International atheists declare church/state principles

[Phasmid]

Which of the principles listed do you disagree with? Why?

They seem like sound principles to me. I agree with them, and furthermore I agreed with them when I was a Christian.

Please read my previous post. I don't disagree with the principles... I just don't see the purpose in the atheist label to something that seems more political than religious.

 

[Engyo]

Correct me if im wrong, but arent some of these points obvious to begin with, why does an organized group of atheists need to go out of their way to state some of these obvious points, arent these points at least officially implemented in our societies?

Case in point:

June 28th, 2010

Secularist billboard defaced
It was meant to be controversial: a billboard campaign with the message "One Nation Indivisible," purposely leaving out the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience. Over the weekend, vandals replaced those words on one of the signs with spray paint

Secularist billboard defaced – Religion - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Magic Man]

Correct me if im wrong, but arent some of these points obvious to begin with, why does an organized group of atheists need to go out of their way to state some of these obvious points, arent these points at least officially implemented in our societies?

In some societies they are at least officially implemented, but not fully, and there are many who would rather do away with them. What is the problem with a group of atheists stating these things?

further more, yes I do believe fanclubs of sports team are acting on the most primitive religious instincts in many cases.

I think you're using a different definition of "religion" than I am.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Rather like a 39 articles...
They will be embarrassed by it later.

 

[Magic Man]

Rather like a 39 articles...
They will be embarrassed by it later.

Why??

 

[Caladan]

In some societies they are at least officially implemented, but not fully, and there are many who would rather do away with them. What is the problem with a group of atheists stating these things?

To me it is an expression of dogmatic psychology. as I said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think that its more constructive for atheists to be up to date with science and politics, and not stick a banner in the ground with a dogma of their own, we are skeptics, critics, not priests.

 

[Magic Man]

To me it is an expression of dogmatic psychology.

I don't understand why. Do you consider the U.S. Constitution to be dogma? It's writing down a bunch of principles that just make sense.

as I said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But it is broke in some places.

I think that its more constructive for atheists to be up to date with science and politics, and not stick a banner in the ground with a dogma of their own, we are skeptics, critics, not priests.

I think I'm just confused why you see this as dogma.

 

[Caladan]

I don't understand why. Do you consider the U.S. Constitution to be dogma? It's writing down a bunch of principles that just make sense.

I think this question will go into too philosophical places, but my idea is that why does a collective of atheists need to declare principles in the first place?
I think it only weakens atheism, and categorizes atheists as a 'religious group' for lack of better words, atheism and atheists can be much more effective when they challenge scientific misconceptions, social affairs, politics from a position of criticism, accurate criticism, without what seems to be a dogma behind them. atheism thrives on criticising social phenomena, once we as atheists give in to the same social categories religious bodies do, our power disintegrates.

I think I'm just confused why you see this as dogma.

This is what im getting from this, it seems like these people are following a collective psychology similiar to that of an organized religious body, while to me atheism thrives on individualism and a creative collective which operates as an observer and social critic, in the frame of social discourse which doesn't involve declaring any creed or principles. if these people have declared principles, what next? are they going to preach these principles in the near future?

 

[Magic Man]

atheism thrives on criticising social phenomena, once we as atheists give in to the same social categories religious bodies do, our power disintegrates.

You never answered the question. And how is this not "criticizing social phenomena"? I thought that was exactly what it was.

This is what im getting from this, it seems like these people are following a collective psychology similiar to that of an organized religious body, while to me atheism thrives on individualism and a creative collective which operates as an observer and social critic, in the frame of social discourse which doesn't involve declaring any creed or principles. if these people have declared principles, what next? are they going to preach these principles in the near future?

I'm surprised by your reaction to this, I must say. All they're doing is saying the equivalent of "Hey, we think murder is wrong, and shouldn't be done", but they're replacing "murder" with other common sense issues.

 

[Caladan]

You never answered the question. And how is this not "criticizing social phenomena"? I thought that was exactly what it was.

I guess you are simply going to have to try to understand me intuitively.

I'm surprised by your reaction to this, I must say. All they're doing is saying the equivalent of "Hey, we think murder is wrong, and shouldn't be done", but they're replacing "murder" with other common sense issues.

I think atheists need to express their common sense in the battlefield of public debate, on line debate, and social debates in general, by providing accurate information, and not by declaring principles as a religious or a political body.

 

[Magic Man]

I guess you are simply going to have to try to understand me intuitively.

Why? Why don't you want to answer the previous question or the question posed in that post?

I think atheists need to express their common sense in the battlefield of public debate, on line debate, and social debates in general, by providing accurate information, and not by declaring principles as a religious or a political body.

Cool, me, too. That's why I have no problem with this at all. But that's because I don't see it as "declaring principles as a religious or a political body". I'm still trying to understand why you do. I expect that kind of idea from some Christians or Muslims here who have something against atheism, but not from you.

 

[Caladan]

Why? Why don't you want to answer the previous question or the question posed in that post?

I dont think I can explain myself further than I did, its either a person gets my instinctive reaction to this or perhaps not.

Cool, me, too. That's why I have no problem with this at all. But that's because I don't see it as "declaring principles as a religious or a political body". I'm still trying to understand why you do. I expect that kind of idea from some Christians or Muslims here who have something against atheism, but not from you.

As an atheist I don't plan to come out with declared principles, my atheism thrives on analysis and criticism of existing religious and social phenomena, without coming out with commandments of my own.

 

[Willamena]

We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief[1], and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.[2]
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.[3]
• History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.[4]
• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.[4]
• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.[5]
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce[6]. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.[7]
• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation[8].
• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs[9]. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference
Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.

Those guidelines are marvelous, and respectable except for the fourth, which is laughable. A bit of a non-sequitur as well --makes me wonder who stuck that in at the last second.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why??

Because some of what might be seen by some as self evident now, will be seen later as false.

Even your constitution needed amendments, and from most European points of view still does.

The 39 Articles was an attempt to write Protestant principals into the Anglican Faith. unfortunately many of them were pure Calvinism. which is contrary to majority Anglican belief.

It is better not to cast these things in stone.

 

[Sunstone]

Those guidelines are marvelous, and respectable except for the fourth, which is laughable. A bit of a non-sequitur as well --makes me wonder who stuck that in at the last second.

Why do you think the fourth point is laughable. I think it's too vague to be anything less than problematic, but I'm curious what you think.

 

[dust1n]

International atheists declare church/state principles

The Humanist Contemplative | HoustonBelief.com

The Atheist Alliance International (AAI) is an organization founded in 1992, with about 50 member organizations from 15 nations. AAI held its conference this month in Copenhagen, Denmark. The conference was on Gods & Politics, looking at the issue of religion and government and challenges facing non-believers. It hosted a wide range of speakers, including Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Dan Barker, PZ Myers, and one of my favorites, author A.C. Grayling who wrote Meditations for the Humanist.
One result of the conference was the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life. The declaration was as follows:

Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life



We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief[1], and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.[2]
• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.[3]
• History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.[4]
• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.[4]
• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.[5]
• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce[6]. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.[7]
• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation[8].
• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs[9]. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference
Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.
[a PDF of the declaration can be downloaded here]

See this link for footnotes

I have no immediate problems with the guidelines as it would be a huge advancement of humility in the world.

But I'm absurdist first, an anarchist second, and an atheist last.

I do not need anyone to delegate to me how to run my own affairs, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Family,etc. which leads me to believe this whole situation is absurd.

 

[Magic Man]

I dont think I can explain myself further than I did, its either a person gets my instinctive reaction to this or perhaps not.

OK, I was just hoping for a logical reason for it. I guess I'll have to settle for "instinct".

As an atheist I don't plan to come out with declared principles, my atheism thrives on analysis and criticism of existing religious and social phenomena, without coming out with commandments of my own.

So, you don't believe separation of church and state is a good thing? You wouldn't come out and say "I think that's a good thing"? Would you come out and say "Murder is a bad thing", or "Discrimination against homosexuals is a bad thing"? I'm wondering where you draw the line here.

 

[Magic Man]

Because some of what might be seen by some as self evident now, will be seen later as false.

You're right. We just shouldn't have laws either. We wouldn't want to look at them later and say "Why did we ever think murder was bad? Now I'm embarrassed.".

Even your constitution needed amendments, and from most European points of view still does.

Yes, but there are some things that you can state clearly and confidently. I think you'd agree that it's OK to write in stone "It's never acceptable to take someone's life without any provocation". Just like it's OK to write "It's never acceptable to discriminate against someone because of their skin color or sexuality". I hope you agree that there are times that writing something in stone won't make you embarrassed. The question is why you think this is one time when it will make them embarrassed. Which of the points do you think will be viewed differently later?

 

[Caladan]

So, you don't believe separation of church and state is a good thing? You wouldn't come out and say "I think that's a good thing"? Would you come out and say "Murder is a bad thing", or "Discrimination against homosexuals is a bad thing"? I'm wondering where you draw the line here.

Are you saying these things are exclusively atheistic? do we even know if they were first propagated by atheists?
I debate these issues all the time, but we should not present these as atheistic commandments, first and foremost they are the guidelines of citizens, whether they are atheist or not.

 

[Magic Man]

Are you saying these things are exclusively atheistic?

No, what gave you that impression?

do we even know if they were first propagated by atheists?

Does it matter?

I debate these issues all the time, but we should not present these as atheistic commandments, first and foremost they are the guidelines of citizens, whether they are atheist or not.

Who presented them as atheistic commandments? I think herein lies the problem. I'm not sure how you classify these as "atheistic commandments".