Atheism and political apathy

[S.A.M.]

Are atheists more likely to be politically apathetic, considering that politics is about power and authority, which atheists decry as a source of brainwashing? Are there "conservative" atheists? Atheists who believe in monarchies? Fascist atheists?

Or, considering the amount of time and effort they invest in removing religious symbols from public life (or pursuing frivolous lawsuits to do the same) are they more politically aware but less politically useful?:D

Do they just want to chip away at existing institutions without clear ideas of what they want in stead?

[spidergoat]

It's not frivolous to maintain the separation of church and state. Atheists do not necessarily decry power and authority. Atheism has nothing do to with that position, unless the power and authority is associated disproportionally with theism.

[S.A.M.]

It's not frivolous to maintain the separation of church and state. Atheists do not necessarily decry power and authority. Atheism has nothing do to with that position, unless the power and authority is associated disproportionally with theism.

Hmm so they have no argument against brainwashing when it suits their purpose?

[spidergoat]

Atheism isn't a comprehensive worldview, it's not a religion, just a philosophical position with respect to Gods. I'm personally against brainwashing.

[S.A.M.]

Atheism isn't a comprehensive worldview, it's not a religion, just a philosophical position with respect to Gods.

Strange, I could have sworn atheism was an opinion on theists rather than theism.

I'm personally against brainwashing.

Do you think children should be left in the woods when they are born so that they arrive at an independent viewpoint? Are you anti-education?

[spidergoat]

It's bad to swear. And yes, children should be left in the woods whenever possible.

[Cris]

SAM,

Strange, I could have sworn atheism was an opinion on theists rather than theism.Pay attention. You should know better by now.

Do you think children should be left in the woods when they are born so that they arrive at an independent viewpoint? Are you anti-education?It is better that they are taught how to think rather than told what to think.

[Kadark]

Atheists are indeed politically apathetic - whether by nature or coincidence, I'm not entirely sure. Religious people have always been highly concerned with the politics in a given state, and have always displayed greater passion and aggression when it came to battling corruption and/or seeking basic rights. The best thing that can happen to an elite handful of people is to have atheism undermine religion, because atheists generally don't partake in politics or worldwide affairs as vociferously as their religious counterparts. Remove the belief in God from a group of people, and replace that faith instead with a belief in authority. That is the formula which is responsible for the common atheist's political apathy.

[redarmy11]

I was going to say 'Generalisations-R-Us' but it's not even that.

Basically, you're pulling this out of your backside.
Atheism isn't a comprehensive worldview, it's not a religion, just a philosophical position with respect to Gods.
And there we have it. Nothing else is or should be implied.

[S.A.M.]

It is better that they are taught how to think rather than told what to think.

So regimented schooling is out. Military education is out. Learning numbers and established concepts and symbols (such as alphabet, language, music) is out. Learning established methods is out.

Considering brainwashing is the coercive enforcement of opinion or ideology which may be contrary to a persons prior opinion or ideology, what part of education is NOT brainwashing?

And considering all politics is based on what people have already established, laws and rules, etc, atheism should be anti-politics. So educating children about political viewpoints is also brainwashing.

IOW, atheism is not just politically apathetic, atheists should not even venture into politics and should demonstrate against it.

[Cris]

Are atheists more likely to be politically apathetic, considering that politics is about power and authority, which atheists decry as a source of brainwashing? I thought atheists simply disbelieved in gods. On the other issues I suspect they have a range of ideas just like everyone else.

Are there "conservative" atheists? Atheists who believe in monarchies? Fascist atheists?Probably in a similar ratio to everyone else. Although I’d suspect that if any group was pushing a theistic view strongly then they’d likely object.

Or, considering the amount of time and effort they invest in removing religious symbols from public life (or pursuing frivolous lawsuits to do the same) are they more politically aware but less politically useful?Probably no more than anyone else who pursue frivolous lawsuits for other reasons.

Do they just want to chip away at existing institutions without clear ideas of what they want in stead?Probably no different to anyone except where it might conflict with their disbelief in gods.

[spidergoat]

Historically, in the United States, churches haven't been involved in politics, since they felt that would be left to God to control indirectly somehow, whatever comes is His will. Lately, that has changed.

[Syzygys]

There is nothing wrong with political apathy, if it is based on reality. For example in the US, masses are brainwashed and changes are pretty much impossible. So instead of bitching about politics and making enemies, one might as well go to a sport event or take the dog out for a walk, or spend time with the kids.

Now I am all for monarchies!! It is much cheaper in today's economy and one or a few people can make just as bad decisions than a whole Congress! So why waste money on democracy? Not to mention that political dinasties still exist, so what is the difference really???

[S.A.M.]

Historically, in the United States, churches haven't been involved in politics, since they felt that would be left to God to control indirectly somehow, whatever comes is His will. Lately, that has changed.

So you are against any organisation representing a segment of the population being involved in politics?

[spidergoat]

Yes, no one should be involved in politics. :rolleyes:

[Cris]

SAM,

So regimented schooling is out. Military education is out. Learning numbers and established concepts and symbols (such as alphabet, language, music) is out. Learning established methods is out.What I said was that it is better that they are taught how to think not told what to think.

Absorbing information is not about thinking. Thinking is about how the information is used.

And yes - a great deal of traditional teaching methods are a waste of time. In my past I have developed industrial training courses and taught them around the world and taught other trainers. I learnt a great deal about how people absorb information; retain it, and how they use it. My courses were concerned with problem analysis so techniques of reasoned thought were essential.

The earliest things that should be taught are – how to remember, how to read fast, how to think. Everything else beyond that is a matter of application of those building blocks. At the moment some 90% of the information sprayed at school students is forgotten. Long classroom sessions generally result in being able to remember the first few minutes and the last few. Not being able to read fast means thousands of hours wasted in absorbing information that is mostly forgotten. And then when information is absorbed and remembered there is rarely a framework in which one is taught what to do with it.

Considering brainwashing is the coercive enforcement of opinion or ideology which may be contrary to a persons prior opinion or ideology, what part of education is NOT brainwashing?Wow – I can’t see that any of what you just said relates in any way to my own school education.

If that is a reflection of your school life then no wonder you appear so screwed up.

[S.A.M.]

Yes, no one should be involved in politics. :rolleyes:


Hmm so you too are in favor of a monarchy?



And yes - a great deal of traditional teaching methods are a waste of time. In my past I have developed industrial training courses and taught them around the world and taught other trainers. I learnt a great deal about how people absorb information; retain it, and how they use it. My courses were concerned with problem analysis so techniques of reasoned thought were essential.

Hmm so basically you replaced peoples opinions and ideas with those you considered better. Thats brainwashing.

Wow – I can’t see that any of what you just said relates in any way to my own school education.

If that is a reflection of your school life then no wonder you appear so screwed up.

And now you're trying it on me. :bugeye::mad:

[iceaura]

Are atheists more likely to be politically apathetic, considering that politics is about power and authority, which atheists decry as a source of brainwashing? Are there "conservative" atheists? Atheists who believe in monarchies? Fascist atheists? Our own Mr G on this forum.

Where did you get the idea that an atheist would be apathetic in the face of power and authority, with all their dangers of brainwashing ?

Seneca's astute observation comes in here, paraphrased : The wise find the gods false, the foolish find them true, the powerful find them useful.

I see no reason why an atheist would be any less attracted to power - and a clever, dishonest one would have certain freedoms in its use, as Machiavelli pointed out.

And the threat posed by such a one is partly countered by this: So you are against any organisation representing a segment of the population being involved in politics? No. Just religions.

[Cris]

SAM,

Hmm so basically you replaced peoples opinions and ideas with those you considered better. That’s brainwashing.Please pay attention. I said it is better to teach how to think not what to think. Why do you not understand the difference?

And now you're trying it on me.Huh?

[S.A.M.]

Our own Mr G on this forum.

Where did you get the idea that an atheist would be apathetic in the face of power and authority, with all their dangers of brainwashing ?

Seneca's astute observation comes in here, paraphrased : The wise find the gods false, the foolish find them true, the powerful find them useful.

I see no reason why an atheist would be any less attracted to power - and a clever, dishonest one would have certain freedoms in its use, as Machiavelli pointed out.


Are you quoting atheists at me now? Sheesh.

So what was Seneca's contribution to politics? Is this Seneca the younger? Did he fiddle with Nero while Rome burned? Wasn't he convicted of terrorism, slit his veins and die? Weird role models.


SAM,

I said it is better to teach how to think not what to think. Why do you not understand the difference?

Huh?


You mean teach how to think using established modes of thinking. Or ideas or concepts about thought and learning and cognition. In other words, moulding childrens brains to conform to social standards of measure. Like exams and IQ tests. Or performance "appraisals" :rolleyes:

[iceaura]

Are you quoting atheists at me now? Sheesh. Paraphrasing Seneca. Judging by your off the wall presumptions, you need some data on atheists.

So what was Seneca's contribution to politics? Is this Seneca the younger? Did he fiddle with Nero while Rome burned? Wasn't he convicted of terrorism, slit his veins and die? Weird role models. He made some accurate observations about the matter at hand. I don't really do role models, at my age. I might have even got the source wrong, and paraphrased Euripedes or somebody.

Is that your idea of a reply ?

Another quote from Seneca: God is the universal substance in existing things. He comprises all things. He is the fountain of all being. In Him exists everything that is.

And another: I am never ashamed of quoting a bad author, if the line is good

[spidergoat]

Hmm so you too are in favor of a monarchy?

Christians should be, since it is the form of government most praised in the Bible.

[Prince_James]

Sam:

Are atheists more likely to be politically apathetic, considering that politics is about power and authority, which atheists decry as a source of brainwashing? Are there "conservative" atheists? Atheists who believe in monarchies? Fascist atheists?

I'm a non-personal pantheist, as such, an atheist after most people's fashions. I'm extremely politically conservative, have supported monarcharcial tradition, and several individauls here on Sciforums think I am a Fascist.

Or, considering the amount of time and effort they invest in removing religious symbols from public life (or pursuing frivolous lawsuits to do the same) are they more politically aware but less politically useful?

I think the people who do that are twats. Also, Richard Dawkins is a hack.

[ashura]

Are there "conservative" atheists? Atheists who believe in monarchies? Fascist atheists?

Or, considering the amount of time and effort they invest in removing religious symbols from public life (or pursuing frivolous lawsuits to do the same) are they more politically aware but less politically useful?:D

I'm a conservative atheist. And I can't think of any time or effort that I've devoted to removing religious symbols from public life.

[scorpius]

Are atheists more likely to be politically apathetic, considering that politics is about power and authority, which atheists decry as a source of brainwashing?
Are there "conservative" atheists? Atheists who believe in monarchies? Fascist atheists?
enjoy strawmen and ad-homs a lot, do you?

Or, considering the amount of time and effort they invest in removing religious symbols from public life (or pursuing frivolous lawsuits to do the same) are they more politically aware but less politically useful?
simply fighting for our rights,
which the bible junkies would very much like to destroy,
in case you didnt know
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion and displaying ten comandments in public buildings is a violation of the Law

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being.


Do they just want to chip away at existing institutions without clear ideas of what they want in stead?
our intents are very clear ...
EQUALITY is all that atheists want,right now we dont have it,
and until an atheist can be elected president or any high office the fight will go on.

[Asguard]

SAM how biased are you, would you concider me to be politically apathetic?

Im DEFINITLY athiast and DEFINITLY NOT politically apathetic

[S.A.M.]

enjoy strawmen and ad-homs a lot, do you?

simply fighting for our rights,
which the bible junkies would very much like to destroy,
in case you didnt know
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion and displaying ten comandments in public buildings is a violation of the Law

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being.


our intents are very clear ...
EQUALITY is all that atheists want,right now we dont have it,
and until an atheist can be elected president or any high office the fight will go on.


Equality? You want to be equal to stupid (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82061) people? Whatever for? :rolleyes:

[scorpius]

Equality? You want to be equal to stupid (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82061) people? Whatever for? :rolleyes:
I wasnt talking about Muslims...:p

[S.A.M.]

I wasnt talking about Muslims...:p

Of course. Thats understood, when talking to any westerner.

There are limits to how low even you'd be willing to sink, after all.

[Cris]

SAM,

You mean teach how to think using established modes of thinking. Or ideas or concepts about thought and learning and cognition. In other words, moulding childrens brains to conform to social standards of measure. Like exams and IQ tests. Or performance "appraisals" Gee you are hopeless. You don't seem interested in true debate in this area. Your anti-whatever I say approach is just too tiresome.

[SnakeLord]

Simply put: I'm an atheist. My lack of belief in gods is of no relevance or consequence to anything outside of it. I don't believe in your god, that's that. If you want to talk about a different subject - one unrelated to my lack of belief in your god, kindly take it to a more appropriate forum.

If you can find something to show that your god exists, then we have something to talk about. Until then kindly stop wasting forum space on irrelevancies.

If you really demand my political stance - which has nothing to do with my lack of belief in gods, then I - perhaps a rarity - will simply assert that I don't care. To me, one idiot is the same as the next. But please note: My stance on politics, football and weekend shopping has absolute diddly squat to do with my atheism.

I know you want to hate atheists, and frankly I don't really care - it is your own life to waste in whatever manner you deem fit - but kindly stop confusing atheism with anything else you can think of that might not hit your g-spot.

Atheists don't believe in your god. That is that.

Regards,

[S.A.M.]

SAM,

Gee you are hopeless. You don't seem interested in true debate in this area. Your anti-whatever I say approach is just too tiresome.

Why? Because you prefer a brand of brainwashing because it skews results to your liking? That hardly makes you unique.

[Asguard]

sam can i please point out the three windows i currently have open.

The first is whos online (it keeps me conected to sciforums even if i dont refresh the other page quickly enough)

The second is this window (which is current posts or whatever im currently reading)

The third window is the federal house of reps, they are currently debating a bill to cut the with holding tax for overseas investments

now how can you call me politically apathetic simply because i think god is a mass halutionation

[iceaura]

Equality? You want to be equal to stupid people? Whatever for? Self defense.

You guys are kind of hazardous. And you aren't exactly charitable toward the weaker and lesser - noblesse oblige apparently doesn't emerge from massive inferiority complexes.

[S.A.M.]

sam can i please point out the three windows i currently have open.

The first is whos online (it keeps me conected to sciforums even if i dont refresh the other page quickly enough)

The second is this window (which is current posts or whatever im currently reading)

The third window is the federal house of reps, they are currently debating a bill to cut the with holding tax for overseas investments

now how can you call me politically apathetic simply because i think god is a mass halutionation

Well you clearly live in a system where many people with mass hallucinations decide your form of governance and the policies on which your society is based. How do you reconcile yourself to that?


Self defense.

You guys are kind of hazardous. And you aren't exactly charitable toward the weaker and lesser - noblesse oblige apparently doesn't emerge from massive inferiority complexes.

So why live in such a society? Why not use your natural advantages and create your own society, limited by atheism and devoid of all religion?

[Asguard]

HAHAHAH, sam you clearly know very little about the australian political system. The arch bishop of sydney put out a public statement a while ago that if parlimenatrians were true catholics then they would vote on a bill a specific way.

Not only was there a public backlash against the church over this, and non catholic parlimentarians were making statements of contempt about the church over it but the CATHOLICS in parliment told the arch bishop to keep his nose out of politics, that they serve the PEOPLE first.

If a candiate came out and said he was devotly religious he would be laughed at, we expect the church to keep there heads INSIDE the church (with a very limited role in very specific area's). These excemptions are things like the head of the anglican church because he is also the head of world vision (i think) and happens to be the brother of the former treasure. However he was always way to the left of the former goverment (the liberals) and is always talking about things like equality, action on burma ect. If he started preaching on things like demonisation of gays for instance (something i doubt he would do but the cardinal of sidney would) people would be outraged that he DARE interfear in the political prossess.

Basically we dont mind if the church makes statements as long as they are statements we agree with, ie the people lead, the church agrees with us.

[S.A.M.]

HAHAHAH, sam you clearly know very little about the australian political system. The arch bishop of sydney put out a public statement a while ago that if parlimenatrians were true catholics then they would vote on a bill a specific way.

Not only was there a public backlash against the church over this, and non catholic parlimentarians were making statements of contempt about the church over it but the CATHOLICS in parliment told the arch bishop to keep his nose out of politics, that they serve the PEOPLE first.

Aren't these all the people suffering from mass hallucinations?

[Asguard]

all people suffer from some form of delusion. For instance im not 100% sure that the whole universe isnt my dream:p

As long as sociaty funtions in a civil method (by this i mean without to much religious interfearance). Im quite happy, political apathy is a greater danger to sociaty than the religious right in australia

[iceaura]

So why live in such a society? Why not use your natural advantages and create your own society, limited by atheism and devoid of all religion? I was born into it; What natural advantages; why would we create a society from scratch; what are the the societal properties even (let alone the limitations) of atheism; How do the three of us get rid of all these people; and why can't we have a religion ?

[S.A.M.]

all people suffer from some form of delusion. For instance im not 100% sure that the whole universe isnt my dream:p

As long as sociaty funtions in a civil method (by this i mean without to much religious interfearance). Im quite happy, political apathy is a greater danger to sociaty than the religious right in australia

Thats an interesting addition you made there. Do you think too much atheist interference on society would not be detrimental to its civil functioning? Would atheists stand up for the religious like the Catholics have for the people? or rather, have they ever?

I was born into it; What natural advantages; why would we create a society from scratch; what are the the societal properties even (let alone the limitations) of atheism; How do the three of us get rid of all these people

Why not? People across the ages have created the kind of society they wanted from scratch. Clearly most atheists would feel more comfortable in a society devoid of the religious, where superstitions were not celebrated and there would only be evidence based reasoning behind all actions and opinions.


; and why can't we have a religion ?

Why would you want to have:

* a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
* a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
* a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents?

[Asguard]

firstly i was trying to define "civil" as being oposed to religious (ie the origional use of the word) rather than being oposed to millarty or civil in its every day use ("be more civil to your mother" ect).

to be compleatly honest i couldnt care less if someone belives in god and\or a particular religion including our pollies. Its there civil POLICY that i judge them on.

And yes i do belive that athiasts tend to be better at human rights issues than religions do. Yes there have been some good advocasy by people who belive in god but religions in general have been shown (across history) to surport stagnation rather than human rights. Take the position of the catholic church on abortion and contriception, gay rights and resurch (especially in the area of stem cell resurch). You, yourself have pointed out the dangers of religious based political systems in a debate on the dali lahma.

My main problem is where the pollies and sociaty in general focus there eyes. Take gay rights as an example, should a book saying "gays are an abomination" over rule evidence that shows the harm sociaty does by descrimination?

what about the vote for women, as far as i know the major churchs oposed this because it went against the male domination that was built into the catholic church. The church betrayed its own principles when it made the deal with Consitine and has been shown to be untrustworthy since

Policy should ALWAYS be based on science and the least harm to the people. Religion clouds the last point.

Athiasts on the other hand tend to belive in evidence based ethics, as a strong surporter of principle based ethics myself i can see the benifits of this. Athiasts tend not to denie evidence symply becase a book tells them to. This is why athiasts arnt as big a danger to civil sociaty as thiests are

I apoligise if my language seems strage in this post. As i said im lissioning to a heep of speaches and i do find both my language becomes more formal when lissioning to parliment but also i tend to lose track of what im writing if something interesting comes up in that:p

[S.A.M.]

Athiasts on the other hand tend to belive in evidence based ethics, as a strong surporter of principle based ethics myself i can see the benifits of this. Athiasts tend not to denie evidence symply becase a book tells them to. This is why athiasts arnt as big a danger to civil sociaty as thiests are

So you would consider self defined, formally atheist societies like the Soviet Union and China as ideal societies then?

[iceaura]

Why not? People across the ages have created the kind of society they wanted from scratch. Like who ? New continents depopulated by plague are not anticipated. Clearly most atheists would feel more comfortable in a society devoid of the religious, where superstitions were not celebrated and there would only be evidence based reasoning behind all actions and opinions. How many more times must you be corrected on the simple, elementary, obvious, crucial distinction between theism and religion ?

Why do you troll like that ? It derails discussion, it reveals that you are not arguing in good faith, it brings everything down to personal insult and boring ass repetition of thoroughly hashed over stuff. You waste your time and everybody else's. Cut it out.

It's not at all obvious that atheists in general, or myself in particular, would prefer a society devoid of religion, story, ritual, spiritual practice, etc. It is in fact false.

It is also false that atheists form a group, that would have coherent and compatible notions of how society should be set up different from what it is now. As the Irish can tell you, there's a big difference between a Protestant atheist and a Catholic one, and the Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim varieties must vary similarly.

[Asguard]

of course not, thats a stupid question. Nither of them for starters are democrasies.

You cant compare a sociaty that is a democrasy (with religious people) with one that is a dictatorship (who happens to have abolished religion). There is no reason why a sociaty couldnt abolish religion without abolishing the rule of law. Nor am i actually calling for the abolishion of religion. Im only surporting that religion play no part in civil sociaty. However civil sociaty still needs to be a DEMOCRASY, with the rule of law being the backbone (no person is above the law)

[codanblad]

Thats an interesting addition you made there. Do you think too much atheist interference on society would not be detrimental to its civil functioning? Would atheists stand up for the religious like the Catholics have for the people? or rather, have they ever?


when did the catholics stand up for people? did it make up for what they inflicted on gays/protestants? did it make up for the inquisition? how do catholics react when someone has a child out of wedlock, and how many times has that happened?

"Do you think too much atheist interference on society would not be detrimental to its civil functioning?" Only if certain people need to be threatened by god to act like decent human beings. Which i would think to be the case. atheists would have to compensate for all the promises and brainwashing the church does. its a lot easier to say 'do this or god will punish you' compared to 'do this for society'.

[Asguard]

what about "do this or you will go to jail for the rest of your life":p

[codanblad]

So you would consider self defined, formally atheist societies like the Soviet Union and China as ideal societies then?

was atheism the problem, or the bloodlust of the political parties etc.? how many people were slain in the name of atheism?

[S.A.M.]

was atheism the problem, or the bloodlust of the political parties etc.? how many people were slain in the name of atheism?

Who cares? I'm addressing Asquards claim about atheists and civil societies.

[CptBork]

A great number of America's original founders were either atheists or believed that any god which might exist wouldn't be concerned with the affairs of human beings. These were some of the most politically active people in all of history, and they were motivated primarily by religious-based oppression. The religious whackos who have run the show a great deal since snuck in through the backdoor after all the hard work had been done to win basic liberties.

[S.A.M.]

Like who ? New continents depopulated by plague are not anticipated.

Surely all that high IQ can be put to some good use.


How many more times must you be corrected on the simple, elementary, obvious, crucial distinction between theism and religion ?

I'm using religion in the generic sense. All religion has elements of myth and ideological convictions that require some element of faith and of superstition.



It's not at all obvious that atheists in general, or myself in particular, would prefer a society devoid of religion, story, ritual, spiritual practice, etc. It is in fact false.


Well when you get together, you can decide the direction of your godless societies, even theists don't always agree on all aspects of their religion.


It is also false that atheists form a group, that would have coherent and compatible notions of how society should be set up different from what it is now. As the Irish can tell you, there's a big difference between a Protestant atheist and a Catholic one, and the Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim varieties must vary similarly.

But like all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc, they do have their ideology in common. And surely with their superior reasoning qualities, they do not require superstition to bind them together?

A great number of America's original founders were either atheists or believed that any god which might exist wouldn't be concerned with the affairs of human beings. These were some of the most politically active people in all of history, and they were motivated primarily by religious-based oppression. The religious whackos who have run the show a great deal since snuck in through the backdoor after all the hard work had been done to win basic liberties.

The same guys who kept slaves and drew up a constitution that did not recognise blacks as humans, while murdering natives for their land and resources and putting them in reservations? Yeah, whatever happened to those guys? All that high IQ and they could not keep the stupid people out? Very strange.

[Asguard]

Sam will you stop putting a "q" in my name. Just because draqon spells his name with a q doesnt mean i do

its AsGuard

[S.A.M.]

Sam will you stop putting a "q" in my name. Just because draqon spells his name with a q doesnt mean i do

its AsGuard

I usually put a g, I think, and you are a fine one to point out spelling errors. :mad::p

Anyway, back on topic, I don't recall any officially atheist society that is a democracy, but I was wondering, if, like the hallucinatory Catholics in Australia, any atheists had ever stood up for religious rights of theists in any way.

[CptBork]

A lot of the early founders of America kept slaves; back then, the British still did it too. A lot of America's atheist founders also helped to liberate the slaves. Writings have been found from Abraham Lincoln showing how much he detested organized religion. If I recall correctly, John Quincy Adams was also highly atheistic in his philosophies, and he helped to liberate the prisoners of the Amistad. Plus don't forget, these days the terms "Bible belt" and "slave trade" are almost synonymous, so think about that for a moment.

If you want to portray everything atheists have done for America as inherently evil, by citing the slave trade and wars with natives as examples of atheist creations, then you oughtta look at your own homeland. India's history is rife with slavery long before the British showed up, and even today the Indian government lords over a vast multitude of unhappy separatist minorities, Kashmir being just the most obvious example. Oh and let's not forget how many stories and records of slavery one can find among the muslims of the Middle East. I guess they must all be big bad oppressors and evildoers too, right?

[S.A.M.]

A lot of the early founders of America kept slaves; back then, the British still did it too. A lot of America's atheist founders also helped to liberate the slaves. Writings have been found from Abraham Lincoln showing how much he detested organized religion. If I recall correctly, John Quincy Adams was also highly atheistic in his philosophies, and he helped to liberate the prisoners of the Amistad. Plus don't forget, these days the terms "Bible belt" and "slave trade" are almost synonymous, so think about that for a moment.

If you want to portray everything atheists have done for America as inherently evil, by citing the slave trade and wars with natives as examples of atheist creations, then you oughtta look at your own homeland. India's history is rife with slavery long before the British showed up, and even today the Indian government lords over a vast multitude of unhappy separatist minorities, Kashmir being just the most obvious example. Oh and let's not forget how many stories and records of slavery one can find among the muslims of the Middle East. I guess they must all be big bad oppressors and evildoers too, right?


Yeah India sucks, but then we have less than 1% atheism, so its clear that the evil of religion has deep roots (about 5000 years and still going pretty well). But I'd say that the atheists who founded the US certainly showed us, eh?

[Asguard]

sam i do have problems with spelling errors, but if its hard to spell a NAME i just copy it from the poster.

However a few posters have been changing my g to a q since draqon complained about his name being spelled dragon:p

Anyway your right back to the topic.
You have met one now, as long as it doesnt harm anyone else i would defend the right of a theist to belive in god. However dont then come to me and ague that "because god said so" is a reason for a specific piece of public policy. Evidence is all i care about when it comes to policy just as it is when it comes to med for me. I DO have a problem when religion harms people, for instance i strongly surport the changes to the right to concent to medical treatment act (1984? i THINK) which makes it illegal for a parent to refuse a blood transfusion to a child who needs one. However i would defend the right of a JW to refuse a blood transfusion for THEMSELVES if they so chose on religious grounds because it only harms themself

[S.A.M.]

sam i do have problems with spelling errors, but if its hard to spell a NAME i just copy it from the poster.

However a few posters have been changing my g to a q since draqon complained about his name being spelled dragon:p

Anyway your right back to the topic.
You have met one now, as long as it doesnt harm anyone else i would defend the right of a theist to belive in god. However dont then come to me and ague that "because god said so" is a reason for a specific piece of public policy. Evidence is all i care about when it comes to policy just as it is when it comes to med for me. I DO have a problem when religion harms people, for instance i strongly surport the changes to the right to concent to medical treatment act (1984? i THINK) which makes it illegal for a parent to refuse a blood transfusion to a child who needs one. However i would defend the right of a JW to refuse a blood transfusion for THEMSELVES if they so chose on religious grounds because it only harms themself


So there has not been a single occasion when atheists in Australia have publicly endorsed the rights of the religious? Especially against a powerful atheist organisation?

[CptBork]

Yeah India sucks, but then we have less than 1% atheism, so its clear that the evil of religion has deep roots (about 5000 years and still going pretty well). But I'd say that the atheists who founded the US certainly showed us, eh?

Well at the present rate, America's certainly going to make you very rich in the future, that's for sure. As for comparing the evils of US atheist founders and their heirs to some of India's more fanatical rulers, I wonder what those fanatical rulers would have done if they had a 4 year long worldwide monopoly on nuclear weapons. Yeah right they wouldn't have used 'em.

[Asguard]

did you actually READ my post?

Alot of doctors have taken cases to the guardianship board to force unconciouse pts to have blood transfusions against the wishes of there family because of there own proffessed belifes (those of the pt i mean). The guardianship board (an arm of the judical branch i might add) has rejected these actions. The only exception has to do with children and those who cant concent because of mental incapacity (permident, not acute) so they havent had a chance to proffess a belife.

[S.A.M.]

Well at the present rate, America's certainly going to make you very rich in the future, that's for sure. As for comparing the evils of US atheist founders and their heirs to some of India's more fanatical rulers, I wonder what those fanatical rulers would have done if they had a 4 year long worldwide monopoly on nuclear weapons. Yeah right they wouldn't have used 'em.

Clearly as a country known for its violence and intolerance, we have a lot to learn from the pacifism and tolerance that Americans are famous for. While stumbling along reluctantly with idiosyncracies like a nuclear scientist Muslim President, an economist Sikh Prime Minister and a Roman Catholic of Italian descent as a leader of the ruling party, in a country with teh Single Representative vote, where atheists are sworn in (http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/06/12/discussion-atheism-in-india.htm) on secular phrases, we clearly have a long way to go.:(

[CptBork]

No, I think India's democratic fundamentals are sound, insofar as they apply to the people who actually want to be a part of India. My understanding is a lot of people in your territory have sovereign control of their own lands, and don't want to be a part of yours. Your treatment of the Kashmiris is reputed to be brutal and autocratic just like China's rule over Tibet, but we don't get the same kind of media access to these things as you get for western atrocities. So I don't see what gives you the authority to preach to America about its own ideals and what good they've done for the world.

[S.A.M.]

No, I think India's democratic fundamentals are sound, insofar as they apply to the people who actually want to be a part of India. My understanding is a lot of people in your territory have sovereign control of their own lands, and don't want to be a part of yours. Your treatment of the Kashmiris is reputed to be brutal and autocratic just like China's rule over Tibet, but we don't get the same kind of media access to these things as you get for western atrocities. So I don't see what gives you the authority to preach to America about its own ideals and what good they've done for the world.

I was merely commenting on the atheism part. You can pick any society you like.

[CptBork]

Well insofar as you're criticizing some of the negative results of atheist political involvement, I'm telling you to look in the mirror. In my opinion, the most important feature of general atheist thought is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances and knowledge. Thus it has typically been atheistic thought patterns that have opened societies up to new ideas and progress, and paved the way for past injustices to be addressed and prevented from reocurring. The idea of a secular society allowing equal access to all races and religions is a very atheistic concept. Why would a hardcore religious ethnic majority want to invite a minority into its country to participate in their society and encourage different views?

[S.A.M.]

Well insofar as you're criticizing some of the negative results of atheist political involvement, I'm telling you to look in the mirror. In my opinion, the most important feature of general atheist thought is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances and knowledge. Thus it has typically been atheistic thought patterns that have opened societies up to new ideas and progress, and paved the way for past injustices to be addressed and prevented from reocurring. The idea of a secular society allowing equal access to all races and religions is a very atheistic concept. Why would a hardcore religious ethnic majority want to invite a minority into its country to participate in their society and encourage different views?

Name one atheist country with a secular society.

[CptBork]

I'd say Canada comes pretty damn close. Barack Obama was known to be an atheist in his younger years, and I doubt he's truly changed underneath the surface, which would make America in many ways a second such country. But it depends what you mean by atheist country.

Poll results show atheism is a significantly large and rapidly growing minority in Canada, Europe, parts of Asia and even in Israel, but none of these countries has a clear atheist majority as far as I'm aware.

[Asguard]

Antatica:p
Its a scientific outpost only run by scientists:)

Sam im sorry but its a silly question, yes countries have churchs because a majority of people tend to have SOME form of religion. This means nothing, if everyone gave up there religion would sociaty colaps?
No!!!!!!!!!!

but this is compleatly irelivent to your operning post. You claimed that all athiasts are politically apathetic, i have proved decisivly that you are wrong. My proof, juila gullard is currently sharing my desktop with sciforums so your propersition is WRONG. End of discussion

[S.A.M.]

I'd say Canada comes pretty damn close. Barack Obama was known to be an atheist in his younger years, and I doubt he's truly changed underneath the surface, which would make America in many ways a second such country. But it depends what you mean by atheist country.

Poll results show atheism is a significantly large and rapidly growing minority in Canada, Europe, parts of Asia and even in Israel, but none of these countries has a clear atheist majority as far as I'm aware.

I don't see any atheist government. All run by theists, or at least presumptive theists.

Perhaps this may help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism


Antatica:p
Its a scientific outpost only run by scientists:)

Sam im sorry but its a silly question, yes countries have churchs because a majority of people tend to have SOME form of religion. This means nothing, if everyone gave up there religion would sociaty colaps?
No!!!!!!!!!!

but this is compleatly irelivent to your operning post. You claimed that all athiasts are politically apathetic, i have proved decisivly that you are wrong. My proof, juila gullard is currently sharing my desktop with sciforums so your propersition is WRONG. End of discussion


No, you did not. I have not seen any evidence of political activity of atheists, least with regards to theists in their society or even on behalf of theists. All you showed was that you are politically aware, but I have yet to see where atheists have contributed to the political scene in any significant manner.

[CptBork]

I don't see any atheist government. All run by theists, or at least presumptive theists.

Perhaps this may help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

I would argue that the mechanisms of Communism in many ways parallel the mechanisms of religion. Another good reason to disregard Communist philosophy. But this is a typical argument, and quite a frustrating one- that the only societies which have ever attained any sort of atheistic government were the ones in which power was seized and the people were brutally oppressed by communists. Yet even in these societies, the majority of the population running day to day operations retained their religious views. The USSR never fully stamped out the church in private lives, and Russia hasn't benefited much now that it's back out in the open. In China there's always been an exorbitant amount of religious superstition, and it still abounds amongst the majority even after decades of communist rule.

The reason atheists haven't yet been elected to head offices is because no society on Earth has yet moved solidly towards the atheist camp. There has only been a gradual progression over the ages in most societies from extreme religion down to mild religion down to secularism. The time for secular societies governed by democratically elected, outspoken atheists hasn't come yet, but it's only just around the corner. The outdated voter mentality is all that's holding it back, but the demographic is shifting. In the meantime, plenty of atheists have been active, especially in the academic communities which shape the political debate. Perhaps you haven't heard of the intelligent design debacle?

[S.A.M.]

Feel free to point out any society where atheists have positions of power in any capacity that affects political decisions and have defended the rights of theists rather than disparaged them, as a commitment to secular society. I'll check in tomorrow. :)

[Asguard]

im not sure your right on that, Im pritty sure NZ had (or has) an athiast PM and australia could have had heeps of them because we dont actually ask our pollies what religion they are. There are very few pollies who religion i could actually tell you.

[tim840]

I think the majority of American Christians are Republicans. No source, no verification, but I think it's a fairly accurate generalization.

[spidergoat]

Atheists are almost never in the majority, just like geniuses.


Sweden 46 - 85% Atheist/ Agnostic/ Nonbeliever in God (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html)
Denmark 43 - 80%
Norway 31 - 72%
Japan 64 - 65%
Finland 28 - 60%

[CptBork]

Feel free to point out any society where atheists have positions of power in any capacity that affects political decisions and have defended the rights of theists rather than disparaged them, as a commitment to secular society. I'll check in tomorrow. :)

I could point to Richard Dawkins, a highly influential scientist, but it depends what you believe religious rights are. I don't think many atheists will support the idea of kids being sequestered and indoctrinated from a young age in religious schools, with the forceful suppression of alternative views. If you're just talking about peoples' rights to believe whatever they want to believe, to express their views and to raise their families in nondiscriminatory traditions, then those are rights I haven't heard many atheists question at all.

[CptBork]

Atheists are almost never in the majority, just like geniuses.


Sweden 46 - 85% Atheist/ Agnostic/ Nonbeliever in God (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html)
Denmark 43 - 80%
Norway 31 - 72%
Japan 64 - 65%
Finland 28 - 60%

I'd question the accuracy of this survey. Look how wild the swing is on Finland and Norway- why such a large error margin? From what I know of Sweden, I'll bet it's close to 50% atheist, but to call it majority atheist I think is a bit early. If a series of definitive polls were to be conducted on the matter and such a result were obtained, then I'd definitely be convinced.

[spidergoat]

If atheists made the worst citizens of all, it still would not discredit atheism as a position on the God question. In fact, (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)

Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%).

[S.A.M.]

Are you telling me that criminals in prison freely confess to being atheist?


Atheists are almost never in the majority, just like geniuses.


Sweden 46 - 85% Atheist/ Agnostic/ Nonbeliever in God (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html)
Denmark 43 - 80%
Norway 31 - 72%
Japan 64 - 65%
Finland 28 - 60%

Or people with severe mental disease or genetic defects.

I could point to Richard Dawkins, a highly influential scientist, but it depends what you believe religious rights are. I don't think many atheists will support the idea of kids being sequestered and indoctrinated from a young age in religious schools, with the forceful suppression of alternative views. If you're just talking about peoples' rights to believe whatever they want to believe, to express their views and to raise their families in nondiscriminatory traditions, then those are rights I haven't heard many atheists question at all.

You're holding up Richard Dawkins as one who stands for the rights of the religious? The Richard Dawkins? Who wrote the God Delusion? I suppose you think Christians who consider atheists as an immoral plague on society are standing up for their rights?

[spidergoat]

Richard Dawkins has never said anything about violating the rights of the religious to practice the faith of their choosing.

[S.A.M.]

Richard Dawkins has never said anything about violating the rights of the religious to practice the faith of their choosing.

Except for signing two petitions: one to prevent parents from teaching their children religion [which he revoked when he realised how foolish it made him look] and one to shut down all faith schools. Not to mention making disparaging remarks about religious people in public, including refusing to shake the hand of a minister. I bet if anyone refused to shake his hand because he is an atheist, it would be a different story.

[spidergoat]

The religious don't have the inherent right to shake the hand of anyone they please. They should also not have the right to violate the religious freedoms of their children.

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, you put your kids in the woods if you like. I'll refuse to shake hands with atheists :p

[spidergoat]

I will let any children I sire believe what they want to believe.

[S.A.M.]

Sure, but religion is more than God. If you don't give your children roots, they'll just drift around aimlessly.

[spidergoat]

So? Are we still talking about the political involvement of the religious? You seem to be complaining about the political involvement of the non-religious.

[S.A.M.]

Its all intermingled. Religious groups are more likely to be politically involved, since there is greater social involvement. What do atheists do? What has Dawkins contributed? Apart from disparaging religious people, nothing. I would sooner send my kids for mass than to one of Dawkins anti-religion tirades. Hatred for people's beliefs is not a quality to be encouraged. Religious groups have a different focus. They are intent on providing a service or a contribution.

[spidergoat]

Atheists do whatever they want to do. Dawkins has never encouraged hatred of people for their religion. Religious groups in the US do not have a history of political involvement, as I already pointed out. Having faith that everything is going to turn out fine because God is in control makes people complacent.

[S.A.M.]

Atheists do whatever they want to do. Dawkins has never encouraged hatred of people for their religion. Religious groups in the US do not have a history of political involvement, as I already pointed out. Having faith that everything is going to turn out fine because God is in control makes people complacent.

The way I see it, if like Dawkins, I would pick any group and go around highlighting their negative points, I would be called a bigot. Pick any group. Jews, or blacks, or the Chinese, for instance. Or homosexuals. Or even Americans. ;)

So, I don't see any reason to give him a free pass, merely because he happens to be an atheist. If he had refused to shake the hand of a man because he was Jewish, you can bet the publicity would have been very different.

[CptBork]

From an atheistic point of view, Dawkins has defended the rights of students to learn actual science in their science classes, not unproven religious dogma. I think we can all agree on the value of keeping science classes focussed on studying things of actual scientific merit, and Dawkins played a big part in preventing politicians from being swayed by religious lobby groups and think tanks who wanted to change the agenda.

From a societal point of view, Dawkins has contributed to a truly multicultural society in which all views are expressed and tolerated. The only proposed limitation on religious rights is the extent to which they interfere with the rights of the individual. Dawkins has come out swinging against the principle that a child too young to understand critical thinking can be told what religion they are and how they'll be punished if they resist. If I raise a child to believe that it's their divine racial duty to kill as many Asians as they can over the course of their life, that's indisputably a form of child abuse. In many British muslim schools, children are taught not only that apostasy is punishable by death in islamic countries, but that this is in fact a good thing, Allah's word, and that these children would be doing a holy deed by carrying out such acts on an apostate if they ever themselves had the chance. That too is child abuse, and the rights of the children to decide their own beliefs in this case outway the religious rights of their parents to teach them or scare them with violent acts. Sure, some could always put it into context and argue that apostasy refers to more than just leaving Islam, but also betraying your tribe in a way that puts them at risk of total annihilation. However, from my understanding, this is not what many British muslim schools are teaching; they are teaching their children to hate, and the results are very telling.

[S.A.M.]

Dawkins contributes to a multicultural society like Saddam contributed to freedom of expression. Only the people already in his camp are believers. I've seen his portrayal of Muslims and Arabs and I am not impressed. He sounds like a bigoted, ignorant Orientalist.

[CptBork]

Beyond defending the right of children to access information beyond their religious upbringing, what religious "rights" has Dawkins tried to repress? All I hear him saying is "if you want to teach your kids about leprechauns, do it on your own time".

[S.A.M.]

Beyond defending the right of children to access information beyond their religious upbringing, what religious "rights" has Dawkins tried to repress? All I hear him saying is "if you want to teach your kids about leprechauns, do it on your own time".

Have you ever heard him speak? He's anti-theist, not atheist. All he does is create schisms between people. I consider his contribution to society to be negative.

[CptBork]

I've heard him speak, I think he can sometimes come across as condescending and insulting (he's been told that before, and he responded with a quote from a famous science editor: "Science is interesting. And if you disagree, then you can f*** off"). However, I'd like you to provide a quote or reference to where he said something against the rights of the religious to preach their views in a suitable venue like the private home. Dawkins is openly anti-religion, there's no secret about that, but that doesn't mean he's against religious freedoms, that's a different subject altogether.

[S.A.M.]

Look into the archives. I'm not interested in rehashing "yet another Dawkins argument"

Suffice to say, I do not consider him a proponent of secular society, only an atheist one.

To get back on topic: Got any others?

edit: if he tried the arrogance and condescension at any formal science gathering, he would get very short shrift. I attend international science conferences and I have yet to meet any scientist who thinks science gives you a free pass to be rude and offensive.

[CptBork]

Sure I've got many others. I assume you want people who are openly atheist though, not people who expressed their atheism in private letters like Abe Lincoln.

[S.A.M.]

I want any example of an athiest who has shown public commitment to a secular society rather than an atheist one.

[spidergoat]

Christopher Hitchens

[CptBork]

K I will find some direct examples of it, but I have to go run a few errands first.

[S.A.M.]

Hehe

This guy?

If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops . . . then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too. So they won't be able to say, "Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through." No way, 'cause it'll go straight through that as well. They'll be dead, in other words.

Or this guy?

We can't live on the same planet as them and I'm glad because I don't want to. I don't want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murders [sic] and rapists and torturers and child abusers. It's them or me. I'm very happy about this because I know it will be them. It's a duty and a responsibility to defeat them. But it's also a pleasure. I don't regard it as a grim task at all.

Thats Iraq he's talking about, btw, or more specifically, Muslims.

[spidergoat]

Muslims do not believe in a secular society.

[S.A.M.]

So you don't know any Muslims who have stood up publicly and spoken for the rights of other religious minorities or athiests?

Know any educated Muslims like Hitchens who relish the thought of killing innocent civilians with cluster bombs because of their religious leanings?

Like this perhaps?

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi called to "allow Jews and Christians to visit Mecca and circle the Kaaba (cubical building surrounded by the Sacred Mosque)."

These days Muslims all around the world are marking Eid al-Adha, the most important Islamic holiday. Some three million people have made the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Gaddafi believes the holiday offers a great opportunity to bring the three main monotheistic religions closer together. "Everyone has the right to stand atop Mount Arafat and circle the Kaaba," he told the media.

"The Kaaba is not meant for Arabs alone, but for people of all continents; the mistake was that they granted this privilege only to Mohammad's descendents, but the Quran does not support this."

[mis-t-highs]

I want any example of an athiest who has shown public commitment to a secular society rather than an atheist one.There aren't any atheist societies, secular societies are all we have.

[S.A.M.]

There aren't any atheist societies, secular societies are all we have.

I beg to differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

[CptBork]

Name one muslim country where I can yell out "Mohammed was a pedophile" in the street and not be arrested. I'm not saying that's what I believe, but name one muslim country where my right to say this is protected.

[spidergoat]

Know any educated Muslims like Hitchens who relish the thought of killing innocent civilians with cluster bombs because of their religious leanings?

You continue to be dishonest by selective quotation. This was an interview for Washington Prism, a persian language online publication:

They [Islamist radicals or, as Hitchens calls them, Islamo-fascists] gave us no peace and we shouldn’t give them any. We can't live on the same planet as them and I'm glad because I don’t want to. I don’t want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murders and rapists and torturers and child abusers. Its them or me. I'm very happy about this because I know it will be them. It’s a duty and a responsibility to defeat them. But it's also a pleasure. I don’t regard it as a grim task at all.

[S.A.M.]

Name one muslim country where I can yell out "Mohammed was a pedophile" in the street and not be arrested. I'm not saying that's what I believe, but name one muslim country where my right to say this is protected.

Probably all of them. Why don't you try it? If you're white and American, its understood that being rude and offensive is part of your culture.

[S.A.M.]

You continue to be dishonest by selective quotation. This was an interview for Washington Prism, a persian language online publication:

They [Islamist radicals or, as Hitchens calls them, Islamo-fascists] gave us no peace and we shouldn’t give them any. We can't live on the same planet as them and I'm glad because I don’t want to. I don’t want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murders and rapists and torturers and child abusers. Its them or me. I'm very happy about this because I know it will be them. It’s a duty and a responsibility to defeat them. But it's also a pleasure. I don’t regard it as a grim task at all.

Yeah, he was talking about Iraq.

http://www.washingtonprism.org/eng/showarticle.cfm?id=16

[CptBork]

Probably all of them? Laughable, even today, countries like Saudi Arabia are known to behead people for insulting Islam's prophet (and that beheading usually takes 2 or more chops!). Now what insult in a free society could possibly warrant such a punishment?

[CptBork]

Anyway, must get back to errands, got some visitors... :m:
Will be back in a bit.

[spidergoat]

Yeah, he was talking about Iraq.

Islamist radicals, not, as you dishonestly implied, innocent people.

[S.A.M.]

Islamist radicals, not, as you dishonestly implied, innocent people.

Not by American definition, no. Of course, everyone that Americans kill, incarcerate or torture, are by definition, "Islamist" radicals.

Probably all of them? Laughable, even today, countries like Saudi Arabia are known to behead people for insulting Islam's prophet (and that beheading usually takes 2 or more chops!). Now what insult in a free society could possibly warrant such a punishment?

I lived in Saudi Arabia for five years. Now all you have to do is give me evidence for your claim. Who was the last person beheaded for insulting the Prophet? And since I have seen a public beheading of five men, please also show evidence that it takes 2 or more chops.:bugeye:

I also decapitate rats, hundreds of them, and I've never used more than one "chop".

[iceaura]

But like all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc, they do have their ideology in common. No, "they" don't.

They do not.

(Neither to the theists you listed. The Buddhist theists don't even have ideology in common with atheistic Buddhists on your criteria, let alone Muslims having some kind of unified ideology and Christians another on sensible criteria )

And when you get that through your head - you can start with the examples of contrasting and opposed ideologies among the self-identified atheists on this forum, if your social world has no examples - you can go back to this muddle you have created around Dawkins, "secular" vs "atheist" societies, and so forth.

For example, here's what you get when you confuse theism with religion, secular with atheist, and entire ideologies with features of spiritual belief:
There aren't any atheist societies, secular societies are all we have.
”
I beg to differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
]

Albania was declared an atheist state by Enver Hoxha,[8] and remained so from 1967 until 1991 .[9] The trend toward state atheism in Albania was taken to an extreme during the regime, when religions, identified as imports foreign to Albanian culture, were banned altogether. - - -
- - - - -
From year 1967 to the end of communist rule, religious practices were banned and the country was proclaimed officially Atheist, marking an event that happened for the first time in world history. Albanians born during the regime were never taught religion, so they grew up to become either Atheists or Agnostics.

Old non-institutional Pagan practices in rural areas, which were seen as identifying with the national culture, were left intact. As a result the current Albanian state has also brought pagan festivals to life, like the lunar Spring festival (Albanian: Dita e Verës) held yearly on March 14th in the city of Elbasan, which is a national holiday. Apparently, some theist is unable to recognize Pagan rituals as religious.

And so the obvious central motive behind Hoxha's oppressions is lost in the prose.

And we note that the original assertion - we have no atheist societies, whatever that means, only secular ones - is true. Even that Albanian authoritarian misconception is gone.
I want any example of an athiest who has shown public commitment to a secular society rather than an atheist one. One of these days, you might want to back up and actually find out what Dawkins, Dennett, Bateson, Russell, and so forth, actually wrote and said.

Meanwhile, we note that Hitchen's ideology appears to be quite different from Dawkins's, even in your limited acquaintanceship with the two, no?

[spidergoat]

Not by American definition, no. Of course, everyone that Americans kill, incarcerate or torture, are by definition, "Islamist" radicals.

You are doing little against the premise that theism makes you stupid.

[S.A.M.]

You are doing little against the premise that theism makes you stupid.

Any proven radicals executed in the hundreds of thousands executed, incarcerated or tortured in both Iraq and Afghanistan? Besides, not allowing people to practice their belief in their own country and bombing them into "democracy" itself is such a ridiculous notion, that there is no logical argument to support it.

[S.A.M.]

Apparently, some theist is unable to recognize Pagan rituals as religious.

Clearly

Albania was declared an atheist state by Enver Hoxha,[8] and remained so from 1967 until 1991 .[9] The trend toward state atheism in Albania was taken to an extreme during the regime, when religions, identified as imports foreign to Albanian culture, were banned altogether. - - -
- - - - -
From year 1967 to the end of communist rule, religious practices were banned and the country was proclaimed officially Atheist, marking an event that happened for the first time in world history. Albanians born during the regime were never taught religion, so they grew up to become either Atheists or Agnostics.


They self identify as atheists. Perhaps they too have their own definition of atheism, which differs from the dictionary definition? There are several on this forum who should support them.


As for athiest countries, again they self identify as atheists. Like Dawkins, they are against any brainwashing of children by parents and as he clearly supports in his petition, have converted all religious institutions into secular ones, while, as he clearly hopes for, have substituted "superstition" and myth and religious practices with "reason", to the extent of keeping out the religious from scientific disciplines, with the result that teh religious, like atheists of yore, either conceal their beliefs or move out.

The only difference is that he is a hypocrite. His signature on such petitions shows that he would support state action, but he pretends to believe in freedom of expression.



One of these days, you might want to back up and actually find out what Dawkins, Dennett, Bateson, Russell, and so forth, actually wrote and said.


I've heard Dawkins speak and discussed my opinion of his opinions. I see nothing good coming from his efforts.


Meanwhile, we note that Hitchen's ideology appears to be quite different from Dawkins's, even in your limited acquaintanceship with the two, no?

Regarding what? Both Hitchens and Dawkins have gone out of their way to portray Muslims as terrorists and Arabs as backward. They could be reading out of 17th century orientalist books.

And he believes that Jews run the world hehe, or at least, the United States:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

And asked what he wanted the athiest bloc to achieve:

I would free children of being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community.

Give the man some power and you'll see another Soviet Union.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/01/deliverusfromdawkins

[mis-t-highs]

I beg to differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheismlol, Have you noticed the edit boxes these are there for two reason, one to allow people to add there own opinion. and two because it is a work in progress, and is not totally factual. the title should be state anti-religion.
It's more like a personal blog.

[S.A.M.]

You can look up the facts. Know any Chinese people? I do. Ask them.

[mis-t-highs]

You can look up the facts. Know any Chinese people? I do. Ask them.

all these are taken for the debate regarding your link
"State atheism is the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism.

What are we basing this definition on? What were the sources used to come up with this idea? Angry Christian (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)"

"I agree this is a problem with this article. I suspect there are plenty of people who do use "state atheism" in this way, but I also suspect it is a matter of POV - other people such as myself might say that the things described in this article are antitheism, and not atheism. The article also claims "State atheism should not be confused ... with state secularism" which also seems a matter of opinion - to me, a state rejecting theism is synonymous with state secularism, where as a state persecuting religious people is not state atheism. Mdwh (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)"

"The Soviet Union's aggression against religion is discussed in the article as it stands, but the note that Albania under Communist rule was the only explicitly atheist state is true, according to all sources I've read over the years. Have you any proof of the USSR explicitly being atheist? GeofFMorris 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)"

and the Albanias are yet to understand that paganism is religious.

There is no state atheism.

[S.A.M.]

They are self defined atheists. Like Saudis are self defined Muslims. Or the Irish are self defined Christians. If you disagree, take it up with them. I did not write and publish The Godless Militant in the Soviet Union. It is their contention, not mine, that they have an officially atheist state. No party member in China can practice any religion.

[spidergoat]

Any proven radicals executed in the hundreds of thousands executed, incarcerated or tortured in both Iraq and Afghanistan? Besides, not allowing people to practice their belief in their own country and bombing them into "democracy" itself is such a ridiculous notion, that there is no logical argument to support it.

No American official has ever tried to make anyone believe that only the guilty are killed in Iraq. In fact, there was a recent trial concerning a massacre by Blackwater of innocent people. It's common knowledge that the innocent are suffering too in Iraq.

Also no one has suggested, officially or otherwise, that Iraqis or Afghanis cannot practice Islam.

[S.A.M.]

No they merely call anyone they kill a Sunni/Shia insurgent or an Islamic terrorist. Or collateral damages. They are not fighting Iraqis, they are fighting Muslims. And they still don't do body counts. I can see the concern.

[spidergoat]

Thanks for correcting your false assertion that atheist Christopher Hitchens believes in killing innocent Muslims.

Not. You just change the subject in scatterbrained fashion that contributes nothing to the debate at hand.

[S.A.M.]

Thanks for correcting your false assertion that atheist Christopher Hitchens believes in killing innocent Muslims.

Not. You just change the subject in scatterbrained fashion that contributes nothing to the debate at hand.

What innocent Muslims? There are no innocent Muslims. The first quote from him? It was about the use of cluster bombs in Fallujah.

There are other gems about Fallujah:

Hitchens unequivocally endorsed the recent siege of Fallujah, saying at the podium “the death toll is not nearly high enough … too many [jihadists] have escaped.” He continued on this path for some time, later saying that his “hatred” of fundamentalists, whom he characterized as being the majority of anti-U.S./U.K. forces in Iraq, is “much more pure, much more rational, and much more enduring” than their hatred for him or the West.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:4nGdztEFNpQJ:collegian.kenyon.edu/article.php%3Fid%3D2400+%22the+death+toll+is+not+n early+high+enough&hl=en&strip=1


And the religious:

“If you get a person stupid or malleable enough to believe in the first delusion [God or an afterlife]” Hitchens said from the podium, “then that person will eventually believe whatever you need them to … they want death more than life, a lot of them, monotheists, want the apocalypse to happen tomorrow, are excited for it … a person like that really cannot be trusted.”

[spidergoat]

What innocent Muslims? There are no innocent Muslims. The first quote from him? It was about the use of cluster bombs in Fallujah.

"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops"

More lies on your part.
I'm not going to defend his defense of invading Iraq, as I do not agree with it, but in no way does he object to secular society.

[S.A.M.]

"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops"

More lies on your part.
I'm not going to defend his defense of invading Iraq, as I do not agree with it, but in no way does he object to secular society.

He clearly said the death toll was not high enough: for this group of people?

On the evening of April 28, 2003, a crowd of 200 people defied a curfew imposed by the Americans and gathered outside a secondary school used as a military HQ to demand its reopening. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne stationed on the roof of the building opened fire on the crowd, resulting in the deaths of 17 civilians and the wounding of over 70.

And since his definition of the "enemy" is

He continued on this path for some time, later saying that his “hatred” of fundamentalists, whom he characterized as being the majority of anti-U.S./U.K. forces in Iraq

I'd say he's got pretty much everyone in Iraq covered.

[spidergoat]

So in an abstract sense, Islamic Fundamentalists, the polar opposite of a secular society, are fine with you? Those are all he has little sympathy towards. They are presently ethnic cleansing Iraq neighborhoods based on religion, if not already done with the task. That doesn't have anything to do with fighting Americans.

[S.A.M.]

So in an abstract sense, Islamic Fundamentalists, the polar opposite of a secular society, are fine with you? Those are all he has little sympathy towards. They are presently ethnic cleansing Iraq neighborhoods based on religion, if not already done with the task. That doesn't have anything to do with fighting Americans.

Yeah, he's an ardent supporter (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/09/05/hitchens/index1.html) of the Bush war in Iraq. Killing anti-US elements in an occupied country that has been bombed for 5 years gets him off. His reaction to the Fallujah killings was very telling in this aspect.

I consider him pathetic and irrelevant.

[spidergoat]

That's great. Now what? He's hawkish, as are many religious people, but he's not opposed to a secular society. He's married to a practicing Jew!

[S.A.M.]

And that makes it better? I think in that context, his comments on the backwardness of Hanukkah and such like are even more distasteful.

And yeah, its very secular to ask to ban religious practices.

The display of the menorah at this season, however, has a precise meaning and is an explicit celebration of the original victory of bloody-minded faith over enlightenment and reason. As such it is a direct negation of the First Amendment and it is time for the secularists and the civil libertarians to find the courage to say so.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1954,n,n

[Simon Anders]

Are atheists more likely to be politically apathetic, considering that politics is about power and authority, which atheists decry as a source of brainwashing? Are there "conservative" atheists? Atheists who believe in monarchies? Fascist atheists?

Or, considering the amount of time and effort they invest in removing religious symbols from public life (or pursuing frivolous lawsuits to do the same) are they more politically aware but less politically useful?:D

Do they just want to chip away at existing institutions without clear ideas of what they want in stead?
As you are regularly pointing out communists have tended to be atheists. This makes it clear atheists are quite capable of being political - in all areas of political life - and setting up and being authorities.

Of course there are fascist and conservative atheists - many of the neoconservaties are both. One fascinating way conservatives - both religious and atheistic - have gotten together was in South American politics, especially if one focuses on US/SA relations. Here those focused on money easily joined up with those focused on 'morals' to combat the 'threat' presented by people with long hair who wanted to nationalize certain industries.

Atheists are quite capable of being authoritarian. You have to go into more pagan societies to find people who are truly skeptical about centralized power. A nice example can be found in many native american groups where leaderships was always tentative. It was dependent on the support of the people and could fall apart with bad decisions. In fact this was part of their problem when fighting against the incoming Europeans. Their own distaste for centralized power made it hard for them to organize a unified defense. (of course other problems were present and important, not least smallpox etc.)

[S.A.M.]

So why have their contributions to a secular society (as opposed to an anti-religion movement) been next to nil?

[Simon Anders]

And yeah, its very secular to ask to ban religious practices.
And very religious also. There is a rich history of religious practitioners banning religious activities, often with the most complete method possible: killing those of other faiths.

[Simon Anders]

So why have their contributions to a secular society (as opposed to an anti-religion movement) been next to nil?Whose? And could you clarify?

[spidergoat]

So-called secular humanists are mostly atheists. Religious people tend to want religious faith incorporated into national politics.

[S.A.M.]

And very religious also. There is a rich history of religious practitioners banning religious activities, often with the most complete method possible: killing those of other faiths.

Not in secular societies. Unless you're talking about France/Turkey where they banned the hijab, but then there again, you have a preponderance of atheists in power who did it, so its not surprising. I think atheists will jump through hoops to ban any practice of religion no matter how meaningless or symbolic. I sincerely doubt that Jews who light the menorah are celebrating the victory of blind faith over reason. But why should that stop Hitchens? I wonder what he considers his Jewish wife.

[CptBork]

So why have their contributions to a secular society (as opposed to an anti-religion movement) been next to nil?

What about men like Gorbachev, long-time members of the communist party, who gave Russia back all its freedoms as well as freedoms it had never enjoyed before? You think it would have been anywhere near as easy without reformists like Gorbachev in charge? Would you claim Gorbachev as a theist who defended secular society from the evil imperialist atheists?

[S.A.M.]

What about men like Gorbachev, long-time members of the communist party, who gave Russia back all its freedoms as well as freedoms it had never enjoyed before? You think it would have been anywhere near as easy without reformists like Gorbachev in charge? Would you claim Gorbachev as a theist who defended secular society from the evil imperialist atheists?

Maybe, would he declare it if he was a Christian?

oops! Apparently he would. :rolleyes:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_0DySLTT4PWo/R-F6OJKqE8I/AAAAAAAACLE/DlMxicV3Oiw/s320/wgorbachev119b.jpg

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Communist leader of the Soviet Union, has acknowledged his Christian faith for the first time, paying a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi.

Accompanied by his daughter Irina, Mr Gorbachev spent half an hour on his knees in silent prayer at the tomb.

His arrival in Assisi was described as "spiritual perestroika" by La Stampa, the Italian newspaper.

"St Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ," said Mr Gorbachev. "His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life," he added.

Mr Gorbachev's surprise visit confirmed decades of rumours that, although he was forced to publicly pronounce himself an atheist, he was in fact a Christian, and casts a meeting with Pope John Paul II in 1989 in a new light.

http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2008/03/mikhail-gorbachev-christian.html

[Simon Anders]

Not in secular societies.
Well, of course.
But in religious societies we have a rich history of banning religions. Secular society continues this practice.



I think atheists will jump through hoops to ban any practice of religion no matter how meaningless or symbolic.
Then they are doing very poorly in many countries. If those in power in France wanted to 'ban any practice of religion' they have certainly not come very far at all. If they are in power, they are using very little of it to ban any practice of religion.

[S.A.M.]

Well, of course.
But in religious societies we have a rich history of banning religions. Secular society continues this practice.


Then they are doing very poorly in many countries. If those in power in France wanted to 'ban any practice of religion' they have certainly not come very far at all. If they are in power, they are using very little of it to ban any practice of religion.

You think so? Whats the public expression of religion like in France?

[spidergoat]

France never banned the hijab, only for children in public schools, and it was a law in support of secularism.

[Simon Anders]

You think so? Whats the public expression of religion like in France?
Let me help you here. How did you change wording and via that meaning between posts? Play fair, it's a sign of respect.

[S.A.M.]

France never banned the hijab, only for children in public schools, and it was a law in support of secularism.

They expelled several children including Sikh boys for wearing turbans, which are compulsory in their religious practice. Very secular of them.

Even the Afghanis are not anal about that.

http://www.afghanhindu.info/images/10_6_2002_sikh.jpg

Afghan Sikhs are again permitted to attend school to study their religion and the Hindi language. In a country that appears to be homogeneous to the outside eye, Afghanistan's people will surprise you with their varying ethnic backgrounds and traditions. - Steve McCurry

http://www2.soros.org/photogalleries/mw_gallery.php?series=/resources/events/mw9/mccurry/&id=6

[spidergoat]

It is actually.

[iceaura]

Yeah, he's an ardent supporter of the Bush war in Iraq. So we can bury forever your "common ideology" ascription to atheists ? Even the small group of publicly famous ones ?
It is their contention, not mine, that they have an officially atheist state. No party member in China can practice any religion. Including an atheistic one.

Penny drop yet ?

And yeah, its very secular to ask to ban religious practices. Government backing of them, you mean. Putting the power of the State behind religious observances is something almost anyone who wanted a secular State would object to.
I've heard Dawkins speak and discussed my opinion of his opinions. I see nothing good coming from his efforts. I see nothing coming from you that indicates comprehension of his efforts. You say a great many silly things about atheists in general (common ideology !?), but Dawkins in particular seems to bring out the bizarre.
As for athiest countries, again they self identify as atheists. Like Dawkins, they are against any brainwashing of children by parents and as he clearly supports in his petition, have converted all religious institutions into secular ones, while, as he clearly hopes for, have substituted "superstition" and myth and religious practices with "reason", to the extent of keeping out the religious from scientific disciplines, with the result that teh religious, like atheists of yore, either conceal their beliefs or move out. So the question was, Hoxha long gone and N Korea installing a deity and so forth, whether we had in fact any "atheist societies" imposed by authority as you seem to think "the atheists" espouse by common ideology. I noted that there didn't seem to be any. I suppose Cuba could be trotted out.

Then we could see whether such societies met with favor from all "the atheists". I submit that Cuba does not.

Meanwhile, you once again slide into Dawkins trying to wipe out myth and ritual from human life, from his support of others' efforts at removing State power from behind religious indoctrination. You can't tell the difference between Hoxha throwing clerics in jail and Dawkins objecting to government support of parochial schooling. Hello?

[S.A.M.]

Of course. Like Saudis who do not permit the public expression of religious symbols. Since atheism has no symbol, the French can cater to their atheism by banning all religious symbols and forcing those citizens who wish to wear a head covering to not do so. Thats not secularism. Even Catholic convents in India are better than that.

[S.A.M.]

So we can bury forever your "common ideology" ascription to atheists ? Even the small group of publicly famous ones ?
Including an atheistic one.

Actually atheism is strongly encouraged in China. Only atheists are allowed into the Communist party membership. :rolleyes:


Government backing of them, you mean. Putting the power of the State behind religious observances is something almost anyone who wanted a secular State would object to.

Nope, not if its a secular government. We have government sponsored religious organisations and activities in India. Politicians hold iftaar during Ramadan, light up the streets during Diwali and Christmas. Its supposed to be a government for the people, by the people. Why should the government not support and help with religious activities? What the hell are we paying taxes for?


So the question was, Hoxha long gone and N Korea installing a deity and so forth, whether we had in fact any "atheist societies" imposed by authority as you seem to think "the atheists" espouse by common ideology. I noted that there didn't seem to be any. I suppose Cuba could be trotted out.

Not all Muslims espouse a common ideology, so what? Doesn't stop people from labeling Palestinians/Afghans/Iraqis under occupation with terrorism, does it? Or make any of them more or less Muslims?

Then we could see whether such societies met with favor from all "the atheists". I submit that Cuba does not.


And so what? Not all Muslims support Saudi Arabian system of government. Does that make the Saudis less Muslim?



Meanwhile, you once again slide into Dawkins trying to wipe out myth and ritual from human life, from his support of others' efforts at removing State power from behind religious indoctrination. You can't tell the difference between Hoxha throwing clerics in jail and Dawkins objecting to government support of parochial schooling. Hello?

The only difference between the two is that Dawkins does not have the power to implement his wishes. If he could shut down faith schools tomorrow, he would do it without a qualm. If he could pass a law to ban the teaching of any religion, he would do so.

[spidergoat]

So, a moment of silence caters to atheists, since it contains no specific religious text?

[S.A.M.]

I think there are atheists who have protested that as well.

Ha! A prime example of atheist brainwashing:

A 14-year-old girl and her outspoken atheist father filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging a new Illinois law requiring a brief period of prayer or reflective silence at the start of every school day.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional, said attorney Gregory Kulis, who represents Dawn Sherman, a freshman at Buffalo Grove High School, and her father Robert Sherman, a radio talk show host.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-10-26-moment-of-silence_N.htm

I mean really, is that all he could teach his kid? To make meaningless gestures against religion?

[CptBork]

Maybe, would he declare it if he was a Christian?

oops! Apparently he would. :rolleyes:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_0DySLTT4PWo/R-F6OJKqE8I/AAAAAAAACLE/DlMxicV3Oiw/s320/wgorbachev119b.jpg



http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2008/03/mikhail-gorbachev-christian.html

In that case, this just shows that the "atheist" communist party of the USSR was filled with leaders who privately held their own religious views. Gorbachev had been a high ranking member for decades before he assumed the top spot. So that would then invalidate your direct association of communist dictatorships with atheist beliefs.

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, just like atheists in the US privately hold their views in governance. Whose fault is that?

[iceaura]

The only difference between the two is that Dawkins does not have the power to implement his wishes. If he could shut down faith schools tomorrow, he would do it without a qualm. If he could pass a law to ban the teaching of any religion, he would do so. As I noted, increasingly bizarre in the neighborhood of Dawkins.

You can't get Hoxha's actions from anything Dawkins has written or said. He has almost the opposite approach, consistently opposing the imposition or involvement of government power in religious matters.

Do such assumptions lie behind your ascription of a common ideology to "the atheists" ?

[CptBork]

Yeah, just like atheists in the US privately hold their views in governance. Whose fault is that?

Who said it was anyone's fault? The point is that your association of communist dictatorships with the direct rule of confirmed atheists is invalid.

[CptBork]

In China, for instance, there are a lot of people who call themselves atheist that still hold beliefs the west would call religious. They simply accept aspects of organized religion as if they were secular scientific fact, things like chi and the idea that nature has a divine intelligence to it- that would make them theists in most outsiders' books.

[S.A.M.]

Who said it was anyone's fault? The point is that your association of communist dictatorships with the direct rule of confirmed atheists is invalid.


So you are saying that if in an officially Muslim country, infidels were put to death and you later discovered that the main guy in charge was concealing his lack of faith while putting infidels to death, you would not consider the deaths to be due to the country being officially Muslim?

[CptBork]

In that case yeah, so for instance the public executions in Saudi Arabia (sorting through the data right now) couldn't be blamed on the Islamic religion if the people who ordered and instituted them were secretly atheist. But you'd have to demonstrate something clearly confirming the Saudi rulers' lack of faith- i.e. show us some photos of them shucking their robes when they get off their private jets in Europe to go drink at nightclubs and sleep with anglo saxon prostitutes.

[S.A.M.]

As I noted, increasingly bizarre in the neighborhood of Dawkins.

You can't get Hoxha's actions from anything Dawkins has written or said. He has almost the opposite approach, consistently opposing the imposition or involvement of government power in religious matters.

Do such assumptions lie behind your ascription of a common ideology to "the atheists" ?

This is the same guy who signed two petitions advising state action to ban religious practice. Also the same guy who unequivocally stated:


"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

Excuse me if I take his statements with a pinch of salt; while "consistently opposing involvement of government blah blah blah" he would embrace it whole heartedly to serve his own interests.


In that case yeah, so for instance the public executions in Saudi Arabia (sorting through the data right now) couldn't be blamed on the Islamic religion if the people who ordered and instituted them were secretly atheist. But you'd have to demonstrate something clearly confirming the Saudi rulers' lack of faith- i.e. show us some photos of them shucking their robes when they get off their private jets in Europe to go drink at nightclubs and sleep with anglo saxon prostitutes.

Perhaps, like Gorbachev and current Maoists in China, you'd have to wait for a revolution before they tell all.

[CptBork]

Perhaps, like Gorbachev and current Maoists in China, you'd have to wait for a revolution before they tell all.

Well that takes us back to square one. We have yet to see a true atheist state run by confirmed and outspoken atheists take shape, so we have no past performance to judge. The examples you've held up of "atheist" states from the past/present are no more valid than the examples I've suggested of religious states carrying out similar repression of freedoms.

[S.A.M.]

Well that takes us back to square one. We have yet to see a true atheist state run by confirmed and outspoken atheists take shape, so we have no past performance to judge. The examples you've held up of "atheist" states from the past/present are no more valid than the examples I've suggested of religious states carrying out similar repression of freedoms.

Then by your own definition, there has never been a theist state.

[CptBork]

No, because religious rulers in the past who committed various atrocities did so in the name of religion, and no record is provided indicating they may have secretly leaned in a different direction. Furthermore, the people complicit in these atrocities were themselves known to follow their religions devoutly, whether or not their leaders felt the same way. In the case of the USSR, you yourself provided one of many known examples of how many of the leaders held various sorts of religious views. Those who carried out atrocities on behalf of the Soviet leaders did so for the communist system, not for atheism in and of itself.

[CptBork]

Regardless, I'd be happy leaving this debate as it stands regarding which philosophical standpoint produces the most righteous, moral leaders. My contention is no modern democracy has yet given atheists a chance to set the agenda, so we have no past examples on which to judge their performance. If Sweden were to elect an openly atheist leader who then proceeded to purge the Church and execute its leaders, then you might have some valid ammunition.

[Asguard]

sam who is the most politcally motevated group in australia?

Its not the church thats for sure

The two biggest political lobby groups are the AMA (australian medical association) - no religious affiliation


and the union movement (they even have a 50% vote in the labor party) again a NON religious orgisation

Your wrong, accept it

[S.A.M.]

No, because religious rulers in the past who committed various atrocities did so in the name of religion, and no record is provided indicating they may have secretly leaned in a different direction.

Duh, that goes for all and any atheist leader who killed millions of people to form an officially atheist state. :rolleyes:

[Simon Anders]

Atheist leaders have clearly not been apathetic. It is very hard to kill millions apathetically. One can not save them this way, but to have them killed requires at least a mild passing interest of some kind.

The idea that atheism leads to apathy is unfounded.

Ask the people of South America if atheistic neocons were apathetic about how they ran their own countries.

[CptBork]

Duh, that goes for all and any atheist leader who killed millions of people to form an officially atheist state. :rolleyes:

No, because as you yourself pointed out, many of these "atheist" leaders can be shown to have harboured various supernatural, unscientific beliefs of their own.

[S.A.M.]

Y