Atheists... Your life is pointless

Sir Elton's "criminality" concept is unfortuanately untenable.

1. What we consider to be "self" is socially aquired.
2. Socialization conditions or predisposes the resultant "self" towards prevailing cultural norms one of which can be "religion".
3. Some "selves" therefore have no integrity or self-coherence without religion.
4. The problem with religion relative to other tribal/cultural binding functions is that it claims "absolute truth" or "divine authority". That is why it tends to be pernicious vis-a-vis inter group relations.

I'll leave the smiting to the gods

real life,

I use the word "unfortunately" for rhetorical effect !

It is indeed unfortunate to observe the sordid history and continuation of the role of religion in armed conflict. There may be a logical case for pedlars of a dangerous drug, like religion, to be classified as "criminals" as in "crimes against humanity"....but when did "logic" hold sway in the arena of human relations. :wink:

real life,

I use the word "unfortunately" for rhetorical effect !

It is indeed unfortunate to observe the sordid history and continuation of the role of religion in armed conflict.

There may be a logical case for pedlars of a dangerous drug, like religion, to be classified as "criminals" as in "crimes against humanity"....but when did "logic" hold sway in the arena of human relations. :wink:

Is the right to participate in organized religion a fundamental human right, CI?

Do you agree with the call to ban organized religion?

This argument about "human rights" is a red herring!

There are trading laws (in the UK at least) where it is an offense to make unsubstantiated claims about "a product", and there are others which forbid its "sale" to children. This is the level at which religion qua "ideas" needs to be handled. The reality is that "users" are enmeshed within a psychological and social dependency web (Dawkins would call it a socially transmitted virus) which we might argue actually delimits their own "human rights" and can interfer with those of others. The implication is that "freedom of religion" = "freedom to succumb to attractive promises of membership benefits of deity clubs".

(In the UK) I am for the promoting of secularist and humanist positions by government and in the media,the rescinding of all forms of "blasphemy legislation",the removal of "charitable status" from religious organizations,

(In the UK) I'm for banning orgnized religion in state schools, state sponsorhip of religious schools. and taking the oath in court on religious books.

I am for the promoting of secularist and humanist positions by government and in the media,the rescinding of all forms of "blasphemy legislation",the removal of "charitable status" from religious organizations,

These measures together should be sufficient to start a seed change within society such that those with the intellectual ability are giving cause to seriously examine the issue.

If the government should be 'viewpoint neutral', then why should it become a cheerleader for the humanist viewpoint?

real life wrote:

If the government should be 'viewpoint neutral', then why should it become a cheerleader for the humanist viewpoint?

Straw man, rl - that which you, either through honestly, disingenuous ignorance or through knowingly duplicitous misconstrual, term "the humanist viewpoint" is not a viewpoint, it is neither theologic nor ideologic, it is cold, hard, irrefutable, unqualified logic, pure and simple fact stripped of conjecture, speculation, superstition and fairytale. Government has no more business dictating what may be thought than has religion any business dictating what may be legislated; in either case what results inevitably is the functional equivalent of a taliban, a stultifying totalitarian regime based on intolerance by decree.