Contrary to said religions, traditions and cultures which show the utmost respect for each other I presume.
General / Off-Topic Atheist Goverments - The sword of reason
- Thread starter Ironwolf
- Start date
- Status
Contrary to said religions, traditions and cultures which show the utmost respect for each other I presume.
If Orwellian dystopias are your thing, then yeah, I guess so.
Can someone give me an example of a known militant atheist? I can only find fairly outspoken atheists but non of them seem to advocate using force against theism. There does seem to be some atheists who are militant but whenever that is the case, their theism has been replaced by some other dogmatic belief like in the cases of Jim Jones. But someone who is purely an atheist and has his theistic believes removed and replaced with absolutely no other belief, are there any militant ones?
It doesn't make much sense to me if someone who refuses to believe in something based on the lack of evidence would favor militancy against theism wheres all the evidence shows that militancy against theism has a greater probability of actually making more theists. Such an atheist would be a bit of a paradox. Atheists who are purely atheists (not believing in something else) normally advocate for better education system not militancy. But even if there are some who do, there doesn't seem to be enough to take over star systems in the case of ED and form governments whatever those governments would be.
It doesn't make much sense to me if someone who refuses to believe in something based on the lack of evidence would favor militancy against theism wheres all the evidence shows that militancy against theism has a greater probability of actually making more theists. Such an atheist would be a bit of a paradox. Atheists who are purely atheists (not believing in something else) normally advocate for better education system not militancy. But even if there are some who do, there doesn't seem to be enough to take over star systems in the case of ED and form governments whatever those governments would be.
Last edited:
If you can't judge communism based on stalin, you can't judge religion, tradition and culture based on their leaders either. Either you are tolerant, or you are a warmonger.
@ Nate.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoJyONmcGbM ... Dawkins himself 
... tongue in cheek tho
Just thinking tho, in the Elite Universe there is definatley a creator (or group of them).
Doesn't this make Theism the correct position here?
... tongue in cheek thoJust thinking tho, in the Elite Universe there is definatley a creator (or group of them).
Doesn't this make Theism the correct position here?
Last edited:
But you can judge communism based on Stalin and other now dictators. You can very much come to the conclusion that it's a government type that is very vulnerable to corruption from the upper echelons of power.
Religions as far as ideas go are also subject to critic. They create a collectivistic mentality and breed hostility for a difference that doesn't really exist to begin with. This gets even worse for the religions that command the believer to spread it, since it goes against everything related to said "tolerance" that religious people like to advocate as a shield. Someone gets to shove a book down my child's throat through devious means and I'm intolerant if I tell them to go get lost?
Traditions are actions. This means that they are even more so subject to critic. Sorry, but I don't give a single penny whether someone is sentimentally attached to getting their children's genitals mutilated. It's morally reprehensible and goes against any standards of consent we have established. Plenty more examples to give for similarly distasteful traditions.
As far as cultures go, I'm pretty sure that you'll find most secular atheists enjoy both foreign cuisine and sensible festivities, because contrary to popular belief, we enjoy having fun.
Last edited:
Are you saying we should be sacrificing a goat to our lord and saviour Braben everytime we file a bug report or post a feature request?
Nebula Goat would not be pleased.
@ Nate.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoJyONmcGbM ... Dawkins himself
Just thinking tho, in the Elite Universe there is definatley a creator (or group of them).
Doesn't this make Theism the correct position here?
Heh I gues it does. The universe in ED certainly is fine-tuned. maybe that's why there aren't any atheists.
Regarding Dawkins; I know about that but the word militancy makes no sense to me in that video when you use the entire speech to try to "force" atheism using democracy and education as opposed to autocracy and force.
Last edited:
This is very funny to me, because that is exactly what every modern activist does. Atheists, PETA, LGBT, FEMEN, to name a few extreme groups of very popular beliefs nowadays, want to force everyone to accept what they believe in without tolerance. But the best part is, they don't tell you to get lost when you don't get convinced by their beliefs. They will start to harrass you, find out where you live, where you work, and try to ruin you socially. Happened to two friends of mine, studying psychology, who were catholics and refused to sign a LGBT petition.
You see, the ultimate truth is that once the last religious man is dead, there will be already 10 new cults in place worshipping dawkins. Look at FubarBundy's post, look at the comment section of the video, and see the true believers praising and shipping their prophet. Then log onto twitter and look at the true followers of Trump, Hillary and Bernie, praising and shipping their prophets. No matter where you look, religion will never cease to exist, and it will always manifest itself around a cult leader. It doesn't matter if the cult leader says that he is christian or atheist. They people who follow them don't look for wisdom or knowledge. They just look for comfort and a scapegoat for their personal failures. Good and Evil, you know the game. God good, Devil evil. Science good, religion evil. Bernie good, Trump evil.
Just know that religion will stop to be a popular scapegoat once it loses power. The question then is, who will be the next enemy?
@ Nate.. Yes it seems a little ott but the point stands. Not sure "militant" means using force necessarily tho
@ Ziggy.. Maybe somebody needs to drive their SRV to the top of the highest mountain and come back down with Braben's commandments?.. wonder what that would look like?
Also wondering... from the perspective of the NPC's , are they able to tell they are in a created universe or not?... Maybe not so easy as, for example, each time the server was reset, so would they be and they would be oblivious to what had just happened. QED
@ Ziggy.. Maybe somebody needs to drive their SRV to the top of the highest mountain and come back down with Braben's commandments?.. wonder what that would look like?
Also wondering... from the perspective of the NPC's , are they able to tell they are in a created universe or not?... Maybe not so easy as, for example, each time the server was reset, so would they be and they would be oblivious to what had just happened. QED
But by that standard there wouldn't be anything wrong with militancy. I assumed that militancy should mean something forced. Disregarding democratic votes and all.
Not sure what you are saying here Langbogen. Dawkins is no deity or object of worship. He's just a man who makes quite a lot of sense to many people.
no, sorry, i just don't agree with it. i read you carefully but i think your point just doesn't stand. negating the existence of unprovable truths is not the same as establishing unprovable truths. no god is the default, same as no flying yellow striped hyppos is the default. you know otherwise, then prove it. the default isn't imposed to anyone, it stands by itself. it's called observable reality.
i concur in that fanatism is not limited to religious fantatism, but this is a different matter. i agree there are atheists that are fanatics (that's why is said the difference can be blurry) but still atheism and theism can't be equated. the first just observes reality, the other is just making stuff up.
Last edited:
Please, just stop pretending of being the victim when religions holds all that power within their grasp.
Your friend shouldn't have been harassed, but he is clearly not in a position to spew the words "tolerance" either. "Do as I say, don't do as I do" much? Remind me of the last time someone prohibited your praying within your own personal space? How can you, in return then, prohibit what happens consentually between two (or more) adults?
The problem caused by the religious is that they think that the aforementioned "tolerance" implies that their beliefs are to be injected into public and social matters.
Last edited:
The thing is, by Langbogen's standards you could do away with absolutely every movement on the planet. There are billions of people on the planet, so idiots will be present in every single one of the movements. There will be crazy gnostic atheists, crazy animal welfare folk (PETA, tree huggers) etc. And those people are usually the ones filling YouTube comments sections because they don't have a voice elsewhere. So judging the movement by the online comment is a very bad estimate. So yes, there will of course be crazy folk under Dawkins's videos commenting.
Last edited:
Well, to my knowledge there are no factions in game listed as Militant Theocracy, so we have no particular reason to believe not.
I know it seems hard to believe to people used to the major world religions of today, but throughout human history, different religions have generally not seen themselves as opposed to each other. The religions which do claim to be "the only true Faith" or whatever were relatively rare (or at least highly localised), untill the Abrahamic religions rose in influence.
So, in all likelyhood, yes, the majority do show respect for each other.
Not entirely true. Ask any Japanese person how their ancestors liked it when the Budhists invaded.
The polytheistic and paganistic religions were more tolerant though, that does apply to them. Mostly because close to everything was a god, so it was kind of given, they were like pokemon.
Last edited:
of course. and then you have some forms of buddhism that don't claim any gods at all. i just used two of the most fierce monotheisms to illustrate my point, and because statistically (by population) most 'religious beliefs' fall in this category by a large margin. as an atheist, a zen temple i could totally accept albeit not being a practitioneer, and even have it funded with public money or even involved in public education. it's just a discipline to serve as framework to develop personal spirituality and looking for answers. the very moment you invent a god you deliberately leave a lot of questions unanswered forever, that is, you simply stop asking questions. this is (in my view, of course) a bad example and bad education. let's say that even though ways can be twisted, no path of knowledge should start out with a flat lie. that's why, as an atheist, i won't have that publicly supported or endorsed. privately, of course, everyone do as she/he pleases.
i'm curious, you religion seems quite tolerant in comparision, and accepting all gods kind of devaluates the notion of god to some figurative construct that could indeed be useful. however, don't want to bother you either!
From earlier in this thread:
Changing tack a little, I'm curious - do atheists believe that there's other intelligent life out there?
- Status