The atheist Uthopia, what ae we to expect?

AtomicHorror

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Depends on whats more important to them. Teaching the methodology and facts of science or using terms like "intelligent design" or "evolution is just a theory".

A person who holds religious beliefs that have no basis in fact, science or evidence but understands that these beiefs are held irrationally or in defiance of evidence but still teaches science without colouring it with their personal issues is fine.

The one who insists on teaching ID as a viable alternative to evolution or condemns "science" as immoral or any of the other seething gibberish we have seen pushed in classrooms should be prevented from teaching in any state funded school.

Personally? I would hope that science and its methodology would be taught well enough that a persons religious beliefs (if discovered) would have little baring on the assimiliation of information by students because they would be able to separate the two (fact supported by evidence and superstition).

Well, sticking to the curriculum should avoid any unpleasantness.

AtomicHorror

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Shopw me the scientific evidence favoring circumcision. Not being cheeky but I havent seen it and everything I have seen suggests that there is zero benefit and/or zero detriment. In other words, its waffle and mutilation without necessity.

(this does not include circumcisions due to a small number of medical discomfort complaints).

The latest meta analysis shows a benefit in reducing HIV infection rates. I'm in two minds as to whether that justifies a surgery outside of cultural acceptance though. If the same effect were achievable by cutting off the ear lobes, would we accept it? My point was merely that the matter would require considerable debate before being prohibited on (anti)religious grounds.

At any rate, as per your request, the evidence:

Padian et al. (2008) Lancet. Aug 16;372(9638):585-99.
Supports a protective effect vs HIV infection.

However another meta-analysis:

Millett et al. (2008) JAMA. Oct 8;300(14):1674-84
This casts significant doubt on whether the protection extends to homosexual sex.

AtomicHorror

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Hang on a minute here! there is freedom of speech and then their is propagandising for a chosen few. Show me the Judaic shows on RTE? What about the prime time Islam centric prgramming? What of the atheist, satanist, pagan, wiccan, Hindu, Buddhist etc pouint of view represented on the 6 o' clock shows bropadcast by the state?

I'm not saying deny their right to braodcast - but do it on an independant non-state funded network. Why should I pay for points of view I do not agree with regardless of freedom of speech? Why should I pony up for the right for a vested interest to profess their superstitions on a national network without contest?

The creationists dont take a step forward by being denied their right to un-contested propaganda.

I'm not suggesting that the religious broadcasting be given special treatment. I certainly don't agree with the institutionalised angelus broadcast. I'm suggesting that we treat them as we would treat any other party willing to front the money for broadcast time. That would include the groups you mention. This of course would be subject to many state broadcasting policies. Unfounded statements, incitement to hatred etc... all neatly squashed

AtomicHorror

asdasd wrote: »

As I said the Angelus is traditional. And it is bells. Hardly propagandistic. Nor do most minority religions oppose it. Only MAD ANGRY SECULARISTS. And on the Jewish new year the Chief Rabbi of Ireland pops up on RTE to say a few words. In any case do you want this type of programming to be extended to all religions ( which may be the minority religious view), or to remove all religious programming entirely, which is the ANGRY SECULARIST view. I am partial to songs of praise on BBC on a Sunday. Want to ban that? Because it upsets you. Cry us a river.

I haven't seen any MAD ANGRY SECULARISTS on this thread just yet. You seem rather mad and angry yourself though.

The angelus. It is bells and religious iconography. Traditions can be broken. The angelus is one that should be binned, to be fair. It's on every day on a channel that caters to a wide audience. The state is participating in the promotion of a specific religion and that is not on.

Naturally the people complaining are secularists. We'd hardly expect to see a catholic supporting increased church-state connection calling for the angelus to be scrapped now would we? But I think you'll find that not all secularists are atheists. Nor are they particularly mad or angry. I know a number of Catholics who don't agree with the broadcasting of the angelus on the same grounds that I do.

Hivemind187

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The latest meta analysis shows a benefit in reducing HIV infection rates. I'm in two minds as to whether that justifies a surgery outside of cultural acceptance though. If the same effect were achievable by cutting off the ear lobes, would we accept it? My point was merely that the matter would require considerable debate before being prohibited on (anti)religious grounds.

At any rate, as per your request, the evidence:

Padian et al. (2008) Lancet. Aug 16;372(9638):585-99.
Supports a protective effect vs HIV infection.

However another meta-analysis:

Millett et al. (2008) JAMA. Oct 8;300(14):1674-84
This casts significant doubt on whether the protection extends to homosexual sex.

That is extremely interesting. I wasnt aware that they were seriously considering it as an option however I would point out two minor criticisms of it.

1) The articles make no mention of when the circumcisions took place however application of a little common sesne would tell you that it was (mostly) while men were young or infants. This suggests that the increased resistance to the transmission of the HIV virus from female to male during sexual intercourse is a side effect rather than true provilaxix. It is already less likely for a female to pass the virus to a male or female partner during intercourse and the "toughening" of the exposed tissue on and around the glans is likely responsible (if not the absense of tissue retaining infected cells etc from the female). The article also mentions that there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that circumcision is protective against HIV during homosexual encounters.

2) The purpose of circumcision was not to prevent or protect against AIDS and other STI's. It was done as part of a bizarre sacrificial blood rite stemming from stone age tribes. That there are claims that it might have some very minor benefit in terms of resistance is no reason to continue this absurdly mutilative practice on men (and women) when their is a safer, healthier and more reliable provilactive available: the condom.


With regard to the teaching issue. I agree that if a curriculum could be adhered to that was completely without error, bias etc that would be great. Trouble is it is impossible to have one (in my opinion). The instant you attempt to include all of the horrible stuff that religion is responsible for as part of the class in oprder to provide a balanced view of the subject you will leave yourself open to manipulation of the information by those with an agenda. Either by demands that sections be omitted due to objections that it characterises their faith as wantonly sociopathic or that the individual teacher may "omit" or colour the content during its delivery.

If they are willing to pay for their own schools where they can teach their ideology alongside the academic basics then fine, as much as it annoys me that they can do it I havent the right to prevent them since I have no investment in it.

With regard to broadcasting. I see your point but I still do not like the idea of a state funded broadcasting network carrying any religious content at all. The network is part of the state and is paid for by the people of that state. If there is a true separation of church and state then how does one reconcile the presence of the angelus (whether its paid for or not) or any other religious prgramming?

Understandably the station requires money to keep itself going but there should be a certain level of ethics applied to what ends a state broadcaster can be put to. Otherwise you could have had the IRA on at 3pm and 7pm reading a litany of reasons the British should be out of the six counties simply because they could pay for it. The vast majority of people would not want that kind of sectarian gobbledygook on their idiot-box when they would rather be watching Emmerdale.

I know what you mean about the broadcasting standards but the trouble is how do you apply them? Unfounded statements such as "Jesus loves you" or "He is risen". These are unfounded statemetns save for self reference to their own scriptures. Considering that the Muslims disagree that christ was the son of God they could claim that it is an unfounded claim made by Christians who could then, in turn, demand that a disclaimer be included during the entire Ramadan celebration to the effect that by todays standards Mohammad was a pederast and illiterate. One could argue that the Judaic celebration of passover is a reminder to those of an Egyption descent that their children were "spared" the wrath of god while thousands of innocent Eygyptian male infants were slaughtered by their vengeful deity (not too different from stomping up and down the Ormo road with orange sashes etc) - would that not qualify as incitement of hatred?

I wonder if there is any way in which religions could be permitted to have their moments on the telly without breaching secularist rules. Better, in my opinion to put a pin in all religious broadcasts and say "no, you'll just have to go to a private network".

Dades

Only just gotten around to reading in full this excellent thread.

If nothing else it provides an great example of the differences in thinking and approaches to issues by people who share nothing in common except a disbelief in gods.

Keep it up, preferably with less baiting of each other.

seamus

I have brushed over the longer posts here somewhat, but all I would look for is something very basic, such as the removal of all special privileges religion receivies in any area, so that it is firmly put where it should be - as a leisure pursuit which people are free to engage in when they wish; like going to the gym or swimming or drinking or whatever.

I would be against religious "schools" in so far as the school teaching things outside of the curriculum during the normal school day. In exactly the same way as a rugby school isn't allowed to force all children to play rugby for part of the their school day, instead it must be extracurricular, so too it should be for religion.

Philosophy and perhaps a very open theological curriculum would be a must on the national curriculum though.

Of course, it would be horrifically difficult to just go through statutes and bye-laws and whatever else and eliminate religious links. It would make more sense to introduce a (free) standard procedure whereby someone could challenge a law or any other kind of ruling/decision on the basis that the law is either rooted in religious belief or that it provides preference to one or more religious beliefs.

asdasd

Keep it up, preferably with less baiting of each other.

Yeah. I must apologise for the capilalization of the MAD ANGRY SECULARIST type. Just read that back.

Generally an ad hominen. Otherwise my points stand.

asdasd

To continue the theme. I believe not in god, nor religion, but in tradition. I think that banning of religious ( or once religious) ceremonies is firmly going to radicalise the population.

So lets move on from the Angelus, and Schools etc.

Lets talk about the elephant in the room. Christmas.

Whats the Atheist position on Christmas, specifically

1) Is it a public holiday?
2) Is the next day a public holiday?
3) Should taxpayers money be spent on decorations of towns?
4) Should cities and towns have christmas trees.

I know that some of this can be gotten over by asking private enterprise to take over the lights, for instance, or putting a tree on private ground ( which would exclude O'Connell St.).

Anyway in the Atheist Utopia how does it work.

seamus

Actually, as holidays go I would imagine that Christmas is probably one of the ones that gets the biggest thumbs up from humanists everywhere.

The basic ideal of christmas for most of us now, is taking a week of your life to spend time with your close family and friends, enjoy their company and show them that you care.

Yes, most of us obviously spend time with these people during the year, but christmas is about celebrating our relationships and being able to spend time with eachother free of the usual annoyances that life brings.

It would be ridiculously easy to strip the religion out of christmas. I would argue that the vast majority of people have already done so. I know I have

Giving the entire country two days off to spend time with their families, drink and be merry, sounds like a pretty damn good idea to me.

CerebralCortex

asdasd wrote: »

1) Is it a public holiday?

End of the year, middle of the winter needs some crack I'd say. That present bull**** really wrecks my head though.

asdasd wrote: »

2) Is the next day a public holiday?

Not sure what you mean to imply?

asdasd wrote: »

3) Should taxpayers money be spent on decorations of towns?

Definitely not.

asdasd wrote: »

4) Should cities and towns have christmas trees.

I don't think so damn pagan traditions.

robindch

seamus wrote: »

Actually, as holidays go I would imagine that Christmas is probably one of the ones that gets the biggest thumbs up from humanists everywhere.

No doubt since it wasn't christian to start with

asdasd

No doubt since it wasn't christian to start with

It was religious though, and all religions incorporate older traditions. It has been christian - waxing and waning in popularity for 1,500 years. Thats long enough.

It would be ridiculously easy to strip the religion out of christmas. I would argue that the vast majority of people have already done so. I know I have

No mangers chez you then.

However that is not good enough. Some muslims wont celebrate christmas, as either christian or pagan. And the day is not a special day in most of the world.

So why not just do the new year. In the Atheist Utopia 25th dec is not a public holiday. 26 ( I mentioned this as it is also a religious day) is not a holiday.

So we add days to the new year, or to the equinox. 21st and 22nd off. 25th a working day ( with some religious types taking it off at the cost of a days holiday). No special programming on television. No events in local cities - even if predominantly Christian - no Pope on TV unless you have subscribed to a religious channel, no Queen for the West Brits, no Christmas Carol ( unless subscribed to a religious channel, or the private Christmas channel).

Is that the size of it?

Dades

Taking religion out of Christmas would ruin it for the children. We'd have to replace it with some other concept of omnipotent reward and punishment.

Anyone any ideas?

seamus

asdasd wrote: »

So why not just do the new year. In the Atheist Utopia 25th dec is not a public holiday. 26 ( I mentioned this as it is also a religious day) is not a holiday.

Why change it? You said you're a traditionalist What difference would it make whether it takes place on the 25th of December or the 1st of June?
However, the timing is quite good. Overall, it means that we spend the final days of each year (and the first couple of the new one) celebrating our relationships and looking ahead to the future. Seems like ideal timing to me.

No special programming on television. No events in local cities - even if predominantly Christian - no Pope on TV unless you have subscribed to a religious channel, no Queen for the West Brits, no Christmas Carol ( unless subscribed to a religious channel, or the private Christmas channel).

There can be secular events and secular celebrations. If people want to have religious celebrations, the relevant churches can pay for it. The vast bulk of "special" programming now is family movies and stories about Santa. Stories about the whole birth and the rest of that kind of thing are very much in the minority in my experience.

I would theoretically have no problem with the broadcast of such stories (given how it's considered a "special" time by some religions), provided that the state broadcaster incurred no cost in making the programme and the relevant religious organisation paid advertising costs appropriate to the full length of the broadcast.

Where a story is Christmas-related and contains elements of religion but is not specifically religious (think Dickens), I see no reason to prevent it being broadcast. You don't throw out classic stories just because they contain elements of an older culture. 20,000 leagues under the sea and The Time Machine are still great novels, even if horrifically outdated.

Goduznt Xzst

my atheist utopia would have abortion clinics on every street corner, allowed consensual cannibalism and incest as well as optional eugenics for couples wishing to conceive.

What a wonderful world it will be

Seriously though, you remove religion and you are still left with inherent socialization. Even if all religions where destroyed today, I'd say it will be generations before the effects of them have worn off.

Still there are a lot of subjects also that humans emotively feel are wrong, so are likely to be banned, even if it is against the will of the individual.

I think when you accept that God doesn't exist and take a cold hard look at humans without our derived notions of good and evil you begin to see that we really are still savage animals.

asdasd

Why change it? You said you're a traditionalist What difference would it make whether it takes place on the 25th of December or the 1st of June?

Ah, so what difference is a few bells at 6 o'clock :-)

The thing is if the 25th is a public holiday in your Atheist State, and also a religious holiday - then clearly it is recognising the religious holiday of a specific religion even if we call the day off something else. People will know this.

See thats the compromise I am looking for with the Angelus. Its just bells. Nobody is getting hurt.


My work here is done.

Dave!

seamus wrote: »

Actually, as holidays go I would imagine that Christmas is probably one of the ones that gets the biggest thumbs up from humanists everywhere.

The basic ideal of christmas for most of us now, is taking a week of your life to spend time with your close family and friends, enjoy their company and show them that you care.

Yes, most of us obviously spend time with these people during the year, but christmas is about celebrating our relationships and being able to spend time with eachother free of the usual annoyances that life brings.

It would be ridiculously easy to strip the religion out of christmas. I would argue that the vast majority of people have already done so. I know I have

Giving the entire country two days off to spend time with their families, drink and be merry, sounds like a pretty damn good idea to me.

I agree... Alot of people like to point out "if you get rid of religion, then you'll be in college/work all year round and never get to spend time with family and friends!!!"


Or there could just be more public holidays?

seamus

asdasd wrote: »

See thats the compromise I am looking for with the Angelus. Its just bells. Nobody is getting hurt.

How about if they change the name of it to "A minute of reflection" and each day they play a piece of easy listening music accompanied by the usual montage?

Do you still think people would call it the angelus?

asdasd

Do you still think people would call it the angelus?

I'd still prefer bells. But that would be alright.

robindch

asdasd wrote: »

It was religious though, and all religions incorporate older traditions.

Er, I thought that religions were all about their own eternal truths, not swiping bits of other religions and rebranding them?

asdasd wrote: »

]It has been christian - waxing and waning in popularity for 1,500 years. Thats long enough.

You can't unsteal an idea. Today's christmas used to be the Saturnalia, and before that no doubt it was something else. The only thing that's constant is each age's claiming the fun for themselves, and certain types complaining that it's getting too materialistic. See Seneca the Younger's comment.

asdasd wrote: »

In the Atheist Utopia 25th dec is not a public holiday. 26 ( I mentioned this as it is also a religious day) is not a holiday.

Personally, I'd go with "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life" day. Or indeed, week.

asdasd

Er, I thought that religions were all about their own eternal truths, not swiping bits of other religions and rebranding them?

Strawman. You are not arguing against someone religious, but a traditionalist.

Today's christmas used to be the Saturnalia,

So what. Still religious. Fundamentalist muslims are opposed to Christmas not only because it is Christian, but also because of it's pagan roots. If the argument is we need a secular State then Christmas has to go even as a secular holiday which it can never fully be.

Personally, I'd go with "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life" day. Or indeed, week.

Thats your christmas message, I assume?

But no public holiday, no publicly funded trees, no publicy funded choirs etc. Why do we even have this day off? It is clearly a religious day. It will remain a religious day. There will be obligatory mass.

Surely the Atheist Utopia moves the mid-winter festival to another day.

Thats the point. Otherwise it clearly remains Christmas.

seamus

asdasd wrote: »

There will be obligatory mass.

Obligatory for those who feel it is.

Surely the Atheist Utopia moves the mid-winter festival to another day.

Thats the point. Otherwise it clearly remains Christmas.

Only for those who recognise it as a religious holiday. Which ever-increasing numbers of people do not.

You could be guaranteed that if we moved it (for example), to the first week in January, then one or more of the churches would move their feasts to those dates, both to avail of the days off and to avoid the atheist festival from becoming the "dominant" one.

They did it before: They would do it again. It's no coincidence that so many festivals take place at that time of year - they're all trying to get your attention.

asdasd

Only for those who recognise it as a religious holiday. Which ever-increasing numbers of people do not.

But I knew an orthodox Jewish girl who did nothing for christmas. It wasnt her festival. She left for India. I said the modern feast was mostly secular. No go. She opposed the Christian roots.

So you can't have a secular festival with Christian roots. You have to move the day.

And so on to that argument.

You could be guaranteed that if we moved it (for example), to the first week in January, then one or more of the churches would move their feasts to those dates, both to avail of the days off and to avoid the atheist festival from becoming the "dominant" one.

No they wouldn't. Even if Christianity "stole" from Saturnalia the Western Christian date is 1,700 years old. Pope Julius 4th Century.

Since the new Utopia is clearly trying to compete with Christianity with it's new date, there is damn all chance of the Christians, or us traditionalists, moving the date. We would take the 25th off anyway. You can have your dour festival with the newly minted names, ( Winterval, no doubt), eco-friendly lighting, carbon-neutral pressies, and newly manufactured stories. We'll keep the carols, Santa, Dickens, Mistletoe, the turkey, and Its a wonderful life. All of these relate to one date only. Tradition counts.

In fact it is hard to think of any Western secular festival which matches Christmas - possibly New Years in Scotland, and maybe Thanksgiving in America. But not really. There is little merchandising associated with either.

robindch

asdasd wrote: »

Thats your christmas message, I assume?

Nope, that's my "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life" message. Catchy isn't it? Should put it on a bus.

asdasd wrote: »

Surely the Atheist Utopia moves the mid-winter festival to another day.

Can't imagine that it's going to be that easy to move 21st of December around the calendar. Ideas folks?

asdasd

Catchy isn't it?

No.

Can't imagine that it's going to be that easy to move 21st of December around the calendar. Ideas folks?

What mid-winter festival of any note takes place on the 21st of December?

You seem to think that the term mid-winter refers to an actual day, rather than a time of year. More intelligence needed.

Hint. We're talking about Christmas.

pH

The natives are restless - it's almost that time of year again - time for the Christmas thread.

- 2 years ago we started sheepishly defending our hypocritical enjoyment of the Christian festival.

- Last year we fought back with "didn't those Christians steal it anyway"

- This year surely we can move forward another step with the "Take Christ out of Christmas Campaign" - those Christians openly admit they've no idea when Christ was actually born, and they stuck his birthday on an existing festival to piggy back on a good party, well isn't it time to politely ask the Christians to find another date (maybe mid June?), and leave the rest of us to celebrate Christmas in the spirit it was originally intended: Parties, over indulgence and family arguments, let's leave the religion to some other time of year?

Dades

asdasd wrote: »

Hint. We're talking about Christmas.

Only since you brought it up.

And you're building a few snowman arguments yourself.

robindch

asdasd wrote: »

What mid-winter festival of any note takes place on the 21st of December?

There's a festival around the winter solstice or ("Mid-winter") which takes place roughly, ...um..., half way through winter.

The clue's in the name.

seamus

So you can't have a secular festival with Christian roots. You have to move the day.

No you don't. This girl was religious, not secular. If she has a problem with the roots, well that's her problem. Find me a majority of secular humanists who are actually opposed to celebrating at christmas time because of it's christian roots.

Since the new Utopia is clearly trying to compete with Christianity with it's new date

I never proposed a new date, you did . I fact, I specifically said that we should keep the date cos the timing is good.

We would take the 25th off anyway.

So let's imagine it was a new date. What makes you think that you would get the 25th off, and that people wouldn't simply move their traditional family get-togethers to the new date, when they have two free days off? For a start, if the entire present-buying culture is going to be moved to say the first week in January, then the 25th is going to be right slap-bang in the middle of most companies' busiest season all year. Do you think they're going to give employees time off for a religious date or close up for that day? Not a chance.

So religious adherence to the 25th plummets because everybody's working. And churches independently start celebrating the feast a week or two later. And eventually over the course of 100 years, all of the christian church leaders realise that there's no point in fighting it and move it.

( Winterval, no doubt)

I prefer Winter-een-mas.

We'll keep the carols, Santa, Dickens, Mistletoe, the turkey, and Its a wonderful life. All of these relate to one date only. Tradition counts.

I've already said that there's no need to throw out all that stuff. You don't throw out perfectly good traditions just because you don't like their roots. Christianity knows that well; It hasn't discarded the pagan roots of Christmas.