>As far as there being 'no philosophy without religion' I would tend (at first blush) to agree with you. I suppose Dragan it sort of depends on one's definition of 'religion'. Mine falls outside of the traditionally held opinions I suppose. For example, I see secular humanism and/or athiesim as much 'religious' as Roman Catholocism or Islam. At some point there are 'notions' that would fall into a concept I'd lable 'Articles of Faith'. Look, athiests must, at some point, take their position on faith - if they're 100% honest. There are things athiests simply do not 'knopw' or can prove in the same scientific sense they'd like to use to disprove god's existence. That's not a put down in my mind but a simple truth. Everyone velieve - just in what?

My thinking goes under an assumption that the logic, i.e. the way we think for the last couple of dozens of centuries, is OK. But I'm not forgetting the act of assuming - and I am aware of several possible logical and pseudo-logical traps. IOW, I know the limitations of logic... so I wouldn't say I am a believer. It's not an article of faith in any manner; it's more of a limited trust.

So my universe doesn't have a firm foundation. I can live with that. Panta rhei.

Besides, I'm not an atheist in the anti-theist sense. I've stated my take on the existence issue elsewhere in this thread, but since it's so huge, I'm not sure I can find it myself again :). Briefly: this god idea is a very smart invention, because it's cooked up in a way that can't be proven or disproven. Which fits with Gödel's work - no system of assertions can contain proof of its completeness.

I don't feel the urge to prove or disprove the existence of such an idea, apart of its existence as an idea :). That is, it exists in human minds; does it exist per se - the question is undecidable.

>>Within that set of assumptions, you have no other choice.
>
>Oh sure.. <g> Rig the game. lol..

I meant it as "of course you got to that conclusion" - which then means that I find no flaw in the conclusion. The assumptions, however. Ahem.

>>So, where was the secularism forced in the States? We can omit the communist states where it was forced to some extent for some time (i.e. a lot and long in some countries, a lot and briefly in some others, mildly but long in yet others); let's stay here, for the sake of argument.
>
>Hmm.. "Under God" (Psst - look at the thread header <g>) Prayer in school. Look hard at what the ACLU does all over. Agree with them or not, they do have an agenda and, broadly defined, it's the secularization of America.

From what I know about ACLU, they stand for civil liberties. One of these is, IMO, separation of church and state, and if they're pushing that, good. One would figure that since there's a constitutional separation of the two, the ACLU would have nothing to do about it, but it seems there's a lot of it. "Agenda" translates as "[things] to be done"; any organization which has nothing to do should just cease to exist, don't you think?

Secularization of America? Sheesh... I thought this was a secular country from the outset.

>Hmm.. Well, dunno. If you could say something like, "The preponderance of kitches that don't have curtains have burned down" I think you'd be a lot closer. Everywhere I've seen athiestically-drive cultures I have seen wholesale slaughter of people at worst and great misery at best.

Not a rule. I lived in an exception to that.

But I've visited the eastern block countries a lot in those times, and they weren't that bad and that poor everywhere. Besides, what have you really seen? I've heard a lot of anticommunist propaganda, and it's just 99% outright lies, as was the anti-capitalism propaganda over there.

>>Doesn't matter. The guy may represent the hand of the society - and wield some force in it. And the guy need not try to force a belief, it's enough to treat his customers (in all senses of the word - when you deal with the administration, you're their customer) differently, based on his views. That's what I don't want to see, and that's what worries me.
>
>Well, this is common behavior among all governmental systems I'd think. You've no doubt heard the axiom, "Poer corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts". It's a human nature thing, not a political thing I'd think.

Oh it is political... politics, that's people. And if the system has no tool to protect itself from religious discriminators among its ranks, or even tolerates them, then all colors are equal only in the sense of Henry Ford's words: "cars can be any color you want, as long as that color is black". And we're then just so equal before tha law.

>That doesn't diminish what I have seid. I don't know the numerical specifics but I do know that athiesm (my point originally) is NOT the path to nirvana. <g>

You just know. You've been to both places - atheism and nirvana, right :).

>Also, as I mentined before as well, in the 20th century more christians have been martyred than in all the prior centuries starting 1round AD 60 or so.

XX century is when most of the people in history have lived. Also the time when we have most of the data.

>>You know, I think there should be no religion for those below 18 (or any other suitable limit). Parents should set example and explain the world, but not automatically assume their kids belong to the same religion. Then, when they reach the age of consent, they would become eligible to freely choose their spiritual standing inside a church of their choice (null also valid).
>
>Well, I suppose we'd differ here. If you think that will remove pain or change human nature it won't work as I can show you folks from all backgrounds who treat their fellow man well and those who do not.

Are we talking about the same subject here? I say "people shouldn't choose their religion before age of consent, and should not automatically belong to religion of their parents", and you say "there are good people and there are bad people". I don't see the connection at all.

>>These kids are in an age when they are unsure of themselves, and if you've allowed one church, you've allowed them all. Welcome Jim Jones, too.
>
>Well, at that age there is a tremendous disposition in kids to peer pressure. I'd rahter have them influenced by godly kids than not, given the choice. The Jim Jones types aren't that prevelant. There are some kooks out there but I think you're exaggerating a little. <s>

It doesn't matter which type is prevalent - it's the matter of principle. If you allow one religious group's presence in a public school, you've allowed them all. Maybe that'd be a good thing, to have multiple groups, and to allow kids to zig-zag between them, and think for themselves. They may find what they were looking for in one of those groups, or completely outside of them - and they'd at least know it was their choice.

>>Guess a few wished they were members, just for the sake of those small privileges.
>
>What kind of intimidation would people have to endure?

Who? Members or non-members?

I mentioned this as an example of a semi-secretive group which was existing within a high school. No intimidation, though - I was offered membership and refused with a cute excuse, without any consequences.