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

[Gold Member]

Is there a system with militant agnostics? Or probably better: seriously very undecided agnostics?

Or pacifistic philosophical satanists?

And:
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

That was my signature on a guild board many many moons ago. In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming. I have Lovecraft's works in print and only a phone app away.

And agnostic is 'undecided'. But they've turned it into this big intellectual thing, essentially turning prevarication into a respectable field. I consider them theists-in-waiting.

 

[Ironwolf]

Hi Ben,

Going by the feedback from the forum, 'ordinary' Atheism seems more palatable for others.
Any militant individuals can err towards security, I guess.
Antal seems promising, especially the humanitarian ideology.
Mixing Communism with Anti-Theism could be 'difficult' for some.
A minor Antal faction that is anti-theist seems plausible.
Scientific reasoning is the right bread to butter.

Anyway, have a few cups of tea first

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

That was my signature on a guild board many many moons ago. In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming. I have Lovecraft's works in print and only a phone app away.

And agnostic is 'undecided'. But they've turned it into this big intellectual thing, essentially turning prevarication into a respectable field. I consider them theists-in-waiting.

To me, agnostics just lack any convictions. Its sitting on the fence with one foot on each side. I see it as playing it safe.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Fingers-crossed, enlightenment will be making a comeback.

There's a couple of Theocracies near my "home" system. As with most theocracies you can imagine, a lot of things are banned - I don't think any other government type has as many goods on the Prohibited list.

Being a smuggler, this suits me just fine. Any attempts to "enlighten" them will be met with fierce resistance!!!

 

[Ydiss]

I'd be willing to join a militant agnostic atheist society. Motto can be: "I don't know, but I don't think so"

Or perhaps the ignorant apathy society, "Don't know, don't care"

Can anyone Latin that?

"Nescio, sed non puto"

"Nescio, nil moror"

 

[Gold Member]

I have sent an email to register a new group, Militant Anti-Theists.

I'm open to input from atheists and militant atheists, or those inclined to care.
The details are to be shaped.

Fingers-crossed, enlightenment will be making a comeback.

I'll join.

 

[Mikey2305]

@mysturji... Ok i'll bite!

What would you regard as evidence?
What level of evidence would cause you to change your point of view?

 

[Iskariot]

God don't take ANY side.

God always takes the side of whoever wins.
Or he takes the side of whoever loses and lets them lose because they need to be punished.

 

[Iskariot]

@mysturji... Ok i'll bite!

What would you regard as evidence?
What level of evidence would cause you to change your point of view?

You can provide any reasonable, sound evidence you have.
Indulge yourself.

Asking for levels of evidence is a bit of a debating trick I feel; an attempt to stop the request for evidence dead in it's tracks.
I don't fall for that anymore. That simply is not how people think about such things.
They just want to hear something that at least sounds reasonable, something they can relate to.
I for one would be surprised to finally hear something reasonable and rational after all my years of debating this stuff.
Most of the time the seeds of religious belief are implanted during childhood and this keeps festering inside, because childhood indoctrination is very powerful. People try to rationalize this at a later stage in their life. But these rationalizations are rarely the real reason they believe in invisible magical godlike beings.
Even I as an atheist and former believer can never be free of my childhood indoctrination. We can't shrug it off.
That is why atheists with a religious past are very often most outspoken about this topic.

What is the story you tell yourself, what convinced you?

But don't answer this here.
It would derail the topic of this thread.
Just answer it for yourself.
I do not need an answer, because I know I won't hear anything new.

 

[Mysturji]

Ok. List narrowed down:

Independent Dictator: An organisation that engages in Authoritarian activities in order to establish and maintain absolute control over its chosen field of interest.
Independent Communist: A Faction that believes that all assets should be communally owned, and that resources should be fairly divided among all members by judging each individual's true needs
Empire Dictator: A Faction that has been granted absolute power over a specific area of influence by decree of the Imperial Senate.

What do you atheists and militant atheists prefer?

Democracy or Anarchy.

(That's what you get for trying to herd cats. )

 

[Iskariot]

Democracy or Anarchy.

(That's what you get for trying to herd cats. )

I think a democracy would not work, because religion would then get a chance to creep back in.
An anarchy would not work, because religion would then get a chance to creep back in.
There is too much freedom in democracies and anarchies.

If you want to keep a society anti-religious, you will have to enforce it with violence and threats of violence.
North Korea is a good model for a 'happy' atheistic society.

That is why I said earlier that I don't believe it will work in the context of a large planet-wide society.
Humans are too diverse to make this even remotely possible.
The only thing we can do is accept this diversity and build a society that allows breathing room for all voices.
Enforcing one mindset will always result in evil; mass graves, torture chambers, gulags, pogroms, holocausts.

 

[Mysturji]

@mysturji... Ok i'll bite!

What would you regard as evidence?
What level of evidence would cause you to change your point of view?

Evidence for the existence of a god. Hmmm...
If a god actually showed him/her/itself to everyone in the world in a way that could be tested, scrutinised & verified independently by anyone with the inclination and wherewithal to conduct a rigourous study, and the results were published and passed the peer-review process, and if said deity demonstrated attributes consistent with godhood (not just powerful alien technology or mental/psychic powers), I think that would pretty much do it.

And before anyone points at their favourite holy book - that's not evidence. At best it's testimony from unreliable witnesses.

What kind of evidence would you require to convince you of the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or intelligent space-faring aliens?

 

[Mysturji]

I think a democracy would not work, because religion would then get a chance to creep back in.
An anarchy would not work, because religion would then get a chance to creep back in.
There is too much freedom in democracies and anarchies.

If you want to keep a society anti-religious, you will have to enforce it with violence and threats of violence.
North Korea is a good model for a happy atheistic society.

That is why I said earlier that I don't believe it will work in the context of a large planet-wide society.
Humans are too diverse to make this even remotely possible.
The only thing we can do is accept this diversity and build a society that allows breathing room for all voices.
Enforcing one mindset will always result in evil; mass graves, torture chambers, gulags.

You asked what form of government atheists and militant atheists would prefer. I can only answer for myself. There are degrees of militancy - mine only extends to defence. I quite like freedom. I don't want to abolish religion, I just don't want religions (or the religious) to dictate what anyone else can or can't (or must) do, think, or teach in science class.
How about instead of calling this proposed government "militant atheist" we go for "strictly secular"? No religion or any other supernatural beliefs or myths can have any influence whatsoever on government policy.

Oh, and "North Korea... happy" does not compute.

 

[Iskariot]

You asked what form of government atheists and militant atheists would prefer. I can only answer for myself. There are degrees of militancy - mine only extends to defence. I quite like freedom. I don't want to abolish religion, I just don't want religions (or the religious) to dictate what anyone else can or can't (or must) do, think, or teach in science class.
How about instead of calling this proposed government "militant atheist" we go for "strictly secular"? No religion or any other supernatural beliefs or myths can have any influence whatsoever on government policy.

Strictly secular is the best option I think. For that you need a democratic political system.
But this is already in the game and it is not what OP seeks.

Oh, and "North Korea... happy" does not compute.

No it sure doesn't. It is one of the most awful societies ever created by man. (happy = 'happy')

 

[Iskariot]

The Sword of 'reason'? Atheistic governments are the ones primarily responsible for deaths, murders, of hundreds of millions of people - so much for 'reason'. Atheists, given half a chance, are the most tyrannical, mass-murdering group going.

The same can be said about theists, if I have to believe the history of religion.

I think in general it is humans "that are the most tyrannical, mass-murdering group going".
To justify that humans use all kinds of different ideologies; atheism, christendom, islam, fascism (which is a pro religion doctrine and not atheist).

The most striking difference is that atheists can not use their dictator god to justify their atrocities, theists however can do so as their gods, according to their holy books, are true inhumane monsters that incite mass murder and murder in general as a solution for all kinds of problems.
It is ideology that causes people to become monsters. Ideologies with all powerful, punishing gods are the most dangerous.

It's usually the godless atheists seeking to ban free-speech - particularly related to religious freedom and freedom to inculcate religious/Christian belief into one's own children.

When atheism becomes an ideology it becomes toxic. It is the same with religion.

 

[Apos]

It's usually the godless atheists seeking to ban free-speech - particularly related to religious freedom and freedom to inculcate religious/Christian belief into one's own children.

Weird, I'd say that most atheists are more concerned with the abuse of said freedom of speech to impose religions into public teachings.

Sure, most would also say that home indoctrination is also wrong, but I'd assume that they are able to realize why that's something you can't impose change upon.

Nevertheless, if a person has so much faith, why is it so problematic to wait until an age of reason in order to introduce their children to that faith? Surely you'd have more trust in the value of your absolute truth...

 

[Gully Foyle]

'Atheist Goverments - The sword of reason'

The Sword of 'reason'? Atheistic governments are the ones primarily responsible for deaths, murders, of hundreds of millions of people - so much for 'reason'. Atheists, given half a chance, are the most tyrannical, mass-murdering group going.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



It's usually the godless atheists seeking to ban free-speech - particularly related to religious freedom and freedom to inculcate religious/Christian belief into one's own children.

That is patent nonsense. Do not be fooled by the communist or fascist pretend version that actually substituted The State for some religious figurehead.
Nationalism is not secular humanism. There has never been a true atheist government.
The most repressive cultures in the world are those controlled by primitive religious dogmas. Fundamentalist patriarchies who repress the rights of women, for example.
Deaths because of opposing religious beliefs far outstrip the gulags, pogroms and concentration camps.
Reformation, Inquisition or Crusades anyone? Hutu or Tutu? Hezbollah or Hebrew??
Shia and Sunni are going through the same shism the holy roman empire went through. You'd think they could share allah for crying out loud.
Catholics can't even decide when xmas is. Catch a clue: worshipping fire, the sun, animals, animals that make fire, guys with hammers, etc.??/?

The human race has not yet evolved away from religious death cults that encourage xenophobic hatred of those who are different or across a border and more towards a character based on altruistic compassion.There is a positive benefit to having a worldview based on logic and the power of reason based on empirical evidence and not the way some sticks fall on the ground.

Religion has made a mess of our world. Go forth and multiply has overpopulated Earth. Time to evolve away from fearful superstition, specious fallacy and ignorant ancient dogma.
Destructive to life doesn't make sense in any language. There is never a justification to kill another human, hopefully we shall get there if we can stop those who want armageddon or whatever they are calling it this century.

 

[CariadocThorne]

It's usually the godless atheists seeking to ban free-speech - particularly related to religious freedom and freedom to inculcate religious/Christian belief into one's own children.

As far as I am aware, no government has ever tried to prevent parents teaching their beliefs to their children in their own home, or taking them to church to learn there.

Schools are not the venue to teach this. Neither should they be.

Or perhaps you think it would be ok for me to arrange for my children's school to teach the children how Odin and his brothers killed the giant Ymir, and build the world from his body, using his blood for the seas, muscle for soil, bones for rock and so on, and how they then created the first humans out of tree trunks?

 

[Gregstrom]

As far as I am aware, no government has ever tried to prevent parents teaching their beliefs to their children in their own home, or taking them to church to learn there.

Schools are not the venue to teach this. Neither should they be.

Or perhaps you think it would be ok for me to arrange for my children's school to teach the children how Odin and his brothers killed the giant Ymir, and build the world from his body, using his blood for the seas, muscle for soil, bones for rock and so on, and how they then created the first humans out of tree trunks?

Not ok. You have to give equal space to the Audumla theory.

 

[CariadocThorne]

Not ok. You have to give equal space to the Audumla theory.

Of course. Kids being kids, they'd probably ask what Ymir ate and drank anyway, so it would probably come up anyway.

 

[DCLXVI your God]

God always takes the side of whoever wins.
Or he takes the side of whoever loses and lets them lose because they need to be punished.

Now you are confusing God with you.