Atheism and political apathy

[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

 

[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"

 

[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.

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

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

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 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.