General / Off-Topic Atheist Goverments - The sword of reason

[Apos]

Changing tack a little, I'm curious - do atheists believe that there's other intelligent life out there?

Life, definitely, intelligent life...eerr...most likely somewhere, doing their own things. But anything that is on another galaxy might as well not exist at all in terms of value. This galaxy alone might prove impossible to tread.

What I always wondered is whether a hive mind can reach such amounts of sentience or intelligence is always accompanied with individualism and collectivism clashing endlessly like we do.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Not entirely true. Ask any Japanese person how their ancestors liked it when the Budhists invaded.

I asked my wife and kids. They blinked at each other, then went beack to How to Survive muttering something about dad being a bit of an idiot. You should visit a Buddhist temple in Japan if you ever get the chance. They're great. One of my favourites has the temple grounds guarded by Shinto oni (demons). They're everywhere.

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.

You might also wish to look at how Shinto was appropriated by the government in the run up to WWII. Suffice to say, it wasn't a particularly tolerant belief system.

 

[Mikey2305]

Respect and tolerance. I agree...

I too find it difficult to explain what i believe, why i believe it, and why i think its important!

 

[CariadocThorne]

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?

This is like calling Atheism a religion because of Jim Jones.

Certain religions do this. Most don't.

Don't tar us all with the same brush, because those religions are very different from other religions.

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.

And that has nothing to do with religion. Those are cultural traditions, not religious ones.

 

[znôrt]

Not entirely true. Ask any Japanese person how their ancestors liked it when the Budhists invaded.

japan has actually been an example in religious tolerance and diversity. this is because the strictly classed society and the fact that authority was completely undisputed, so religion wasn't needed for crowd control but regarded as something personal. yes, they did persecute christians at some point, because christians slowly tried to meddle with established power (like they have done everywhere) and the tokugawas got fed up.

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.

nicely put! do they evolve, too?

hey, come on, how is it we don't have any pokèmon factions???

 

[Apos]

I asked my wife and kids. They blinked at each other, then went beack to How to Survive muttering something about dad being a bit of an idiot. You should visit a Buddhist temple in Japan if you ever get the chance. They're great. One of my favourites has the temple grounds guarded by Shinto oni (demons). They're everywhere.


You might also wish to look at how Shinto was appropriated by the government in the run up to WWII. Suffice to say, it wasn't a particularly tolerant belief system.

I shall visit for sure one day. It's within my "must do" list.

That list includes searching for a japanese other-half if possible as well.

 

[Langbogen]

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.

I believe that people cause the problem, not religion. Religion is nothing more than man-made ideology to control and calm people living next to each together. Everything that you attribute to religion now will still be true even if religion (in the traditional sense) perishes. People will never stop forcing their believes onto each other; they will never stop harrassing, violating and killing each other for their beliefs. Beliefs may change, people will not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOCD_T9Qqpc

I mean, come on. It's 3302. Stop worrying and learn to love humanity.

 

[Apos]

This is like calling Atheism a religion because of Jim Jones.

Certain religions do this. Most don't.

Don't tar us all with the same brush, because those religions are very different from other religions.


And that has nothing to do with religion. Those are cultural traditions, not religious ones.

Then I obviously have no problem with those who don't, do I?

But if it's more than 1 doing it, then I'll obviously use plural. And it is more than 1. If you want to feel offended by it, that's not up to me, is it? Props to the religions that keep it to themselves, but I can't go around mentioning them as exception when discussing the problematic nature of others. If you wanted me to explicitly state that I make exceptions and respect those who fulfill their quota of mutual respect return, there you go.

And the traditions are very much religious if they are based on their doctrine. It is expected for culture and religion to interweave at some points when some religions are so invasive in nature.

 

[njc]

From earlier in this thread: Enver Hoxha, ...

But that guy is another Marxist-Lenninist. I need examples of militant atheists who on top of not being theists do not believe in other dogmas etc. In ED we already have communist governments so the lack of Marxists is not the issue. We need examples of militant atheists who are purely atheists and militant.

 

[DCLXVI your God]

In E D, yes, why not with the sword of reason.
4 pips to weapons.
;-)

But then you are using the word "reason" in the same way that Daesh is using it.

 

[Kristov]

znort, I'm not talking about an atheist who tells me there is no god and walks away when I say his message has no interest to me and that's the end of it. That is not a militant atheist, he is not telling me there is no god and that I have NO CHOICE in the matter but to agree with him or else. That is no different than what many religious people have done around this little ball of rock of ours for the past few centuries, telling people that their god is the ONLY god and anyone who disagrees shall be put to death.

When choice is removed, it's removed, I don't care if you are using Reason as your argument or God, you are forcing your view on someone else, and that is wrong.

As to atheism not being a religion, funny, but it sure looks like one to me. A belief based on the precept that deities don't exist, based on no evidence at all, which oddly seems to fit every OTHER religion out there. Anti-religion isn't the definition of atheism, they don't believe in a deity, big difference there. Agnostics are the ones who don't believe in religions, I know, I spent many years as an agnostic, thanks to my years of good Catholic schooling(which was actually an excellent education OUTSIDE of the religious ), and to this day I don't tolerate organized religion very well because that is a manmade construct meant to control people, nothing more, nothing less. So some of you may think atheism isn't a religion but it fits the criteria across the board to be one, especially militant atheism, which tries to force it's belief system on everyone else regardless of whether they want it or not. Again, pray tell me, how is that any different from a Priest, Rabbi or Imam telling me the same thing? It doesn't matter that one of them says Reason is why I MUST think as they do and the others say that Yahweh, Jehovah or Allah is why I MUST think as they do, they are ALL trying to control me via a belief system, and that's what religions do.

You know the only difference between a militant atheist and any other zealot? They won't consign your soul to anything when they kill you for not believing as they do.

 

[Louella]

OP seems to be looking for a government type, that would dictate what its citizens can believe in.

from this thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=132071
Dictatorship in one of the independent systems would seem to fit:

An organisation that engages in authoritarian activities in order to establish and maintain absolute control over its chosen field of interest.

Chosen field of interest: belief systems.


So, find an existing minor faction, or create a player minor faction, of type dictatorship, independent, and a name that mentions atheism.

 

[DCLXVI your God]

Beat the theists at their own game with science, knowledge, critical thinking, technology, and forethought. All things they are allergic too!

Since when did this work?
The only way to wake up people that are possessed by evil and misguided fairytales, is by using their fairytales.

 

[CariadocThorne]

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.

I'm not well versed on Japanes history, so I can't comment on that with any certainty, although I will say that Buddhism tends to be extremely tolerant and non-militant.

Also, I did say "generally". People are people, and sadly there are always some people who will twist and abuse any ideology for their own reasons, so even the most tolerant and benevolant religions are not immune.

Historically, polytheistic and pantheistic religions have tended form the vast majority until the last 1500 years or so.

Of course they are like Pokemon, don't you know that Pikachu sits in judgement after we die, and consigns unworthy souls to an eternity of electrical torment, set to a soundtrack of Jiggly Puff's singing?

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.

Part of the problem with discussing religion is that that these particular religions are so influential in the modern day that they shape the discussion.

I've tended to find in the past that if an atheist replaced the word "religion" with the names of those particular religions, I would agree with most of what they say.

However, those religions are massively unrepresentative of religion as a whole.

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.

That certainly can and does happen, but it is not an inevitable consequence. Gods can be treated as an answer - "What do you mean, why? Because God says so, that's why." , but they can also be treated as a means of provoking thought.

The problem here is that once a religion becomes institutionalised, then the thought provoking aspect becomes the private reserve of clergy and scholars, and the common man is left with intractable dogma as his source of answers.

Atheism does largely avoid this problem, but instead can lead to a belief that the questions don't need to be asked in the first place.

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!

My religion is British Traditional Wicca, but my beliefs are, while not uncommon, also not representative of my religion as a whole, since we are a very independant and individualistic bunch, with no institutional heirarchy, and no enshrined dogma. We do have a common framework of beliefs, but the interpretation of that is an individual matter.

 

[njc]

As to atheism not being a religion, funny, but it sure looks like one to me. A belief based on the precept that deities don't exist, based on no evidence at all, which oddly seems to fit every OTHER religion out there.

By that standard not believing in Santa Claus is a religion.

In order for something to be classified as a religion it must first be a belief, and second it must include acts of worship or something similar. Not every belief is a religion. Believing for example that Bill Gates is a woman is not a religion even though it is a belief not based in evidence. If on top of that you worshiped this claim, then yes it would be a religion.

So not only is atheism not a religion, it's even arguable if it is even a belief. If you define a claim like 'I don't think Santa Claus exists' a belief (which I don't), then yes, atheism is also a belief. But still a long way from religion.

That of course doesn't mean that there aren't any religious atheists out there that really do hold their atheism with ardor in which case their atheism is a religion.

 

[DCLXVI your God]

znort, I'm not talking about an atheist who tells me there is no god and walks away when I say his message has no interest to me and that's the end of it. That is not a militant atheist, he is not telling me there is no god and that I have NO CHOICE in the matter but to agree with him or else. That is no different than what many religious people have done around this little ball of rock of ours for the past few centuries, telling people that their god is the ONLY god and anyone who disagrees shall be put to death.

When choice is removed, it's removed, I don't care if you are using Reason as your argument or God, you are forcing your view on someone else, and that is wrong.

As to atheism not being a religion, funny, but it sure looks like one to me. A belief based on the precept that deities don't exist, based on no evidence at all, which oddly seems to fit every OTHER religion out there. Anti-religion isn't the definition of atheism, they don't believe in a deity, big difference there. Agnostics are the ones who don't believe in religions, I know, I spent many years as an agnostic, thanks to my years of good Catholic schooling(which was actually an excellent education OUTSIDE of the religious ), and to this day I don't tolerate organized religion very well because that is a manmade construct meant to control people, nothing more, nothing less. So some of you may think atheism isn't a religion but it fits the criteria across the board to be one, especially militant atheism, which tries to force it's belief system on everyone else regardless of whether they want it or not. Again, pray tell me, how is that any different from a Priest, Rabbi or Imam telling me the same thing? It doesn't matter that one of them says Reason is why I MUST think as they do and the others say that Yahweh, Jehovah or Allah is why I MUST think as they do, they are ALL trying to control me via a belief system, and that's what religions do.

You know the only difference between a militant atheist and any other zealot? They won't consign your soul to anything when they kill you for not believing as they do.

Valid points, Sir!

 

[Kristov]

By that standard not believing in Santa Claus is a religion.

In order for something to be classified as a religion it must first be a belief, and second it must include acts of worship or something similar. Not every belief is a religion. Believing for example that Bill Gates is a woman is not a religion even though it is a belief not based in evidence. If on top of that you worshiped this claim, then yes it would be a religion.

So not only is atheism not a religion, it's even arguable if it is even a belief. If you define a claim like 'I don't think Santa Claus exists' a belief (which I don't), then yes, atheism is also a belief. But still a long way from religion.

That of course doesn't mean that there aren't any religious atheists out there that really do hold their atheism with ardor in which case their atheism is a religion.

Acts of worship you say? No, sorry, not a requirement to be a religion, nice try though. Religions are manmade constructs meant to control people using a belief system, and that is what atheism is.

 

[Apos]

Acts of worship you say? No, sorry, not a requirement to be a religion, nice try though. Religions are manmade constructs meant to control people using a belief system, and that is what atheism is.

That's a doctrine and it doesn't strictly apply to religions only.

 

[njc]

Acts of worship you say? No, sorry, not a requirement to be a religion, nice try though. Religions are manmade constructs meant to control people using a belief system, and that is what atheism is.

Nope, I just checked the dictionary on religion. And what religions are used for is not what they are. Even if someone uses a religion to control people does not mean that other religions that aren't used to control people aren't religions. Also the fact that someone used atheism to control people does not make any other non-utilized atheistic belief a religion, even though the one used to control people might have been.

 

[Iskariot]

Acts of worship you say? No, sorry, not a requirement to be a religion, nice try though. Religions are manmade constructs meant to control people using a belief system, and that is what atheism is.

But atheism is not a belief system.
It is the opposite in every respect.
Many theists seem to try to pull atheism down to the same level as theism, but this can only fail and turn against them as it is so obviously absurd.

I personally do not believe in a god (anymore, I was a christian once).
So my atheism can not be a belief system.
It is not a system either. I just don't believe in invisible magical big brothers in the sky, in heaven or in fairyland.
It is not a construct either. Non-believe is so simple that it needs no construction like god-belief does.
There is nothing to construct. It is just a simple lack of belief in magical and supernatural nonsense, in this particular case magical god beings.

And that is all there is to it.
I am not part of an atheistic religion that tries to control my life.
I do not believe in kobolds either and there are no a-koboldists who try to control me either.
I am an individual that belongs to no organization.
I do not believe in what I consider to be unrealistic, irrational magical stuff including magical gods and kobolds.

As to atheism not being a religion, funny, but it sure looks like one to me. A belief based on the precept that deities don't exist, based on no evidence at all, which oddly seems to fit every OTHER religion out there.

You are using a very particular definition of atheism that only theists seem to use as a twisted instrument in discussions.
You are free to do so, but I do not recognize myself in it.

I call myself an atheist, because I am without a god ( a = without, theo(s) = god).
I am without a god because I know not a single valid reason to believe in one (if you do please pm me).
I am not the one that has to prove there is none.
You can not prove that something that is not there... is not there, if it's description is so vague and purposely evasive as to try to escape any form of scrutiny.

I do not need to provide evidence that this vague magical being does not exist, like I do not need to provide evidence that kobolds and fairies do not exist.
Those who state that this magical thing exists should provide good evidence that it does (but only if they wish to convince others).
That is what is rational and what makes sense from a philosophical and from a practical standpoint.
I am not against the existence of a god in general and can be persuaded by evidence, although I am disgusted by the god of the books (bible, koran, tanakh). I think those particular gods are immoral, evil monsters and it is a good thing that these depraved constructs are just figments of the mind.