Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Answer from Anonymous Dutch Atheist and from Uzziya

1) ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up), 2) Pentecost Monday, First Check on Questionnaire Answers, Situation Hopeful, 3) Pentecost Monday, Second Check, Situation Less Hopeful, 4) Answer from Anonymous Dutch Atheist and from Uzziya5) Answer from James Toupin

My Original Questionnaire of one Question (sent mainly to Atheists)

Link to previous post ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up)

"Yes, I would love to see a society that mandated therapy to cure religious delusions, and humanely euthanized all who rejected or resisted that therapy. For the good of the human race, primitive superstition needs to be nothing more than something school-children are surprised by, and laugh at, when they learn about it in history."

Do you, as an Atheist, agree with him? Not about me, that is less important, but in general?

If so, tell me.

This is not a multiquestion questionnaire, it is a one question essay question.*

Hans Georg Lundahl

*You are free to specify whether instead of your user name (my default option, since you have already spoken up in public) you prefer the label "anonymised", when I publish the answers.
Anonymous Dutch Atheist
No, I don't agree with him, "as an atheist". The person who wrote that was either trolling or out of his mind. For people to be free to believe (not to do) whatever they want, is for the good of the human race. This protects every expression of free thought, including all religions, not just yours. However, freedom of thought does not mean freedom of legislation. This prevents any religion to suppress another and controlling the coverment, science and education.

Anonymous Dutch Atheist.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Mind a follow up question?

DOES this scheme function, or is the sometimes legislation and sometimes administration perhaps unduly favouring one particular religion called Evolutionism?

Was your school in the Netherlands for instance allowing you equal access to scientific material from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International as to latest Darwinist theories?
Anonymous Dutch Atheist
1. Evolution isn't a religion, it isn't even an ism. A religion is defined as a believe system, which states rules you must live by and makes claims often associated with the immortality of something part of yourself (a soul) that lives on in an afterlife.

Evolution (for clarity: the theory of evolution) meets none of these characters of religion.

The theory doesn't teach that you have to believe it, it also doesn't state rules to live by and tells you nothing about an afterlife. It also does not claim that the soul or afterlife doesn't exist.

It does not legislate "evolutionism" so the answer is: the scheme functions.

2. We aren't taught creationism alongside evolution, but that doesn't mean we are forbidden to have access to creation websites and to believe in creationism. So we are allowed to have equal access to both.
Hans Georg Lundahl
1) Atheism does make a claim associated with the immortality of the soul : namely that the soul does not exist.

Evolution as a theorem may be believed syncretistically by people who are also Theists. Evolutionism as a synonym for general trend of Western Atheism (certain Eastern Atheisms would perhaps accept immortality of the soul) make claims concerning God and the soul, namely that the one is superfluous to explain the universe and that the other is not what makes us conscious.

So, yes, belief system it is.

2) "So we are allowed to have equal access to both."

Not during school hours, and those are plentiful.
I don't really care. What other people believe is of no business to me unless they act on it. Even then, I can only criticize their actions and reasoning rather than their core beliefs with any kind of authority.

For example: If someone believed that there was an invisible angel and devil on their shoulders telling him/her what to do in such a way as I cannot hear them I can't then say "No there isn't" because by the very nature of their claim I can't know. In other words: it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, the result for me is the same.

I can however say: "How do you know?" or better yet: "How am I supposed to know if you're lying to me or not?"

Now, if the person said that the angel on their shoulder told them that Jews didn't deserve the same rights as everyone else, and they were going to act on it. Only then, is it something that needs addressing.

Once a person's "delusions" start to effect how they act rather than just what they believe in their head, that's when it becomes a matter of concern. A society in which these delusions are mandated out isn't a utopia, it's needless thought police.

No comments: