The first amendment to the US Constitution does not protect anyone against religion. It protects against government intrusion into religion. — T Clark

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

The establishment of religion is not an intrusion into religion.

There can be no protection of religion without protection from religion.

That's the danger - not religion, but religion combined with government. — T Clark

Indeed it is danger and today we are witnessing a troublesome religious intrusion into government. But this is only one aspect of the problem. The larger question is one of the limits of authority, and since religions often hold that their God is the absolute authority it becomes not so much a combination of religion and government that is the problem but one of religion's authority over government. As stated, the authority of law stands over that of religion.

Whatever, I don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand. — T Clark

I asked several questions regarding that but you ignored them.

today we are witnessing a troublesome religious intrusion into government. — Fooloso4

If you are speaking about the US, which is what matters most to me, I don't think that's true. What intrusions did you have in mind?

the authority of law stands over that of religion. — Fooloso4

That's true in the US, but not everywhere. It's a choice people have to make. I support a separation of church and state. Many people do not.

Do you withdraw the suggestion?
— praxis

No. — T Clark

I don't believe the first amendment says anything about special respect and tolerance for religious believers and their beliefs over non-believers and their beliefs, indeed, that would seem to be against the principle of the amendment, to favor one group over another.

What is your reasoning???

And isn't that the problem this thread complains about? It may be aimed at religious threads, but it surely applies to all of them? We can approach it from a number of directions, but what it comes down to is a lack of courtesy. There is an unwillingness to oppose the argument without insulting the arguer. This is bad philosophy. VERY BAD philosophy.

Why don't we make this better? We can, if we choose to.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

(an answer to Pattern-chaser from page 3)

One clear fact is the media itself of the internet. We are discussing these topics with total strangers who we don't know and who we will not meet. Never underestimate how this discussion would change if we were having this in a physical location sitting in a classroom, an auditorium or a cafeteria with people making comments after the person giving the 'opening paragraph' would have made his or her case. Usually people won't directly want to instigate disputes, spread discord and start verbally attacking others, especially when the occasion is an open forum debate. In a contest of some sort between opposite sides where one speaker represents one side and another the other side it can be confrontational, yet people understand they have a role to play.

Then I have to say that courtesy isn't anymore appreciated so much. It's very unfortunate.

And finally, there are those that view Philosophical discussions as competitions and of one side winning and other losing the argument. I'm not in favour seeing philosophical debates as a 'blood-sport', but some competitive people and many young people see it this way.

Why is there yet another thread discussing essentially the same thing?

I don't believe the first amendment says anything about special respect and tolerance for religious believers and their beliefs over non-believers and their beliefs — praxis

Significant the 'non-belief' is regarded as a form of belief. I think that is the underlying issue in many of these debates. The reason being, that unbelief or believing there is no god, is not the same as simply 'having no belief'. For those with no beliefs, there would be nothing to discuss.

Just how special religion is becomes a question at hand. — Fooloso4

Does a belief system that (for arguments sake) insist that every individual life is inherently valuable, deserve recognition over a belief system which says that some types of persons ought to be eliminated or imprisoned for the greater good?

----

A few years back, there was discussion about Jurgen Habermas, one of the most highly esteemed social philosophers on the Continent. I noticed a book on Amazon comprising dialogues between himself and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was to become, and who has since retired from, the office of the Pope, about the role of religion in the modern world.

In his earlier work, Habermas believed, as many did, that the ambition of religion to provide a foundation of social cohesion and normative guidance could now, in the Modern Age, be fulfilled by the full development of human rational capacities harnessed to a “discourse ethics” that admitted into the conversation only propositions vying for the status of “better reasons,” with “better” being determined by a free and open process rather than by presupposed ideological or religious commitments: “…the authority of the holy,” he once declared, “is gradually replaced by the authority of an achieved consensus.”

In recent years, however, Habermas’s stance toward religion has changed. First, he now believes that religion is not going away and that it will continue to play a large and indispensable part in many societies and social movements. And second, he believes that in a post-secular age — an age that recognizes the inability of the secular to go it alone — some form of interaction with religion is necessary: “Among the modern societies, only those that are able to introduce into the secular domain the essential contents of their religious traditions which point beyond the merely human realm will also be able to rescue the substance of the human.”

I emphatically agree with this last, because I am of the view that the human is something more than, or other than, a simply physical phenomenon. But as scientific-secular culture has no 'conceptual space' for such notions, they are relegated to the subjective domain of 'individual conscience', or sublimated into the 'quest for interstellar conquest'. And so on.

What secular reason is missing is self-awareness. It is “unenlightened about itself” in the sense that it has within itself no mechanism for questioning the products and conclusions of its formal, procedural entailments and experiments. “Postmetaphysical thinking,” Habermas contends, “cannot cope on its own with the defeatism concerning reason which we encounter today both in the postmodern radicalization of the ‘dialectic of the Enlightenment’ and in the naturalism founded on a naïve faith in science.”

Postmodernism announces (loudly and often) that a supposedly neutral, objective rationality is always a construct informed by interests it neither acknowledges nor knows nor can know. Meanwhile science goes its merry way endlessly inventing and proliferating technological marvels without having the slightest idea of why. The “naive faith” Habermas criticizes is not a faith in what science can do — it can do anything — but a faith in science’s ability to provide reasons, aside from the reason of its own keeping on going, for doing it and for declining to do it in a particular direction because to do so would be wrong.

Does reason know what it is missing?, Stanley Fish.

Can you offer a reason or reasons why? — praxis

Long story short, this user has not offered any sufficient reasons to support his points, and admittedly said he was only here to "get back at atheists" after admitting prior to be a man of respect and civil discussion above his (bad behavior-ed) cousins that should all just stop talking! All he has done is virtue signal from his vain (invisible) horse while lacking all self-awareness whatsoever to address the fact that his first post was nothing but a passive aggressive jab exhibiting poor behaviors himself (Hey, worship me!). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this guys patterned motives.

He continues to confuse the anti-religious with atheists in earlier posts, then victimizes himself later on, then goes about passively agreeing to the censorship of others while virtue signalling "freedom of religion" and "love for everyone". Either he clearly does not understand "freedom of religion" even means nor what he's talking about, or is just playing over-generalized "ha! take that back!" games - a behaviorindistinguishable from his anti-religious cousins.

Freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion, which OP hypocritically wants to deny people of. Anti-religious people religiously advocate for "no religion", meaning he wants to ban other crazy nuts just so he can make more room to grow his own crazy tree!

Reasoning with him flies right over his head, clearly.

I don't believe the first amendment says anything about special respect and tolerance for religious believers and their beliefs over non-believers and their beliefs
— praxis

Significant the 'non-belief' is regarded as a form of belief. I think that is the underlying issue in many of these debates. The reason being, that unbelief or believing there is no god, is not the same as simply 'having no belief'. For those with no beliefs, there would be nothing to discuss. — Wayfarer

There would be nothing to discuss if these people with no beliefs didn’t care that people with religious beliefs enjoyed a ‘special respect’ and tolerance not afforded to them. I imagine such people would be curious about the reasoning or justification behind their second class status.

Simply put, it's tribalism.

A member of a different tribe gets integrated fully if and only if s/he not only accepts the societal and personal institutions and morals, but also accepts the religion of the tribe adopting him or her.

This is a primal and indelible instinct in humans.

I am an atheist, and as such, try to destroy religionism and recruit more members to my ideology.

The religious do the same thing. Recruit members for their ideology, and destroy other ideologies.

This is so much human nature. Nobody can override this. Not the MODs, nobody. This is the bread and butter of humanity.

As per my previous post, no reason or logic is needed in support of one's effort in trying to proselytise his or her position and ideology.

But there are practical reasons. The religious claim that the lack of fear of god will release a flood of unethical, immoral behaviour. The atheists claim that the religious suppress the dissemination of knowledge due to their fear of the masses turning away from the scriptures, which teach nonsense in today's scientific realism.

These are logical reasons, but in reality have nothing to do with the issue. They are just rationalizations, in the continuing fight of tribalism.

This is so much human nature. Nobody can override this. Not the MODs, nobody. This is the bread and butter of humanity. — god must be atheist

I don't think anyone here wants to change human nature, or even your warped view of it. We just want to stop the assholes from ruining our forum.

even your warped view of it. — T Clark

stop the assholes — T Clark

You can't even separate your personal hatred from your world view. You can't not introduce your personal bias into any argument, claim or statement. You are one of the strongest examples of the tribal behaviour I described, along with my own persona.

This is so much human nature. Nobody can override this. Not the MODs, nobody. This is the bread and butter of humanity. — god must be atheist

So, the "bread and butter" of unthinking humanity should be valued? Actually I wouldn't call it "the bread and butter" but the vomit and excrement.

our forum. — T Clark

You claim ownership of this forum. This is rich.

You can't even separate your personal hatred from your world view. You can't not introduce your personal bias into any argument, claim or statement. You are one of the strongest examples of the tribal behaviour I described, along with my own persona. — god must be atheist

I don't hate you or your beliefs. I don't hate anyone or anything. I do find your beliefs distasteful and mean-spirited. I think the unrestricted expression of them hurts the forum. I don't want the moderators to get involved, so I've taken it on myself to do what I can by expressing my disapproval.

So, the "bread and butter" of unthinking humanity should be valued? Or? — Janus

You missed the point. This is part of humanity, thinking or unthinking. It is part of humanity that can't be divorced from humanity. You may want to disagree, fair enough. Put your reasons down, this is a philosophy forum.

You claim ownership of this forum. This is rich. — god must be atheist

The forum is a community of which I am a member. It's not ownership, it's membership.

I don't hate you or your beliefs. I don't hate anyone or anything. — T Clark

You said this earlier many times. Your religion dictates you to say this. Your other expressions bely your honest efforts to obey this tenet. You are failing at it. (As per your other expressions. I am not inside your head, I can only go by what I read. "I calls them as I sees them.")

The forum is a community of which I am a member. It's not ownership, it's membership. — T Clark

I am a member and my opinion is different. This is strictly a value based opinion. I reject the validity that some members' idea what constitutes "ruining" should be accepted by all members. This is my right as a member, much like you think you all members must assume your position. The difference is you take ownership of all members' opinion ("our forum") whereas I allow differences to be coexisting, and to thrive. You deny that right form others, "becaus they ruin OUR forum". This is not a direct quote, but a quote to denote this is what I think you are saying and are expressing with your words.

The unthinking behavior of humanity does not belong on a philosophy forum; where thinking is the paramount virtue: that is precisely the point that you seem to be missing. Are you saying that thinking people have, or even should have, no control over their unthinking behavior?

The unthinking behavior of humanity does not belong on a philosophy forum; — Janus

the description of it does, though.

But this thread is, as I read it, is about offensive behavior, not about descriptions of offensive behavior.

I expect the MODs to shut down this thread in short order. I am pulling out, because I don't want to waste my time on posts that will be deleted.

I already said my peace. If you disagree, fine, state your reasons, but I shan't respond here and now.

I am a member and my opinion is different. This is strictly a value based opinion. I reject the validity that some members' idea what constitutes "ruining" should be accepted by all members. This is my right as a member, much like you think you all members must assume your position. The difference is you take ownership of all members' opinion ("our forum") whereas I allow differences to be coexisting, and to thrive. You deny that right form others, "becaus they ruin OUR forum". This is not a direct quote, but a quote to denote this is what I think you are saying and are expressing with your words. — god must be atheist

I think you damage the forum with your mean-spirited, disrespectful, insulting, intolerant posts. A lot of other members are sympathetic to my position.

I don't believe the first amendment says anything about special respect and tolerance for religious believers and their beliefs over non-believers and their beliefs, indeed, that would seem to be against the principle of the amendment, to favor one group over another.

What is your reasoning??? — praxis

I haven't responded to your post yet. I don't want to ignore it, but I don't know what to say next. I gave you my explanation. It's clear you don't find it convincing. What else is there to say?

What can be honestly attacked in a belief system is the believer's stating of the beliefs as if they are true. If only a belief could make its object be true, but it can't. Will they go to jail for trying to mislead? No, not usually, but their integrity remains damaged and so they can be called on it. Will anger do anything? No, it only backfires. The same for generalizations without specifics.

I haven't responded to your post yet. I don't want to ignore it, but I don't know what to say next. I gave you my explanation. It's clear you don't find it convincing. What else is there to say? — T Clark

It appears that you also don’t find your explanation convincing, being that you don’t know what to say in response to a counter-view of it.

I don’t know if you’re religious, but in any case, I sense that you FEEL some degree of reverence for religion in general (if not particular), and that’s why you’re unable to reason out your proposal that religious beliefs should be given “special respect” and tolerance, and not afford the same respect and tolerance to non-religious beliefs.

Is that about right?

It appears that you also don’t find your explanation convincing, being that you don’t know what to say in response to a counter-view of it. — praxis

It's not that I don’t think my response was adequate. The opposite. I thought I’d said what needed to be said. Nothing you wrote contradicted what I said. I can understand that you don’t agree, but I don’t know what else to say to convince you.

Since it appears to be a purely emotional issue for you, you might try an emotional appeal. I wouldn’t count on success though.

You’ve made a rather big claim, that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance, but are unable to coherently explain why.

I find that when someone is unable to explain themselves it’s because they don’t fully understand what they’re talking about. Again, if this is just the way you FEEL, then say so.

What can be honestly attacked in a belief system is the believer's stating of the beliefs as if they are true. — PoeticUniverse

You mean if no evidence or argument for the truth of the belief is given? If evidence or argument is offered and it is not logically inconsistent, and yet you disagree with it, what then?