I don't expect an atheist to be troubled by religious matters as log as such matters do not cross your personal life.
Which type of fallacy mention it here mkuu,
as far as i understand logic presupposes conclusion, the premises are arranged in a way to suit the conclusion
In addition follow my argument keenly you will understand why i brought the idea of absolute and God, this was elaboration of someone's query
There is no question begged,
Perhaps you can provide me with the definition of religion but in all cases
Religion is a matter of private life not public one, it is a plain fact from our constitution.
Equality of treatment as citizens of the United Republic of Tanzania government ought to be neutral on private matters of its citizens. We do not need a government which favors some religions just because of their number. This is a democratic country and a not religious state founded.
I do not know which criteria are using to say religion is better than atheism. I think that is a personal opinion which is neither true nor false.
Whether atheist came from religion or not,it is out of the question of equal treatment of citizens.
Government shouldn't discriminate its citizens in terms of what they believe.
I assign you a research on why religion is not a private thing,
How long should i repeat, lest say the power of 10000people is not equal to power of 2persons other factors not mentioned,
We are both equal before the law, but 10000people are more equal than you 2person, is this not democracy even?
If you want equality convince people to be atheists so that you can outnumber the religious, something which is impossible, since your existence 100% depends on criticisms of what religion is,
Atheists should try to stand on your feet then the question of equality will bring sense
If you think that is logic,then You are mistaken about logic.
Logic doesnot presupposes conclusion from premises rather it infers the conclusion.
So, if your argument presupposes the conclusion,it is fallacious argument.
You argument is very clear, it begs many questions,as to why should we follow the command of God?or why should the command of God say this thing is evil and this is good?
I wounder how could someone judge something to be more important based on numbers. This is a lame argument because number doesn't tell us anything about something rather reasons.
If you agree that we are all equal under the law,then you just totally agree with me because the implication of such datum goes down to the equal treatment.
Thus why i demand the use of Swahili perhaps you could understand easily
What a difference is there between to infer and to presuppose?
To infer is imply or to conclude something from reasoning
To presuppose is to imply conclusion from premises/reasoning
It is not the question of personal life rather a way which our democracy can reflect the ideal we hold firm. Democracy commands people in regardless pf their faith be treated equally.
Let's be real here. You can't bring a Swami or a Guru at a government ceremony to pray because most of their people do not attend or even care about government issues.Tanzania is a secular state according to its constitution. This means that it does not have a state religion though most of its citizens do believe in some religions or any supernatural power. The acknowledgement of that fact by the constitution has implications in a Tanzanian democracy.
It implies that in Tanzania, the issues of religion are not the concern of public but rather private life. I agree that the government has no right to coerce people on issues of religion. It should let its citizens exercise their religious freedom.
In doing so the government will treat its citizens as mature moral beings. This maxim invokes the principles of equality and liberty which are essential in a democratic country.
However, the reality in Tanzania is quite distinct from understanding of this issue. In Tanzania at any government ceremony, most religious leaders from the main two religions(Islam and Christianity) are invited to pray a prayer in public.
This practice has been there for a long time and yet the government in doing so does not treat its people as equally important because it tries to show a certain religious life in public that is superior to others. For example, on such occasions, the government should know that in Tanzania the majority of people are Christians and Muslims but not all.
In Tanzania there are Hindus, traditional religion believers who are not recognized much by the government and atheists. In whatever the government does, it tries to show to the rest of the minority groups like Atheists, Hindus and traditional believers that the life of Christians or Muslims is superior to theirs in Tanzania.
It is time the government of Tanzania makes sure that it is neutral in religion. In this way, it is important to construe equality in different angles so that it makes the present democracy work well.
THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN!!I
I agree with you 100%. As long as the government does not favor a particular faith and the Constitution is not religious-based, I am happy.
Saying prayers in public gatherings is in recognition of the people in those meetings.
If the President went to address a meeting of Muslims (example the IDD Baraza), I would expect him to hear Islamic prayers only.
I the President is addressing a meeting of Christians (example, kusimikwa kwa Baba Askofu), I would expect him to hear Christian prayers only.
However, if the President is addressing a mixed gathering (Uhuru celebrations), I would expect him to give all faiths opportunity to pray for the nation. NOTHING WRONG HERE.
Everything is wrong there. There shouldn't be any prayer in a mixed gathering. Not all are believers of those fairy tales.
I would say that atheism is not 'belief that there is no God' rather a life without beliefs of 'higher power'.
Once one belives in witchcraft, ancestors etc they are no longer atheists.
Back to the topic i would rather have those people of those few religions pray than have none because majority of people on this country belive in something.
On a better foot i would suggest they include more faiths. That is including local faiths if they have followes and they can proclaim their faith in public and have been registered according to the laws.
I would simply ignore those few who dont have a higher power to ask for direction or protection.
It should not be a problem to them. As they dont care anyway. They can the time to exchange ideas
Unless they feel bad and abused when they see faithfuls participate in prayer. This happens for people who believes in the higher powers but they have been bruised and they dont want to bend so they attack faiths.
Real atheists dont care.
I think what we also have to acknowledge as a nation is the existence of local faiths on mountains. sun. moon. bones. trees etc.
We should outline clearly what they need to be registered and what they should not do.
Someones inability to contemplate higher powers should not force all the people to that.
We have been seeing how USA is struggling now. We dont need to go there.
The government is not leading robots, it leads human beings with values, feelings, deeper convictions other than governance. There is NOTHING WRONG with letting these feelings out in the open. That is called GOOD GOVERNANCE.
If you suppress these peaceful displays of feelings in public, they may emerge elsewhere in private and may be violent or incite-full.
I agree with everything you said except for the first part (in red). It looks like you are splitting hairs here, a distinction without a difference.
A life without a belief of 'higher power' (like GOD) = A life with a belief of no 'higher power' (like GOD)
Am I wrong?
In other words, I would say that atheism is not a belief, rather an absence of it.
it is an existence free of of any ties with the supernatural, they sometimes call it "freedom" so the true ones never care what the rest do as they are sure that it foolishness they will not participate.
It is not the opposite of the belief, it is the absence of any sort of belief??
Maybe that, there is NOTHING? can that be called a belief? I don't know
I know I am repeating myself but that is the way I know, I might not be right, so I am still learning,
I have seen and read mos of them, they actually believe in their own 'god" so at the end they seem to be either lazy in learning or just wish to be different.
You either believe there is the SUPERNATURAL or you believe there is NO SUPERNATURAL.
About NOTHING;
If you believe there is vacuum in a space, it means you believe there is NOTHING in that space.
The government is not leading robots, it leads human beings with values, feelings, deeper convictions other than governance. There is NOTHING WRONG with letting these feelings out in the open. That is called GOOD GOVERNANCE.
If you suppress these peaceful displays of feelings in public, they may emerge elsewhere in private and may be violent or incite-full.