Religulous
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
You don't know that.
Anyway, I guess the proper way to put it is "run by theistic principals", as in Islamic Law, for example.
Your Jihad-loving friends would not allow an atheist society. It doesn't matter what society wants in that part of the world, only what the few teenagers with guns want, and what the religious leaders want.
And let's look at the US, which does not operate under theistic principals. Doing pretty damn well, I'd say. Or any of the European nations that don't operate under theistic principals? Denmark? Sweden?
How's Iran doing, by the way?
As already brought to your notice several times now, many NA Red and Asian societies (the Navajo, some Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians, etc), the US as a society in its establishment, a variety of animist and related types of society, and so forth, seem to lack what you call a Deity.SAM said:
And your inclusion of places like India as having "a society" established by theists is problematical - as you note, there are even examples of deliberately ideological atheistic societies founded in India, and certainly animists et al are numerous, so the decision to pick theism as the catchall term begs the very question at issue.
Meanwhile, the question of the film here - Religulous - is overlooked: suppose religion is necessary for human society - why is nonsense therefore necessary? Is it actually impossible to have religion without coerced faith in the ridiculous ?
Chinese society up until Communism was based on Confucianism, which makes no particular reference to dieties. The various Chinese Empires were arguably the most advanced civilizations on Earth for their time.
Sam,
"Check, they all work. Looking for Muslims turned atheist societies, still looking, looking further...umm you find any?"
Muslims turned atheists, there are none because they kill them.
"All societies are run by theists. I need a choice to make a comparison."
Not true and the best currently going based on all factors are not. Sweden, Finland and Norway to name a few all doing very well. Religion is not required in any way to be able to operate a society.
I would argue the more progressive the faster they will move along and the more likely they will pursue greater truths and move in that direction.
I asked. "Are you suggesting you want to move to a theocracy ?"
If you do be sure you don't ask a man the time of day, they will throw you in jail for being a slut and then maybe kill you.
They are about religious dogma which strengthens their own beliefs, if all believe as I do it must be true. They are afraid of freewill because someone might have a different idea and that is dangerous.
"Check, they all work. Looking for Muslims turned atheist societies, still looking, looking further...umm you find any?"
Muslims turned atheists, there are none because they kill them.
"All societies are run by theists. I need a choice to make a comparison."
Not true and the best currently going based on all factors are not. Sweden, Finland and Norway to name a few all doing very well. Religion is not required in any way to be able to operate a society.
I would argue the more progressive the faster they will move along and the more likely they will pursue greater truths and move in that direction.
I asked. "Are you suggesting you want to move to a theocracy ?"
If you do be sure you don't ask a man the time of day, they will throw you in jail for being a slut and then maybe kill you.
They are about religious dogma which strengthens their own beliefs, if all believe as I do it must be true. They are afraid of freewill because someone might have a different idea and that is dangerous.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Just got referred to this from another thread.
It is very hard to be motivated by a lack. But a religious person could make the argument that they are stopped from being violent by religion. IOW atheistic regimes were the most destructive because there was nothing to limit the leaders.
I actually don't agree with this line, but I do not think it is an easy one to counter. I also think SAM - whose arguments Skinwalker was addressing - might have trouble taking this line because she refers to atheism as an ideology, I believe.
The 20th century allowed leaders the ability to control and be aware of their people in new ways. This latter ability was much more imbalanced than any time in the past. I think the roots are in there and the 21st century may even up the score, who knows.
It should also be said that even if the line I mentioned above was taken to be true- ie. that religion stops certain kinds of behavior even on state levels - this does not mean that religious people are correct in their beliefs.
Last edited:
It would simply be countered by pointing out that religion failed to prevent such atrocity in religious regimes, so there's no good reason to think that a lack of religion implies that it would have intervened or have even been capable of intervention or prevention. QED.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Again, I don't think it is that simple to dismiss that line. It could still have been a lack of a hindering factor.
If Stalin or Mao in their megalomania thinks there can be no one above them and they cannot suffer from their actions - except via coups etc. - this could make it easier to perpetrate them. Beyond the utilitarian hindrance - punishment later - there could also be the hindrance of not have to think "right now I am being watched and judged for what I do by something I do not have power over". This lack could also be argued to be freeing. No one, I hope, is contesting the fact that religious leaders have killed and tortured, etc. But this lack of belief could be viewed as a lack of shame (a hindrance) and hinderance via possible or likely punishment and one affect amongst others (which these leaders and regimes share with religious regimes) and thus was part of the problem leading them to be the worst.
What would you call the situations in Afghanistan and Iran? Why are death tolls the only way to measure the cruelty of a regime?
Also, as we've seen with Islam, I think it's fair to say that the holy texts provide plenty of justification for killing what we might consider innocents. I recall an event on September 11th, 2001...
So you no longer believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Strange, I thought that was the atheist position.
This is a strawman; and I have nowhere on the forums ever confirmed that I was an atheist. I've probably alluded to it by challenging the assumed existence of any god, but I've never confirmed.
Further, you are avoiding my questions.
So basically, atheist societies are too weak to survive? If you read the history of Islam, you'll discover that Muslims have been murdered for their beliefs from the inception of Islam. What keeps them going?
They're being murdered by other Muslims. Who hangs gay Muslims in the streets of Iran? The French? Who beats women for showing their face in public? Monty Python?
Theocracies don't work.
Muslims have been murdered for their beliefs too. Hardly anyone kills atheists as compared to the number of Muslims targeted. And in fact, I started a thread on who kills atheists earlier that you may have missed:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81278
You can weigh in your opinion there
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81278
You can weigh in your opinion there
That's because atheism isn't a belief system. Atheists don't try to impose their will on society. Meanwhile, all three Abrahamic religions have.
And let's not pretend that Muslims are the only faith targeted for their beliefs. Did you forget who Muslims are targeting right now?
Oh, here we go. Every soldier is a racist. We deserved 9/11 because a few soldier afterwords would call them Hadji.