant the shackles of religion.

Yes people need boundaries but as you have said:

Ask me if we should apply ethical and moral guidelines through common sense and I will say yes.

so you can live in a society free of religion without the things you have said would happen. As we do (to a certain degree) in this country (see my George Bush and Tony Blair Quote.)

Its a place to find a community and where people want to know each other. That aspect is sadly missing in todays society and I truly believe people will go back to the church.

I have nothing to back this up other than a gut feeling.

Fair enough, I agree with you to a certain degree, but does it have to be religous? Why not something that the community can do that does not involve superstition and religion? Maybe that would be a way for forward for the multi-faith and multi-cultural society we live in to integrate?

 

[Bar]

The country is where it is because of its religious guidelines and frameworks.

If we got rid of them all it would need to be filled with something else of equal status and that the majority will believe in. This generally only happens with religion.

A lot of law is based upon religious guidelines and will continue to be. Although more people choose not to follow a religion or believe in anything does not mean it still does not affect a large part of our life.

If it was all removed what would happen? I am not sure in all honesty although personally I do not think it would be for the better.

 

[Bar]

Why not something that the community can do that does not involve superstition and religion? Maybe that would be a way for forward for the multi-faith and multi-cultural society we live in to integrate?

It already exists in some respects - just look at football fans.

But you have the same problems there as you do with religion. I believe that to some people they view football as their religion. If you want to see the extremist side just look at hooligans etc.

What is so wrong with superstition/faith and religion?

No matter what you believe in there will always be extremists.

I have a view on multi faith and multi culturalism but that is for another thread (in fact another thread today).

 

[Loki]

Absolutley unworkable.

It assumes that religion is the cause of terrorism, rather than the truth that religion is distorted in order to cause terrorism.

Its like the mindless idiots who go for a punch up at a football match. Half of the football hooligans arent event football fans so do we outlaw football to stop these morons. I suspect they will surface in high street regardless.

You mean weak minded people?

This is 2006 anyway, I can't believe that the person in charge of the most powerful nation in the world believes a man walked on water and performed other miracles about 2000 years ago.

Sleep time, i'll be back later to rant more.

With a very large percentage of the planet subscribing to one religion or another it kind of makes the none beleivers a minority. Also what about the people who chose to follow a religion as opposed to be indoctrinated into it. They are weak minded because they make an informed choice Somewhat contradictory

 

[Bar]

that football analogy is just freaky Loki - as I assume you typed yours the same time I typed mine.

looks around for hidden cameras

 

[Van_Dammesque]

What is so wrong with superstition/faith and religion?

Because it is not the truth? What would you think of a person who believed in Santa Claus at the age of say 30 years old? Brainwashed? Backward?
IMHO mankind must face the truth to excel and progress no matter how disturbing or ugly the truth is, without smearing out the facts and accepting uncertainties without filling in the 'gaps' with things that do not stand up to logical arguements, superstition and religion goes against this principle.


You may not believe me but I was considering posting something about the World Cup in Germany, for me it was refreshing (except England's defeat) to see so many people having fun next to each other and mingling (even with some friendly banter) and not having to be forced apart because they want to throttle each other!

 

[Garp]

Because it is not the truth? What would you think of a person who believed in Santa Claus at the age of say 30 years old? Brainwashed? Backward?
IMHO mankind must face the truth to excel and progress no matter how disturbing or ugly the truth is.

In your subjective opinion. Just like in my subjective opinion God exists, Jesus Christ was his son, who was crucified on the cross to bring us to salvation.

I don't persecute you and others like you for your beliefs (or lack of), why do you persecute us for ours?

 

[Yas786]

In your subjective opinion. Just like in my subjective opinion God exists, Jesus Christ was his son, who was crucified on the cross to bring us to salvation.

I don't persecute you and others like you for your beliefs (or lack of), why do you persecute us for ours?

Hear hear well said.

 

[Van_Dammesque]

With a very large percentage of the planet subscribing to one religion or another it kind of makes the none beleivers a minority. Also what about the people who chose to follow a religion as opposed to be indoctrinated into it. They are weak minded because they make an informed choice Somewhat contradictory

See my George Bush quote.

As for an informed choice; I would say yes it is because many famous people such as Ronnie O'Sulivan and Mike Tyson turned to relgion at the time in their life (well documented) when they were seriously low (depression) and religion is a perfect moral crutch for that. It would have beem better for them to see someone from the medical profession.

 

[Pudney]

IMHO mankind must face the truth to excel and progress no matter how disturbing or ugly the truth is, without smearing out the facts and accepting uncertainties without filling in the 'gaps' with things that do not stand up to logical arguements, superstition and religion goes against this principle.

Just out of interest, can you give a logical arguement based on scientific facts to disprove religion and superstition? If not then by your basis it is wrong to rule them both out.

 

[Van_Dammesque]

In your subjective opinion. Just like in my subjective opinion God exists, Jesus Christ was his son, who was crucified on the cross to bring us to salvation.

I don't persecute you and others like you for your beliefs (or lack of), why do you persecute us for ours?

Persecution is a strong word, however, you did not reply to my Santa Claus analogy, that is the answer that you seek.

I contend we are both athiests. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

 

[Shoseki]

Question : If no-one was taught or influenced by religion until they were 16 and able to make their own minds up, would anyone really choose any? Probably. Maybe. Who knows.

We look down upon companies trying to indoctrinate kids with their products and "lifestyles", yet we are perfectly fine letting some random bloke in a church/mosque/synagogue do it. After all, other people do it, 5 million lemmings can't be wrong!

At least if a company messes up, screws people up, we have some people to hold responsible. Companies are clear in their aims : to make money. Theres no-one to hold responsible for if a religion messes up someone, and believe me, some aspects of religion are for more than simply theological purposes.

And I'd argue religion is far more serious than any crappy commercial. So I ask the question :

Why are kids allowed to be influenced before they are of an age where they can make their own mind up?

Because religion is a very subversive force, indoctrinated into the young, segregating society into groups at odds with each other, either politely acknowledging each other, or outright at war with each other.

Segregation is frowned upon in other parts societies, why is it encouraged religiously?

Most of the "bonuses" attributed to religion could *SO EASILY*, with *a LITTLE EFFORT*, still be applied without resorting to religious texts. In fact, some of them have been so influential, they have become part of the Bill of Human Rights.

So, tell me, what does religion offer that we couldn't do without?

And before you tell me, "all morals originated from religion", I'm sorry but I don't believe it. I can't imagine that morals themselves originated from religion, as opposed to simple practical application or rules for the organisation of society - cause and effect. Religious texts were simply the documentation and propagation (with a healthy dose of threat) of said rules.

 

[Van_Dammesque]

Just out of interest, can you give a logical arguement based on scientific facts to disprove religion and superstition? If not then by your basis it is wrong to rule them both out.

Now you have hit the nail on the head and as a reason as to why religion has stood up to discussions such as this. This is based on two things:]

1. No, science can not absolutely disprove god's existance (set up an experiemnt to do such a thing: what do you have to test for proof/disproof?), however, can you disprove with logic that santa claus does not exist or the toothfairy? What about the greek gods. In other words it is wordplay. Science can not disprove something that does not exist. Or you could say that science has not supported (not one drop of evidence) the existence of god.
But see my previous post, I think it is better to say "I don't know" than "it is the will of god".

2. Logical positivism. You propose something you prove it.
The flying teacup analogy: I propose that at this minute in time there is a flying tea pot in orbit around the nearest star, you prove that it isn't there. I will provide no proof.
The Flying spaghetti Monster: I believe there is no god but a flying spaghetti monster that created everything, you prove it was god and not the flying spaghetti monster, again I will not provide evidence for it.

 

[aardvark]

i completely agree with the above 2 posts.

not much of a contribution, oh well.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Mans most basic instinct is "We want what you've got and we're taking it".
Religion doesn't come into it.
While man is running the world we haven't got a chance.
How about putting women in charge instead so we can all just bitch about each other without the fisticuffs?

 

[Amleto]

Mans most basic instinct is "We want what you've got and we're taking it".
Religion doesn't come into it.
While man is running the world we haven't got a chance.
How about putting women in charge instead so we can all just bitch about each other without the fisticuffs?

cat fight!?