An athiest world = a better world.
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
What irony? The fact that the removal of an ideology that divides mankind be ironic in bringing people together?
You prefer the current state of affairs where those ideologies never allow people to be brought together?
Educate me in your elustrioius wisdom.
/images/scan0011.jpg)
you wrote:
first of all, this is your interpretation--or do you believe your interpretation to be the correct one? i won't argue that there are some who abide an interpretation that is not unlike your own, but by no means all (or most).
second, how do you propose to "bury Islam"? are you not "condon(ing) and propagat(ing) an 'us vs. them' mentality"?
no, but i hardly see how your "solution," whatever it is (this remains unclear) is the solution.
actually, i would like for you to share your illustrious wisdom--you have a knack for obfuscation, and i would really appreciate a clear outline of your proposal.
Huh?
You can't see the connection between what a text teaches as normative and determining the normative actions of the said community?
Once again, if the christians and muslims in your street aren't firebombing your mailbox, it tends to indicate a different message is being preached at the pulpit.
(Of course if one insists on misplacing a detail for an essence, they have the means to misinterpret just about anything)
Bollocks.
It's the religious who are violent and dangerous.
How many atheists have killed doctors?
Believers have.
How many atheists have let their children die?
Believers have.
How many atheists have abused children?
Believers have done this over and over in many countries and hid the truth.
Shameful.
It's the religious who are violent and dangerous.
K.
An emotional cake and eat it too, I would say. Let's assume that he does not realize that 'Islam' refers not only to the religion but also to Muslims and their civilization as a whole. Given this charitable assumption on our part we can grant him missing the full implications of how his sentiment - generous and peaceful as it was - would be taken, especially considering how the West is currently interacting with the Muslim world. But his choice of the verb 'bury' makes it hard not to take back that granting.
Physician know thyself.
To blend some admonitions.
Japan isn't even an atheist nation.
Not to mention being atheist is no guarantee of anything. Soviet Russia wasn't that great a place to live in.
Last edited:
It was for atheists. They could live in an anti-religion atmosphere and do what they did best. Drink themselves into oblivion. No religion, no AA.
See?
You guys are missing my point.
It doesn't matter if only one of the nations in the article are in fact athiest, it still proves that it is possible for an athiest nation to thrive.
That disproves the argument of many theists, that without belief in god, society will crumble.
IMO, the 20th century tends to indicate that indeed yes this is the case.
Take Japan for example. Or modern day Europe. And even America these last decades. These countries have traditionally been theistic. Most 65+ are still theistic. But now, after about two generations of stability, the <40s are naturally becoming atheistic. It's still a small percentage, but much larger than has been the case throughout most of history. Maybe we should say it's stability, education, literacy and advance science. This combination tend to favor atheism.
Surely you'd agree with these demographics?
I'm not sure that all these atheists you group together are willing to demand that their ideology bears an exclusive political representation (generally they tend to be embarrassed by the proselytizing of the new atheists)
You're right. Soviet Russia was absolutely thriving.
That's an interesting observation, but I'm not so sure...........I mean, there were atheists during classical Greece and Rome and then there was the religious fervor of Christianity; I think the world just goes through phases.
I'm also not so sure that if the world becomes atheist, it'd be a good thing. You guessed it: morals.
Not that religion has to provide morals, but religion is useful because it provides common morals to the masses; i.e, it establishes a uniform standard. And that, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary to a healthy society (a uniform standard of morals).
If religion dies, then some cultural institution will need to take its place in order to provide the backbone of the moral beliefs of the people.
Human rights would replace the morals of religion.
Morals of religion are shit anyway. According to the bible it's okay to sell your own daughter as a sexual slave and for the master to beat her, as long as he doesn't damage her eyes or teeth.
Sam Harris
"In assessing the moral wisdom of the Bible, it is useful to consider moral questions that have been solved to everyone's satisfaction. Consider the question of slavery. The entire civilized world now agrees that slavery is an abomination. What moral instruction do we get from the God of Abraham on this subject? Consult the Bible, and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.
—leviticus 25:44—46
The Bible also makes it clear that every man is free to sell his daughter into sexual slavery— though certain niceties apply:
When a man setts his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt faithlessly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
—exodus 21:7-11
The only real restraint God counsels on the subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth (Exodus 21). It should go without saying that is not the kind of moral insight that put an end to slavery in the United States.
There is no place in the New Testament where Jesus objects to the practice of slavery. St. Paul even admonishes slaves to serve their masters well—and to serve their Christian masters especially well:
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ....
---EPHESIANS 6:5"
Morals of religion are shit anyway. According to the bible it's okay to sell your own daughter as a sexual slave and for the master to beat her, as long as he doesn't damage her eyes or teeth.
Sam Harris
"In assessing the moral wisdom of the Bible, it is useful to consider moral questions that have been solved to everyone's satisfaction. Consider the question of slavery. The entire civilized world now agrees that slavery is an abomination. What moral instruction do we get from the God of Abraham on this subject? Consult the Bible, and you will discover that the creator of the universe clearly expects us to keep slaves:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.
—leviticus 25:44—46
The Bible also makes it clear that every man is free to sell his daughter into sexual slavery— though certain niceties apply:
When a man setts his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt faithlessly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
—exodus 21:7-11
The only real restraint God counsels on the subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth (Exodus 21). It should go without saying that is not the kind of moral insight that put an end to slavery in the United States.
There is no place in the New Testament where Jesus objects to the practice of slavery. St. Paul even admonishes slaves to serve their masters well—and to serve their Christian masters especially well:
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ....
---EPHESIANS 6:5"
First, what are 'human rights'?
Secondly, you don't understand; figuring out the morals isn't the problem. If it were up to me, we'd go ahead and use Chivalry.
The problem is how will this moral code be taught to and reinforced within a society, culturally. With religion, it's through faith and Church.
OK, but what initiates one of these phases? There were a few atheists in Classical Greece - but why? It was a time of stability and of reason - no?You're right. Soviet Russia was absolutely thriving.
That's an interesting observation, but I'm not so sure...........I mean, there were atheists during classical Greece and Rome and then there was the religious fervor of Christianity; I think the world just goes through phases.
I'm also not so sure that if the world becomes atheist, it'd be a good thing. You guessed it: morals.
Not that religion has to provide morals, but religion is useful because it provides common morals to the masses; i.e, it establishes a uniform standard. And that, in my opinion, is absolutely necessary to a healthy society (a uniform standard of morals).
If religion dies, then some cultural institution will need to take its place in order to provide the backbone of the moral beliefs of the people.
hahaha....
Demographics correlate well with peace and security leading to people becoming atheistic. :shrug:
Kids are pretty cluey now-a-days, talk to them and you'll find that many don't believe in The Gods anymore.
Peace and security don't correlate to material existence ... what to speak of the current take of it.
I suggest you re-examine your data points
You'll find that even less of them think that the solutions to the world's problems lies in falling in line with the neo-atheist attitude