Which is the more divisive? And why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Entirely factual.

No, religious people make up parts of society. The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society, The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.

[Gordon]

No, religious people make up parts of society. The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society, The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.

Careful with all that straw, Vlad - since you seem to be reading 'not necessary' as meaning 'get rid of': bad show old chap.

[Shaker]

No, religious people make up parts of society. The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society, The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.

I don't see how it's possible for you to be more wrong than you are here. People and their beliefs are separable - two wholly different entities. People have beliefs or they don't; some people have beliefs and then drop them. Therefore people and their beliefs are two entirely different, discrete and separable entities. A person with a religious belief remains a person when that belief disappears. A society is made up of people regardless of their beliefs or the lack thereof; it's not made up of "people with religious beliefs."

Stop trying to show off and trying to impress everybody with your big words such as 'Stalinist,' which you don't even understand and are therefore meaningless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Entirely factual.

No, partly utopian or dystopian depending on your point of view......but wholly Stalinist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Careful with all that straw, Vlad - since you seem to be reading 'not necessary' as meaning 'get rid of': bad show old chap.

No he said he found it easy to imagine a society in which there was no religion. Religion was eliminated even in his imagination.

At the very least....utopian thinking on his part. He has no idea what or whether such a society would work.

[Shaker]

No he said he found it easy to imagine a society in which there was no religion.

I find that easy too.

At the very least....utopian thinking on his part. He has no idea what or whether such a society would work.

There is no such thing as a society entirely without any religion in its population at all, but there is very definitely such a thing as a society with incredibly low levels of religious affiliation. The least religious societies on the planet today are those of the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, the Czech republic and right here in the UK.

They seem to work very nicely indeed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I find that easy too.

Apparently it comes easy to Stalinists.

[Shaker]

Apparently it comes easy to Stalinists.

And the use of specific terms that they don't even understand comes easily [sic] to dickheads, I gather.

[Rhiannon]

Apparently it comes easy to Stalinists.

You really need to drop the big words now. You're not in front of the Lower Sixth, but people who actually know what they mean.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really need to drop the big words now. You're not in front of the Lower Sixth, but people who actually know what they mean.

Yes........Stalinist people.

[Rhiannon]

Saying the same word over and over doesn't mean you suddenly know how to use it.

[Hope]

You really need to drop the big words now. You're not in front of the Lower Sixth, but people who actually know what they mean.

Rhi, you'd probably be surprised to realise just how much people in the Lower Sixth actually know.  Sometimes, they seem to know more than us old fuddy-duddies - and have more flexibility in that knowledge.

[Hope]

IIt is perfectly reasonable to imagine a fully functioning society without religion, it isn't possible to imagine a fully functioning society without some kind of politics.

If the input into this forum is anything to go by, I'd have to ask 'how'?  We either have people talking about the way they worship deities, or people talking about how they worship reason, logic and science.  In both cases, many don't actually realise that that is what they are doing, but doing it they are.

[Shaker]

If the input into this forum is anything to go by, I'd have to ask 'how'?  We either have people talking about the way they worship deities

Seen lots of those.

Or people talking about how they worship reason, logic and science.

Haven't seen any of those. Examples?

In both cases, many don't actually realise that that is what they are doing, but doing it they are.

Ah. That's because they don't see it, but all-seeing, all-knowing Hope does.

Riiiiiiight.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mildly Stalinist.

Not really - as I said earlier it is perfectly possible to conceive of a society without religion - by contrast it is pretty well impossible to conceive of a society without politics, taken in its broadest form.

I didn't make any comment on the desirableness of that situation, and certainly made no statement suggesting how this state of affairs should be achieved except under circumstances where the people within that society are perfectly comfortable with that situation, so clearly not Stalinist.

So I suggest you desist with your usual much raking and perhaps actually address the points raised.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, religious people make up parts of society. The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society, The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.

They do in most current societies, but it is perfectly possible to conceive of a society where everyone isn't religious (and to put your fears at rest, where everyone is non religious is a completely consensual manner) and to conceive that a non religious society would function perfectly well.

There is no suggest in my post that religious people should be eliminated or excluded whatsoever - so stop the muck raking Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, partly utopian or dystopian depending on your point of view......but wholly Stalinist.

Even if that society is entirely populated by people who are consensually non religious, and if no religious people are 'excluded' or 'eliminated' from that society, but as is currently very often the case die of natural causes and leave behind children who chose not to be religious.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes........Stalinist people.

So let's turn it on its head Vlad.

Can you conceive of a society in which every member of that society is religious and chose to be religious in a totally consensual manner, without any coercion of force.

Sure you can, and similarly you should therefore be able to conceive of a society in which every member of that society is non religious and chose to be non religious in a totally consensual manner, without any coercion of force.

In neither case would there be any 'Stalinist' tendencies in evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So let's turn it on its head Vlad.

Can you conceive of a society in which every member of that society is religious and chose to be religious in a totally consensual manner, without any coercion of force.

Sure you can

No,I can't see that happening.

[ProfessorDavey]

No,I can't see that happening.

I asked whether you could conceive of this possibility.

And of course if one person might chose to be religious, then so could two and so on. There is therefore a possibility (sure it might be very small likelihood but not zero) that all members of a society might chose to be religious. That is perfectly conceivable, and you know it. And therefore the corollary is also conceivable - that all members of a society might chose not to be religious.

[Owlswing]

Yes........Stalinist people.

The endless repetition of patheitic monosyllabic, non-sensical posts, the alsmost visible "how-clever-am-I" smirk as they are typed, and the hint of monumental arrogance, - Vlad, are you sure you are not a reincarnation of the Super-WUM Recondite Revenant?   

[Outrider]

No, religious people make up parts of society.

Religious people do not equate to religion - without the religion they would be... PEOPLE!!!

The suggestion is that these people are not necessary for society

Because the only thing religious people are, have, do or contribute is their religion. Liverpool supporters (both of them) only support Liverpool, they have no other impact on society, and in Liverpool FC disappeared they would have no independent existence...? Really?

The suggestion is therefore that these people can be eliminated or at least excluded.......and that is mildly Stalinist.

No, your over-reactive caricature... who would have thought?

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not sure this is a reasonable question. Why? Because politics (in all its forms) is a necessary requirement within a society. We need mechanisms to make decisions about how our society runs and we will then, again necessarily, will have differences over what those decisions should be. So you cannot have a society without some form of politics.

Religion on the other hand isn't necessary within a society, although most societies currently have some elements of religiosity. It is perfectly reasonable to imagine a fully functioning society without religion, it isn't possible to imagine a fully functioning society without some kind of politics.

Based on recent conflicts, religion and politics are only as divisive as the people trying to impose their religious or political beliefs on others. Ideas are divisive but did the OP mean this is only of concern if it leads to violence? In which case I would say political causes have led to more violence.

Not sure that non- violent division is a problem, since it is impossible for everyone to agree on beliefs. For example Peter Tatchell has reversed his opinion in the case of the Irish bakers and is supporting the right of bakers or printers or sign writers not to be forced to promote an idea. Tatchell thinks there was never an intention that the law in Ireland against political discrimination should be used to compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed. The Appeal is going through the courts - very civilised i.e. no violence - but the different beliefs about whether or not to allow freedom of conscience, or political or religious beliefs is divisive.

[ProfessorDavey]

Based on recent conflicts, religion and politics are only as divisive as the people trying to impose their religious or political beliefs on others. Ideas are divisive but did the OP mean this is only of concern if it leads to violence? In which case I would say political causes have led to more violence.

Not sure that non- violent division is a problem, since it is impossible for everyone to agree on beliefs. For example Peter Tatchell has reversed his opinion in the case of the Irish bakers and is supporting the right of bakers or printers or sign writers not to be forced to promote an idea. Tatchell thinks there was never an intention that the law in Ireland against political discrimination should be used to compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed. The Appeal is going through the courts - very civilised i.e. no violence - but the different beliefs about whether or not to allow freedom of conscience, or political or religious beliefs is divisive.

In a free democratic society then certainly non violent division over opinions, whether those be religious or political, isn't a bad thing. Indeed it is largely a positive thing as the debates about 'ideas' is what drives societies forward.

I guess the use of the term 'divisive' in the OP is somewhat pejorative, giving the impression of a damaging difference of opinion rather than a productive difference of opinion. But whether disagreement over ideas is divisive or not is rather a subjective view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religious people do not equate to religion - without the religion they would be... PEOPLE!!!

Because the only thing religious people are, have, do or contribute is their religion. Liverpool supporters (both of them) only support Liverpool, they have no other impact on society, and in Liverpool FC disappeared they would have no independent existence...? Really?

No, your over-reactive caricature... who would have thought?

O.

Not really religion is spoken of in epidemiological terms as if it is some kind of disease which it is hoped will be eradicated.

I'm afraid you guys display a sinister disconnect between what you say, how you say it and how righteous you believe yourself to be.