This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

JemyM's Profile

JemyM's Avatar Joined about 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by JemyM

More Discussions by JemyM

Latest Comments by JemyM

Go to: Court splits sharply on campus Christian argument

JemyM's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by JemyM

A code of law or ethics can never regulate on ideas or beliefs. It doesn't work because ideas and beliefs are fleeting and impossible to define. Each participant to a system of ideas will perceive the system differently. Thus a label like "I am a Christian" or "I am a socialist" cannot be treated in the juridical sense the way "I am a father" or "I am a homosexual" can. Being a father or a homosexual are absolutes with a very clear definition, either you are one or you arent and you do not have any choice in what you are.

This is a key problem with "religious rights", since religions are ideas and beliefs. Religious rights suffers from the exact same issues as prohibiting religion, that is what a religion is in the first place and how you establish whether or not something is a religion or not.

This is why freedom of opinion is the only law that works in a juridical sense.

The idea behind freedom of religion I think is a result of the 2nd world war. Back then you were clearly a different entity based on what religion you said you belong to. Now, 2010, more and more see that this presumption is false. We humans have a dynamic mindset that can change over time. Religions aren't absolutes like sexuality, gender or race and cannot be treated that way. Thus we only need those three words in any legal system; "freedom of opinion". It's a regulation that is universal, it makes no difference between whatever people pick as their identity. It let's identities be cultural and social but not subject for regulation.

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:41:00 UTC | #461429

Go to: Heaven: A fool's paradise

JemyM's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by JemyM

To a religious person, heaven is what you have been told.

Religions train a mindset to see beliefs and truths as the same thing.
Who ever train the mindset also teach the beliefs that are to be held as true.
In practice what you have been thaught is also the truth.

Establishing truth through research is a very different mindset. The benefits of a such approach to knowledge is not self evident nor intuitive and is blocked by the above training. The most important thing with this mindset is that it's so well trained that it will not even examine or research it's own beliefs. Questioning is a breach of trust, lojalty and faithfulness, both to the religious idols (make God/Jesus disappointed) but also to family and friends. Since our survival instincts are often connected to staying on the good side with those we rely on it's essential to not break that relationship. Thus it will not speculate on heaven, it will not discuss nor debate nor question it's morality system, IT WILL MOST OF THE TIME NOT EVEN READ NOR RESEARCH THE BIBLE OR SCRIPTURE!
It will continue to believe what it have been thaught to believe and will treat that belief as truth.

Thus, heaven is "a reunion with your relatives in the light" and that is the only truth that mindset is able to perceive as truth.

The only thing we can do about is to focus on whatever supports training that mindset in our society. Training every child that truth is gained through research would be absolutely devastating to "belief systems".

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:27:00 UTC | #461428

Go to: Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering Up Atheist Crimes?

JemyM's Avatar Jump to comment 95 by JemyM

I propose the atheist fallacy; the logical fallacy to think of atheists as a group.

Atheist only mean you are not a member of a group (theists). "I was an atheist" the article say, so what? As a Swede I know countless of atheists who have nothing in common more that they just happen to not be theists. Stalin was an atheist, so what? He weren't a liberal either, what does that mean?

Never accept the word "atheist" as anything more than it's original greek meaning; "non-theist".

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 05:30:00 UTC | #460636

Go to: Moral confusion in the name of 'science'

JemyM's Avatar Jump to comment 374 by JemyM

As far as I concern there are two elements that applies;
* Personal needs
* Collective goal

For a simple grasp on what personal needs can be, have a look at "Maslow's hierarchy of needs". That might be a very good starting point to work from. Also consider that there are rare needs that will often be present within a human population. I believe much of this can indeed be answered by science.

Then there's a collective goal meaning you have to decide what kind of society you would like to build. What's it's goal, what is it's purpose? Depending on how you answer this question, needs will be met in a very different way, meaning that just because something is biologically driven, it doesn't need to be accepted, respected or supported.

Tue, 06 Apr 2010 06:28:00 UTC | #456339

Go to: Comment: 'Ban faith schools'

JemyM's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by JemyM

It's thanks to the acceptance that "religion" is something inherently different from "ideology" that allows them to undermine the democracy.

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:31:00 UTC | #444055

More Comments by JemyM