Atheism and political apathy

[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.

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.

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.

 

[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.