|
Atheism in control would be bad
|
So was I.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 RE: Atheism in control would be bad
January 12, 2018 at 12:46 pm
(This post was last modified: January 12, 2018 at 2:05 pm by uncool.)
(January 4, 2018 at 1:33 pm)Radieo31 Wrote: 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. Look at denmark. Denmark, the happiest country in the world, with one of the highest rates of atheism. "Bad" or not, I want that!  RE: Atheism in control would be bad
January 13, 2018 at 1:31 pm
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2018 at 1:34 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(January 12, 2018 at 12:46 pm)uncool Wrote:(January 4, 2018 at 1:33 pm)Radieo31 Wrote: 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. Here we go again. The government if Denmark isn't secular, so while most of the population may identify as atheist, they still support a religious institution the way of taxes and church membership. Seems as though you're making a case for non-secularism. (January 13, 2018 at 1:31 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(January 12, 2018 at 12:46 pm)uncool Wrote: Look at denmark. Are you sure about that? https://www.christiantoday.com/article/t.../83609.htm  (January 4, 2018 at 1:33 pm)Radieo31 Wrote: 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. Do you really think you are the first to argue atheists are immoral? "atheist" DOES NOT MEAN, lawless or orgies in the street. I am sorry someone sold you that bullshit, but that is your baggage, not ours. No label, not Christian, not Muslim, not Jew, not Buddhist, and not even "atheist" dictate if a human will do either good or bad. Our labels are merely that. OUR behaviors are not magical battles between comic book heros vs ground trolls. OUR species behaviors good or bad, have ALWAYS been in the individual, in our genes, in our evolution. You are either good or bad, nothing determines that except YOU the individual. We do NOT value monsters like Hitler or Stalin. We WONT barbecue your kittens or rape your women. 1. "atheist" is not a religion, not a political party, not an economic view. 2. "atheist" merely means "off" on God/gods/deity claims. NOTHING MORE. Outside that, if you want to know what an individual atheists holds as a position on those issues you'd do better to ask that individual atheist and DONT ASSUME. AS AN ASIDE. Huxley was an IDIOT when he concocted that horrible word "agnostic". That word never existed in ancient Greece FYI. In ancient Greece the prefix "a" meant "without". In ancient Greece "gnostic" meant "knowledge". Neither were used in combo by the Greeks <------NEITHER tell you what you are without knowledge of even in combo which Huxley did way after the fact. So if you are to use the word PROPERLY "agnostic" HAS TO be put in front of either "theist" or "atheist" as a qualifier. An agnostic theist, is one who doesn't know if a god exists, but leans to one existing. An agnostic atheist, is one who doesn't claim to know if a god exists, but leans to "off". The other STUPID thing Huxley never took into account was TIME FRAME as far as past claims, current claims, and future possibilities. CURRENTLY, for me, my position is "off" on all past and current claims. The only thing I am "agnostic" about is the future, but currently I am "off" on god claims. Thus I am an "agnostic atheist". Nobody here is, or should claim we should force any religion out of existence. But if our species never questioned social norms, our species never would have left the caves. 
Atheism is denial or confusion of a what the word "god" means or is nihilism.
It's good Quran took a snap shot of time of what words meant in a certain time. (January 13, 2018 at 1:31 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(January 12, 2018 at 12:46 pm)uncool Wrote: Look at denmark. Not the point. If it mixing more religion in government was good then Iran and Saudi Arabia should be utopias. It still remains they have a high rate of non belief regardless of whom they tax. 
LastPoet
 Leader of the gang of jerkoffs(tm)  Religious Views: L'Uomo verrà portato dalla sua creazione (January 13, 2018 at 1:31 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Here we go again. An then, we have a full integer of a man, believing in a personal and intransmissable story. As objective as personal ID's  (January 4, 2018 at 1:33 pm)Radieo31 Wrote: 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. I've only read the first few responses so someone will have already said this no doubt but .. It is hard to understand what you think "atheism in control" would even mean. Atheism is simply not theism. That hardly constitutes much of a policy base. It could mean as little as "governance without regard to religion". Hard to get worked up over that. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
