It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Atheist Chat

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:48 PM
First, I've always detested, "There are no atheists in foxholes." When anyone is under extreme stress they revert to their earliest behaviors. If someone was brainwashed to believe in god when s/he was a small child, s/he is likely to revert. However, anyone who wasn't put through this ordeal as a child will remain an atheist in stressful conditions.

Second, like hell do I want to go someplace to form an atheist country. Rather, I think we just have to become much more missionary and convert all the kids here in the U.S. so we can change this country to a more logical, humane, ethical, rational society as atheistic.


posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:58 PM
The concept of an Atheist state would certainly would be interesting but unless there are some opinions that aren't represented here the idea of an Atheist state wont ever take hold. It would make an interest plot device for an novel just think the world has succumbed to Christian and Islamic extremism and the last out post of freedom is an Atheist state .

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:43 PM

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
What do you do when you're really down and hurting, a time when religious people pray? How do you cope with adversity and pain without calling on a higher power?

Normally, I'd/ll just cry and curse the world for being unfair.
Even when I was little and believed in a deity(ies) I never prayed to god or any of that.

Originally posted by xpert11
Would you support the creation of an Atheist state ?
If you support the creation of an Atheist state where would it be located ?

That depends, how do you define an Atheist state, the USSR was an Atheist state
in that it enforced Atheism and oppressed religions.

France and much of Europe are secular countries, and therefore passively promote Atheist Humanism.

I don't particularly see the need for a state that is avowedly Atheist, nor do I think it would
be a particularly good idea, since without Atheists many places would become more
Theocratic in there policies, plus it would be easier for extremely conservative and
religious nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia and even (if it had a military, and was more than
just a small city) Vatican city to attack and kill a great deal of Atheists, as they see us
(among others) as enemies of there deity.

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:56 PM
I wouldn't support an Atheist state. In the US, we have freedom of religion and that includes the choice not to practice, so there's no need to separate from people who do.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:10 AM

That depends, how do you define an Atheist state, the USSR was an Atheist state
in that it enforced Atheism and oppressed religions.

My idea would be for an Country that populated by Athiests rather then then an Atheist country kind of like an Atheist Turkey or Israel. I'm sure that Jews for example would be given preference when it comes to been given Israeli citizenship and that anyone with Nazi leanings wouldn't be permitted to live in the country.

So in (enter name of atheist state ) you wouldn't be permitted to live in the country if you didn't support keeping the church and the state seperate. As for the threat against any Atheist nation when people are fighting for the existence of there home land people will fight tooth and nail as many Arab countries have found out.

France and much of Europe are secular countries, and therefore passively promote Atheist Humanism.

The like of France are under siege from an bunch of in greats who way of saying thank you to there host country is rioting.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:03 AM

Originally posted by xpert11
you wouldn't be permitted to live in the country if you didn't support keeping the church and the state seperate.

Every civilized nation (I don't consider theocracies and countries without secular government)
should have that as a requirement for citizenship, both for immigrants and for 'natural born' citizens.

The like of France are under siege from an bunch of in greats who way of saying thank you to there host country is rioting.

It is an unfortunate set of circumstances, which has subsequently lead to the popularity
of xenophobic nationalists and even white supremests like Le Pen.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:48 AM
Atheist state = bombing by religious fanatics in the name of God.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Paresthesia
Atheist state = bombing by religious fanatics in the name of God.

Huh ?
Paresthesia I cant make any sense of your statement could you please elaborate on what you mean ?

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:17 AM
I believe she is stating one of the same conclusions as I had.

That being that an Atheist state would be a prime target for religious wackjobs to
attack in the name of their deity.

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 10:20 PM
I found a very humorous and intelligent video from Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine:

The guy is funny! Enjoy.

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:37 AM
Would you support a religious state?

I live in one. It's a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country, but the Constitution makes special mention of, and commits the State to a mutually supportive relationship with, one particular religion (this effectively means one particular ethnic group, too).

The results are, as you may imagine, hellish.


Originally posted by xpert11
Would you support the creation of an Atheist state ?

One hundred percent.

I don't mean a state for atheists only. That's as bad as any theocracy. What I mean is that every state should be atheist in its constitution.

Not only must a 'separation of church and state' be guaranteed as in the US Constitution, but there should be strong constitional and legal safeguards against the harm that religion does to individuals, families, institutions and society as a whole. Once we recognize religion for the disease that it is, and recognize that its wildfire contagion spreads like any other plague, how can we not do our best to protect ourselves -- and especially our children -- from it?

Of course, we have no wish to be oppressors. The state I am proposing would be a liberal democracy.

Those who insist on, or simply cannot hold themselves back from, indulging themselves in the disgraceful and debilitating vice of religion shall be at liberty to do so in private at home, or at purpose-built facilities (I believe these are known as 'temples', 'churches' or 'mosques'). Even outdoor events will be allowed in special cases provided no inconvenience and hindrance to the general public results from them.

However, the State shall at all times ensure that religious speech and expression is regulated to at least the same degree that other forms of indecency such as public profanity or indecent exposure (both far less harmful than religion) are restricted. Human beings have the right to free expression, and shall continue to have it even if they misuse it to utter 'faith speech'; but even the right to free expression should not be allowed to impinge upon the liberty and welfare of others. Since religious speech and expression are known to be socially inflammatory in addition to being obvious and flagrant lies, it behooves us regulate them very carefully indeed.

The State shall also ensure, in particular, that children are not subjected to religious abuse, particularly by their parents. It shall be an offence to attempt religious instruction on a child under, say, eleven years of age, to induct and involve such a child in any type of religious rite or practice, to compel it to wear or carry religious insignia or costumes, etc.

In addition to such constitutional and legal sanctions and regulations, the State would also see it as its duty to discourage religious behaviour as much as possible. This would be done in a number of ways.

All religious institutions would be taxed on the donations and tithes they receive. The rate would be fairly high, around 80 percent.

Tithes and donations would be tax deductible as far as the giver was concerned, but only, say, 30 cents in the dollar could be reclaimed. The rest would be a 'sin' tax, like the excise duties on alcohol and tobacco.

Sacerdotal objects, such as as crucifixes, menorahs, statues of Guan Yin the Goddess of Infinite Compassion, Elvis relics, extra wives, etc., would be suject to an excise duty of 500 percent. The sale of such objects to minors would be strictly prohibited.

Only religious practitioners ('priests', 'mullahs', 'lamas', etc.) licensed by the State shall be permitted to practise. Licence fees would be stiff and testing procedures rigorous. Licences may be renewed annually following testing; fees shall again be payable. Applicants shall be put through a battery of psychological tests to ascertain their fitness and lack of charisma (no-one with any force of personality whatever shall be allowed near a pulpit). Rites, practices and forms of 'worship' would be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they meet the standards of the community. Holy texts, if any, would be carefully inspected for material that contravened, or promoted the contravention of, those rights and liberties listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If this seems rather close to a proposal for censorship, unbecoming a liberal such as I claim to be, remember that we are dealing here with the moral equivalent of plutonium; the vilest, most toxic offal it has even been humanity's misfortune to produce. Worse, as we have seen, the stuff has a half-life of thousands of years. It's poison, and should be handled with extreme care.

Public Health & Education
The social costs of religious faith have been shown, time and time again, to be both exorbitant and devastating. It is the State that must, in great measure, meet them. Therefore it is in the interest of the State, as well as of its members, to reduce these costs as much as possible.

Thus children shall be taught, at a suitable age, the dangers of religious belief. History is largely a record of crimes of faith, and school history curriculums should reflect this. Civics and social-studies curriculums would reinforce the lesson, contrasting the evils of reliosity with the benefits of secularism. The intent would be to provide children with a strong, lifelong immunity against religious subornation.

In addition, public-education campaigns would be used to educate the public against the dangers of religion, as has so successfully been done for the case against smoking. A strong effort would be made to mobilize decent atheists against irresponsible faith-heads who insist on putting others at risk -- through campaigns showing, for example, how passive inhalation of religious doctrine can be toxic in its own right, and how secondhand prayer stunts children's growth.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by Astyanax]

posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:48 AM
Wowsers, Astyanax, you really have thought about this haven't you?

It WOULD make a wonderful novel. Unfortunately, I can't see it happening on our planet in real life any time soon. But you brought up some most interesting and even amusing points.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 02:51 AM
Aux barricades, athées!

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
You really have thought about this haven't you?

As it happens, my geographical and personal circumstances have given me ample incentive to do so.

It WOULD make a wonderful novel. Unfortunately, I can't see it happening on our planet in real life any time soon.

How long is 'any time soon'? How about less than a hundred years -- probably more like fifty?

It will happen.

The twentieth century was one in which wars were fought over political ideologies. The good guys won.

The twenty-first century will be the century of religious wars. Many of these will pit one faith against another in the old-fashioned way, but a significant few will pit faith-heads against secularists. The good guys will win again.

Secularism will win, not only because it has right on its side, but because it has the big guns, the big money, the big ideas and, above all, the promise of freedom, which is something all men and women desire, much as they also fear it.

In the aftermath of a century of religious-secular conflict, religious belief and practice will be much more clearly recognized for the criminal psychopathology that it is.

The need for the sort of laws, regulations and safeguards I describe above will come to seem obvious to most people.

The atheist state will come to pass.

Many people will die first. The vast majority will die for their faith, which is a stupid thing to do. But some will die to secure the prospect of humanity throwing off the incubus of religious belief for ever. That's something even a hardened old coward like me might be willing to do.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 11:44 AM
I can't say I'm an Atheist. More of an agnostic, with extreme leanings toward the realm of scientific fact and the provable. I do accept that there are "unknown unknowns", but I won't jump to any conclusions.

I do however enjoy learning about various religions, and trying to understand why the people of the time thought the way they did. I often even enjoy the theories that ETs influenced early man into believing in them as gods.

However, looking at most modern religions, I feel that their exclusiveness is what turned me away in the first place. The idea that I must think like... or I would burn in hell and deserve it really angered me. From a more logical standpoint, if I believed in something, there was a reasonable explanation as to why. If that reason was proven wrong, then I would have a new belief and not think twice about it.

It's the rigidness that is often the overly religious's unoing. As facts are presented to disprove the stance, the more and more they fight back, and the more angry they get.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 02:55 PM
So true, Raso, and not only that, but they end up accusing the people trying to present the evidence of being the angry and hate-filled ones, projecting their own issues onto the opponent.

Welcome to the thread, BTW.

And, Astyanax, I would have no complaints if you are correct. It will be interesting to see what happens along those lines.

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 09:31 AM
Astyanax thanks for bringing your most interesting views on an Atheist state to this thread.
Where bouts do you think such a state would be created ?
I'm thinking that a place like California would be a good candidate due to the good pre existing economic conditions.

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 09:39 AM
It'd have to be Northern California. The south is pretty tied up with people who think gay marriage is an abomination unfortunately. Orange County would revolt.

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 09:46 AM
MajorMalfunction if you start to think that the discussion about a Atheist state is hijacking your thread then let me know and I will start a dedicated thread elsewhere on the boards.

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 12:57 PM
I think nothing of the sort.

This thread is here for us to discuss atheism, past, present, future and hypothetical nation states.

Discuss away.

I'm in the midst of a court cyclone this week or I'd be contributing more. Hope to be back soon.

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:56 PM
A World Without Gods

Originally posted by xpert11
Astyanax thanks... interesting views. Where bouts do you think such a state would be created?


That was really my point.

I'm not talking about a Promised Land for atheists. I'm talking about

1/ A universal separation of church and state. For example, the Queen of England would no longer be the head of the Anglican Church and Shintoism would cease to be the state religion of Japan. Israel would become a secular country in which Jews and Judaism had no special rights and privileges, while Iran would no longer be an 'Islamic Republic', whatever that means. All national constitutions would specify the secularity of the nation concerned.

2/ The damage religion does coming to be acknowledged as something a responsible government should shield its citizens from, chiefly by discouraging religious faith and practice. Remember, I say 'discourage', not 'prohibit'. A good analogy, which I used before on this thread, is with government attitudes to smoking, which reflect growing public disapproval of the practice. A responsible government would deal with religion as it does with smoking: tax it heavily, forbid its expression in public places, protect children from religious 'grooming', and so on. It would also educate the public on its dangers.

3/ Social attitudes to religion undergoing a major change, helped along by public-relations initiatives funded and promoted by states, charities and civil-society organizations, so that the religious come to be seen as minor social delinquents, selfish, dirty and not quite respectable -- exactly as smokers are viewed nowadays.

I'm repeating myself. Sorry. I'll shut up now.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in