Quebec will now ban street prayers as the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) “super-minister” of identity, Jean-François Roberge, has just passed his bill to strengthen secularism.
Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.
That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
So yeah maybe this would be for the best.
This isn’t even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.
Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That’s the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).
And you said this:
Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.
And now you’re trying to backtrack by claiming this:
I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.
No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn’t just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, “ending religions,” in your words).
The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally “institutions forcing their beliefs on others.” So, no, you’re just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.
Also,
In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn’t plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things “reality and science,” or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?
For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?
Who gets to determine what constitutes “science and reality,” and what constitutes “religion and belief,” particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?
Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined “reality”? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.
How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where “reality” can’t be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?
Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I’m not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you. A wall of text arguing semantics… you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity? Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
I’m also pretty confident that doubts and theories in science are unrelated to mysticism. If only in intents.
So much projection and deflection in two short paragraphs, and yet you dismiss all of my (valid and factual) arguments as “a wall of text rooted in semantics” without even attempting to engage honestly with a single thing that I said? Bold strategy, let’s see if it pays off for you…
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you.
I’m not the one attempting to justify my beliefs, you are. My argument here from the start is that institutions shouldn’t enforce beliefs or worldviews, and that individuals should maintain their rights to religious expression.
You’re the only one here arguing otherwise, claiming that we should enforce one set of beliefs because it’s the one that you hold, that everyone who holds other beliefs should be forced to give them up because you don’t agree with them.
you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity?
Not even a little bit. Holy strawman. They’re attempting a religious theocracy, which by definition involves public institutions enforcing one religion. That’s the opposite of what I’ve been saying from the start.
Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
Another strawan. Who the fuck said anything about a “birthright”?!? When did I claim in any way that I’m superior? At what point did anyone mention my mother?
You’re the only one here trying to grant yourself exceptionalism, pretending you’re superior to others. Never in a million years would I agree that you should be the sole arbiter of what everyone else gets to believe.
My guy, they just laid out your argument and demonstrated the particular flaws in your reasoning. What you’re describing isn’t secularism, it’s wishing the state would enforce your particular world view.
Guess what? Removing religious mysticism from the equation doesn’t make that viable or ethical. They already tried this during the French Revolution and it sucked. Giving the state powers to attack nebulous things like metaphysical beliefs is reverting back to the problems we had for thousands of years under Popes and Kings and Caliphs and Emperors.
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
So… quantum gravity theory, string theory, unified field theory, big bang theory, big crunch theory, and dark matter/dark energy are all beliefs then and in your opinion should therefore be banned?
Those are a tad further than opinions and feelings I suspect. And also are absolutely unrelated to how religions are generating suffering and should be abolished.
Well you might want to do more than just “suspect,” because according to the definition of “belief” that you provided, those are still beliefs.
Also, the majority of suffering being “generated by religion” are due to religions trying to force their worldview and set of beliefs on others, which is precisely what you are trying to do.
In other words, the suffering is caused because they want to eliminate people who have a different set of beliefs from their own. Again, which is exactly what you’re attempting to do.
Do you not realize how much “belief” is in science?
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
We still today believe in the big bang theory, not because it’s been proven, but because there’s a consensus that says it’s the most plausible explanation.
Science still doesn’t tell us even what to believe regarding the origins of life and consciousness.
We believe in dark matter and dark energy, not because they’ve been directly observed, but because they’re the best possible explanations that we have at this time for certain phenomena that we believe to be their effects.
We believe that there must be some overarching principles that can unite the formulas of quantum physics and general relativity, but no one knows what they are.
Often in medicine, decisions are made based on what the doctors believe, even when there isn’t 100% certainty.
So stop pretending there’s no such thing as belief in science, because there absolutely is.
I purposely avoided bringing science in this. You did to match your own narrative. No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
We’re talking about worldviews which is just another name for your beliefs about the world. Whatever you base your worldview on is what you believe. That is a basic fact about how words work.
You purposely avoided an angle which plainly shows the error of your assertions? And you’re accusing me of “matching my own narrative” when I show those errors with that angle which you ostensibly avoided?
Also, these are your literal words:
In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.
So no, you didn’t avoid bringing science into this.
Also:
No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
Bold words for someone trying to rationalize forcing your worldview on others by claiming it’s scientific and therefore deserves an exception from the “don’t force your worldview on others” rule…
Have you considered competing in the Olympics? Because those are some impressive mental gymnastics…
Heyaaaa now you’re using fallacies :) I’ll gladly go for olympics if there was a fitting discipline yes.
By all means keep defending Rhodes antiquated systems that promote abuse and suffering. I know where we both stand and it suffice to me; you’re never going to change my views on that.
Really? Point out the fallacy that I used? Cause I’ve already pointed out several that you have.
I’m not defending any systems, I’m defending people’s rights to believe in the worldviews of their own choosing, and categorically rejecting any system that would force one set of beliefs on everyone else.
systems that promote abuse and suffering.
You think atheists can’t promote abuse and suffering? What about the Bolsheviks who committed genocide in the name of purging religion? You support that suffering, because the people you don’t like are the ones suffering?
So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don’t agree with theirs?
That’s no better than forced conversions…
Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others. That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism. So yeah maybe this would be for the best.
Let’s recap.
Literally, what I said was this:
And you said this:
And now you’re trying to backtrack by claiming this:
No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn’t just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, “ending religions,” in your words).
The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally “institutions forcing their beliefs on others.” So, no, you’re just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.
Also,
Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn’t plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things “reality and science,” or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?
For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?
Who gets to determine what constitutes “science and reality,” and what constitutes “religion and belief,” particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?
Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined “reality”? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.
How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where “reality” can’t be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?
Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I’m not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.
Your need to justify your own beliefs are blinding you. A wall of text arguing semantics… you agree with the far right in USA that is rooting their system in Christianity? Or you agree that because of birthright via your mother you are superior to me?
I’m also pretty confident that doubts and theories in science are unrelated to mysticism. If only in intents.
So much projection and deflection in two short paragraphs, and yet you dismiss all of my (valid and factual) arguments as “a wall of text rooted in semantics” without even attempting to engage honestly with a single thing that I said? Bold strategy, let’s see if it pays off for you…
I’m not the one attempting to justify my beliefs, you are. My argument here from the start is that institutions shouldn’t enforce beliefs or worldviews, and that individuals should maintain their rights to religious expression.
You’re the only one here arguing otherwise, claiming that we should enforce one set of beliefs because it’s the one that you hold, that everyone who holds other beliefs should be forced to give them up because you don’t agree with them.
Not even a little bit. Holy strawman. They’re attempting a religious theocracy, which by definition involves public institutions enforcing one religion. That’s the opposite of what I’ve been saying from the start.
Another strawan. Who the fuck said anything about a “birthright”?!? When did I claim in any way that I’m superior? At what point did anyone mention my mother?
You’re the only one here trying to grant yourself exceptionalism, pretending you’re superior to others. Never in a million years would I agree that you should be the sole arbiter of what everyone else gets to believe.
“Semantics”
My guy, they just laid out your argument and demonstrated the particular flaws in your reasoning. What you’re describing isn’t secularism, it’s wishing the state would enforce your particular world view.
Guess what? Removing religious mysticism from the equation doesn’t make that viable or ethical. They already tried this during the French Revolution and it sucked. Giving the state powers to attack nebulous things like metaphysical beliefs is reverting back to the problems we had for thousands of years under Popes and Kings and Caliphs and Emperors.
That is your personal belief. You are advocating to force it onto others who do not share it. How is that different from forced conversion?
À belief isn’t rooted in reality. It is a concept close to religions, relying on faith rather than evidence. Are you close to religion yourself maybe?
I’m calling from being responsible and to stop the cancer that are religions. The good it once brought is now inferior to the atrocities it sustains so it is time to call for its end.
That is the stands I take. Nothing related to beliefs.
Oooohh you just don’t know what words mean. Okay. I’ll let someone with more patience for stupidity handle this. Good day to you.
Fresh from the Oxford Dictionary ;
But please be my guest and educate me.
So… quantum gravity theory, string theory, unified field theory, big bang theory, big crunch theory, and dark matter/dark energy are all beliefs then and in your opinion should therefore be banned?
Those are a tad further than opinions and feelings I suspect. And also are absolutely unrelated to how religions are generating suffering and should be abolished.
Well you might want to do more than just “suspect,” because according to the definition of “belief” that you provided, those are still beliefs.
Also, the majority of suffering being “generated by religion” are due to religions trying to force their worldview and set of beliefs on others, which is precisely what you are trying to do.
In other words, the suffering is caused because they want to eliminate people who have a different set of beliefs from their own. Again, which is exactly what you’re attempting to do.
And you believe this definition to be true?
Nope. I don’t need to believe in them, they just are. Produced by persons undoubtedly smarter than I am.
So you trust this definition because experts have told you it is so?
Do you not realize how much “belief” is in science?
Someone believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven.
We still today believe in the big bang theory, not because it’s been proven, but because there’s a consensus that says it’s the most plausible explanation.
Science still doesn’t tell us even what to believe regarding the origins of life and consciousness.
We believe in dark matter and dark energy, not because they’ve been directly observed, but because they’re the best possible explanations that we have at this time for certain phenomena that we believe to be their effects.
We believe that there must be some overarching principles that can unite the formulas of quantum physics and general relativity, but no one knows what they are.
Often in medicine, decisions are made based on what the doctors believe, even when there isn’t 100% certainty.
So stop pretending there’s no such thing as belief in science, because there absolutely is.
I purposely avoided bringing science in this. You did to match your own narrative. No need for science when everywhere around us, plainly visible, religions are causing wars and sufferings.
This is you bringing science into this.
Let’s go back and stick with reality and facts. My bad.
We’re talking about worldviews which is just another name for your beliefs about the world. Whatever you base your worldview on is what you believe. That is a basic fact about how words work.
Let’s go back and forget about all the things you’ve said that are wrong and all the ways you’ve contradicted yourself?
I don’t think so…
deleted by creator
You purposely avoided an angle which plainly shows the error of your assertions? And you’re accusing me of “matching my own narrative” when I show those errors with that angle which you ostensibly avoided?
Also, these are your literal words:
So no, you didn’t avoid bringing science into this.
Also:
Bold words for someone trying to rationalize forcing your worldview on others by claiming it’s scientific and therefore deserves an exception from the “don’t force your worldview on others” rule…
Have you considered competing in the Olympics? Because those are some impressive mental gymnastics…
Heyaaaa now you’re using fallacies :) I’ll gladly go for olympics if there was a fitting discipline yes.
By all means keep defending Rhodes antiquated systems that promote abuse and suffering. I know where we both stand and it suffice to me; you’re never going to change my views on that.
Really? Point out the fallacy that I used? Cause I’ve already pointed out several that you have.
I’m not defending any systems, I’m defending people’s rights to believe in the worldviews of their own choosing, and categorically rejecting any system that would force one set of beliefs on everyone else.
You think atheists can’t promote abuse and suffering? What about the Bolsheviks who committed genocide in the name of purging religion? You support that suffering, because the people you don’t like are the ones suffering?