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

[Dj_Jestar]

Nice arguement but please define what you mean (sound like CBS ) faith in the people?

I doubt the OP wants any radical or tough views, maybe closing faith schools that teach the bible in science classes (Reg Vardy anyone?), protecting children from indoctranation. Imagine if all the churches/mosques etc.. were demolished and replaced by trees this could save humanity!

In order to come to power, they will need to win the majority of votes, thus the votee's will need to believe in the party (ala have faith in the party.) Also I said faith of the people, not faith in the people

 

[Killerkebab]

You have basically offered a start to a political party which would be illegal in America right from the start (I believe freedom of religion/belief is in their constitution) and probably in most western societies.

By removing religion, you remove a people's right to believe in something greater than themselves. Religion has done a huge amount to create order in civilisations of the past, and it would be foolish to remove it for everyone.

A political party against all forms of religion would just be asking for trouble.

 

[Pudney]

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:

The essence of my argument is this. With no way to prove or disprove something, does it not come down to a persons faith to one side of the argument. You say God doesn't exist, and you have utter faith in it, you can't prove it but you still believe it. Others say God does exist, again they can't prove it, but their belief is unshakeable.

Neither side has the upper hand, but again neither side can claim that what they believe is factual.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't state that religion etc is wrong and misguided. As your opinion there's no problem, as a statement of fact it's exactly the same as those who argue that the existence of God is a fact.

 

[Tonks]

People here keep saying 'remove religion', now just how would you go about implementing that? ban the organised side of religion? stop teaching it in schools? sure those measures can be implemented but further than that when those measures fail and religion is still evident, what then? just how far would you go? stop the individual from practicing his faith in his home? fine him? imprison him? burn his books?

When all of this fails what then? go from burning books to burning people?

Been there done that and failed...

To believe strongly in something is a religion in itself whether that's a personal faith in a deity or an anti faith like atheism...

 

[Van_Dammesque]

The essence of my argument is this. With no way to prove or disprove something, does it not come down to a persons faith to one side of the argument. You say God doesn't exist, and you have utter faith in it, you can't prove it but you still believe it. Others say God does exist, again they can't prove it, but their belief is unshakeable.

Neither side has the upper hand, but again neither side can claim that what they believe is factual.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't state that religion etc is wrong and misguided. As your opinion there's no problem, as a statement of fact it's exactly the same as those who argue that the existence of God is a fact.

Science does not give absoute facts.
My faith in atheism is a paradox.

With no way to prove or disprove something, does it not come down to a persons faith to one side of the argument.

Maybe it is a fallacy of language?
The computer I sit at now typing this message: I can not absolutely prove that it exists with science, does that mean it does not exist? What about any other object? Maybe we should define "exist". i.e. to what extent are we satified to what reality is and is not.

EDIT:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/mcinerny.html

 

[Van_Dammesque]

People here keep saying 'remove religion', now just how would you go about implementing that? ban the organised side of religion? stop teaching it in schools? sure those measures can be implemented but further than that when those measures fail and religion is still evident, what then? just how far would you go? stop the individual from practicing his faith in his home? fine him? imprison him? burn his books?

When all of this fails what then? go from burning books to burning people?

Been there done that and failed...

To believe strongly in something is a religion in itself whether that's a personal faith in a deity or an anti faith like atheism...

A very good question! Maybe the OP can answer that as it would be his policies!
However I do like we the way the french have gone, maybe something the UK should adopt.

 

[Tonks]

Further from my last post, I have a strong faith, it does not interfere with anyone, does not impose itself on others and gives me a strong moral set of rules that if followed can only do good and not harm to others.

My faith/religion reminds me that there is an entity that is stronger than me and that one day I will have to answer to as to the way I lived my life and how I treated others.

To what lengths are those who want my faith eradicated willing to go about that? prison camps? a lobotomy? brainwashing? worse? start punishing my loved ones to make me renounce my faith?

Just what would that make those forcing their believes on me? fanatics with their own beliefs, I guess you would call them religious fanatics...

Its the pot calling the kettle black.....

 

[Bear]

The essence of my argument is this. With no way to prove or disprove something, does it not come down to a persons faith to one side of the argument. You say God doesn't exist, and you have utter faith in it, you can't prove it but you still believe it. Others say God does exist, again they can't prove it, but their belief is unshakeable.

Neither side has the upper hand, but again neither side can claim that what they believe is factual.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't state that religion etc is wrong and misguided. As your opinion there's no problem, as a statement of fact it's exactly the same as those who argue that the existence of God is a fact.

Well said, unfortunately the people that propose logic to disbelieve in God in their overbearing manner lack the clarity of thought to realise their hypocracy.

It always makes me laugh how someone will say they believe in God and how someone that doesnt believe gets all agressive with the idea of science and proof, yet the believer is supposed to sit there and take it all. Its usually never the case that the believer pushes the non believer to come up with some proof.

As said the logical stance is to sit on the fence and say I dont know because we genuinely dont, but obviously the non belivers need their crutch.

 

[Van_Dammesque]

Well said, unfortunately the people that propose logic to disbelieve in God in their overbearing manner lack the clarity of thought to realise their hypocracy.

It always makes me laugh how someone will say they believe in God and how someone that doesnt believe gets all agressive with the idea of science and proof, yet the believer is supposed to sit there and take it all. Its usually never the case that the believer pushes the non believer to come up with some proof.

As said the logical stance is to sit on the fence and say I dont know because we genuinely dont, but obviously the non belivers need their crutch.

Is it also logical that Santa Claus exists? Or the flying spaghetti monster or the pixies or the.......

If the believer pushes for proof then I can INFER that since there is no proof then the proposed belief is not valid. If someone PROVES god then I will believe (in a non-religous "belief") that god exists.

 

[Jamie1984]

How is it weak minded to believe in something bigger than yourself?

Religion is simply a set of guidelines to help us live our lives as better people.

People cause death and violence and hatred. Not religion.

If you truly want to stop people killing other people, then kill everyone – otherwise you have no chance.

I firmly believe the problems we are having in society at this time is due to a reduction in the numbers of people going to church. As has been noted the parents are primarily at fault but look at when these parents stopped going to church. Usually when they were in their early adulthood and their parents stopped taking them (due to moving out etc) This generation resented being made to go to church and now we have this “If they want to follow a religion they can do it when they are grown up and can make their own decisions”. This has resulted in a subsequent generation who have never been to church and have no basic understanding of morals and ethics.

By the time a child is old enough to make this decision it is often too late. My children will go to church until they are old enough to make a decision not to. If they choose not to for genuine reasons (being too lazy is not one) then they will not be forced to go.

Human beings have a basic desire to believe in something bigger and better than them – its what drives us forward.

I have to say i disagree with your point about the attitudes and actions of the youngsters these days has anything to do with church. I was never brought up around religion and Id like to think my parents have instilled in me a firm set of morals. I personally dont see the point in religion and have never desired to go to church, I believe the youngsters of today are little gits because of the blame culture we live in. I was brought up to take responsibility for my actions but it seems the parents of today would rather give blame to anyone and everyone for the actions of their kids.

jamie.

 

[Bear]

Is it also logical that Santa Claus exists? Or the flying spaghetti monster or the pixies or the.......

If the believer pushes for proof then I can INFER that since there is no proof then the proposed belief is not valid. If someone PROVES god then I will believe (in a non-religous "belief") that god exists.

No one is saying they believe in such things only you trying to trivialise other peoples beliefs in an insulting manner. By definition a believer wont ask for proof as they have faith.

 

[Van_Dammesque]

No one is saying they believe in such things only you trying to trivialise other peoples beliefs in an insulting manner.

No insult intended and I am sorry if that is the impression. All I am trying to do is to draw analogies.

 

[Bear]

No insult intended and I am sorry if that is the impression. All I am trying to do is to draw analogies.

Dont worry Im not a believer so I dont feel offended

 

[Tonks]

I think that faith and religion are two seperate things, you can have a faith but not be religious or you can be both. On the other hand you don't have to have a faith in a God to be religious...

see point 4 below..

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

[Glaucus]

you think terrorists are religious.. They'll just use political descions to rage there "war" or some other excuss.

Also you think all religious people are weak minded? The billions out, the scientists, the inventers religion has people from all sectors of life. The weak minded ones are the terrorists..

Also that aint a party, trying to controll people's belives and freedoms is a dictatorship.

I would say people with your attitude are the weak minded, you obviousley have no way to look at whats happening in the world. You seem to need some easy escape goat AKA religion. I'm afraid the world and humans are complicated and it's not that easy.

 

[Tonks]

Are you replying to me?

 

[Glaucus]

Personally I will be teaching my now 13day old son right and wrong as he grows up, I will also not be enforcing any religious doctrine onto him, and if he chooses to take up ANY religion when he is older he will have been able to make an informed decision, see through any **** that may be spouted about fanaticism and be happy with a faith.

and

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.

So where are they going to learn the basics of religion and religion teaching? It's not going to be at school. So now it wont be an informed decision. My mums a christian and I was brought up with the knoledge of religion. I don't go to church now, but If I have children I certainly will teach them a wide spectrum of religion, then It'll be up2 them if they follow it or not. it's also a massive subject and takes at least ages just to get to grips with the basics tahst for one religion.

 

[Glaucus]

Are you replying to me?

The OP and anyone else with the view point relgion = terrorists and killing

with out religion we would have peace.

People who think like this really need to stop reading newspapers, actually study into a religiona nd see what its actually aboutand most importantly discover what type of people actually follow them.

 

[Usher]

I think we should sort out the date in arguments like this, its only 2006 in the christian calander & its the 14th century in the Islamic calander
mind you can anyone work out the actual date without religious references lol

 

[G-MAN2004]

-