Atheism in control would be bad

[vulcanlogician]

Is it really a violation if nobody clicks the link?

[LastPoet]

Since its to support his point, whatever that is, its no violation IMO. I also think this is a one hit wonder.

[brewer]

After the OP Radioe, I'm afraid you have no other option than to bow down to me.

And I'm just a minion.

[Mister Agenda]

I am not really arguing for "Religious foundamentlism" i am not really anti religious but i am against fundamentalism just due to what happens if a society has a totalitarian regime.
However, what i am saying is let society be realistic. Wanna know why i think its bad? Because i saw Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
I dont know about you but this is nightmare material to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Plot

'Atheism in control' is a meaningless statement. So is 'theism in control'. Both are merely opinions on a single topic, not thought regimes that can be in control of a society. Bringing up 'totalitarian regimes' in this context is a non sequitur.

What you are talking about is various ideologies (Maoism, Stalinism, 'Brave New World-ism) in control. Those ideologies are not 'atheism' though they can be atheistic, but so are most plumbing manuals in that they don't mention God (or gods).

A number of countries pretty much have the atheistic moral philosophy of 'humanism in control', and they all seem quite nice, overall.

[Edwardo Piet]

Dude, lay off the soma...

There's only ONE kind of Soma I like. And it's this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwQM0MyAbng

[SaStrike]

"Atheism in control would be bad"

Atheism has been in control for a while already lol. When religion was in control it was way worse than it is now.

[TwoKnives99]

I don't think so, I mean many countries operate on atheistic values and moral philosophies, they are still thriving

[vulcanlogician]

I don't think so, I mean many countries operate on atheistic values and moral philosophies, they are still thriving

What do you mean, Twoknives?

Edit: nm, I get it you were responding to the OP not the previous post. My confuse.

[The Grand Nudger]

It think it would be interesting to see, from a theist's point of view..what exactly qualifies as an "atheistic value and moral philosophy".  

I think that people conflate secular values and moral philosophies with "atheistic" ones.  This is a bitch of a misclassification, as all secular value and moral philosophies are equally available to theists..and very often are the -same- value and moral philosophies held by theists. Only "atheistic" in the most trivial sense that they do not explicitly refer to a god in their foundations...but neither do "theistic value and moral systems" in all of their particulars.

Ask some believer why x is wrong, and I'd eat a turd if the only thing they could come up with was "because god". I'm sure it would make their short list, but it wouldn't be alone. The simple fact that a believer is capable of identifying right from wrong apart from asking god the question shows that they are capable of engaging in a secular moral experiment or appraisal, but doing so doesn;t make the believer...or any subsequent secular moral conclusion "atheistic" in any meaningful or distinguishing way. They are, after all, still believers. At worst, they're just discussing another reason why x is wrong apart from the fact that they think "god" -also- makes x wrong or is somehow part of all of this at some other, deeper level.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Atheism is bad because of a fictional work?

Where have I heard this before?