Atheist takeover...

[Acim]

I was seriously wondering about this topic before I read this other thread (see here). The other thread pretty much gets at what I was thinking, but is coming at it from opposite angle.

Suppose a faction of society, that holds a viable sense of authority, were to claim they have definitive evidence (or proof) that God / gods do not exist. That it is clearly a delusion and will now be treated, aggressively, as such. Determined to be extremely harmful (psychologically speaking) to society and needs to be eradicate.

Believers must renounce their belief. To the point where if anyone is caught uttering or practicing some sort of religious ritual or spiritual act, it is crime punishable by death.

Questions are:

For atheists: would you actively resist this in any fashion? Essentially saying persons have right to practice their beliefs in private way? Would you even go as far as provide safety zone (housing, or whatever) for believers in your area? Or, would you go along with TPTB (authority) and help round-up the wrong-doers to be elminated?

For agnostics: Pretty much same questions as those posed to atheists, with possible addition along lines of, might this policy cause you to lean one way or the other? Like, identify with atheists clearly so you are 'saved?' Or maybe identify with theists in a principled fashion?

For theists: Do you relinquish your beliefs in such a way where you never, ever talk about it, except with most trusted comrades? Or perhaps not at all? Do you restrict yourself from any sort of congregations, rituals, acts (like prayer, meditation, etc.)? Or do you possibly go out in blaze of glory sticking strongly / proudly to your faith, and say openly practice until 'they' come to take you away?

 

[Riverwolf]

Let the men in white coats come. At least I'll be able to live truthfully rather than a lie.

But that future, frankly, doesn't sound very likely. People value their beliefs, and will defend them strongly. Plus, religious people far outnumber non-religious people, so there's that barrier. Besides, having theistic or religious beliefs has nothing to do with mental illness, so that would be kind of a problem that the new anti-religious rulers would have to solve.

 

[Acim]

Agree with what you are saying. But I was looking for replies strictly on the hypothetical possibility. Like some sci-fi world, except you are deciding how you think you would really act in that existence.

 

[elmarna]

while you can base it in a hypothosis-you are libel to find a melting pot of Natzi Germany & the slavery scenerio from the early days of the USA in the thoughts that come to mind.
While the fact that some people believe that the only way to establish total order is to insist people respond to 1 point of veiw it has been proven many times that all that ever really comes of it is that they keep to themselves than to have their beliefs which is of value to them eliminated when they are of great service.
weather they flee,go into hiding, or remain silent. It never is without keeping the faith & having it carried forward differently than the time before the intolerances of those objecting came to lay judgements on them.
there is a Mike & the mechanics song aptly named "silent running" It says-"give them anything they offer; Never tell them how you really feel. Teach the children quietly so some day sons & daughters will rise up & fight while we stood still."
The very thought of your proposal is not likely to be seen without so many opposed to the ways of the path it leads us down. Even if the case was phsyciatric disorder it is likely better realized in a form of kindness than shame.

 

[Father Heathen]

For atheists: would you actively resist this in any fashion? Essentially saying persons have right to practice their beliefs in private way? Would you even go as far as provide safety zone (housing, or whatever) for believers in your area? Or, would you go along with TPTB (authority) and help round-up the wrong-doers to be elminated?

I would consider it an abhorrent violation of human rights and freedom and would establish a safe house to hide people in.

 

[Breathe]

For theists: Do you relinquish your beliefs in such a way where you never, ever talk about it, except with most trusted comrades? Or perhaps not at all? Do you restrict yourself from any sort of congregations, rituals, acts (like prayer, meditation, etc.)? Or do you possibly go out in blaze of glory sticking strongly / proudly to your faith, and say openly practice until 'they' come to take you away?

Fight to the death, baby!

Even if I wasn't religious, I would still. For the freedom for others to worship.

 

[Meow Mix]

For atheists: would you actively resist this in any fashion? Essentially saying persons have right to practice their beliefs in private way? Would you even go as far as provide safety zone (housing, or whatever) for believers in your area? Or, would you go along with TPTB (authority) and help round-up the wrong-doers to be elminated?

I would most certainly help with any sort of resistance movement that existed to the most of my ability. A person never knows what they will do when put in mortal jeapordy, but I feel extremely confident that I would offer quarter to refugees and resistance and offer any information that I can. An anti-theocracy is just as despicable as a theocracy and I won't stand for it in any sense.

I already face a small amount of oppression as a member of two widely distrusted groups (homosexuals, as a lesbian... and atheists, which according to polls are the least trusted people in America). Oppression isn't a game and it's not fun, and I'm probably lucky to be living where I do and in the time I do or I'd have probably had worse done to me in other cultures or times than simply being frowned upon and dealing with people trying to pass laws telling me that I can't marry whom I love. I will never be an oppressor, a sympathizer for oppressors, or a selfish bystander that allows evil to triumph through complete inaction.

 

[jmvizanko]

I don't know how anyone could support such tyrrany. I'm all for making laws that allow for the practice of any victimless "crime," as well as laws that protect our science education from religious desctructive intrusion, in the face of the religious majority in my country. But if it wasn't for the beautiful freedom afforded by the first amendment and the principle it stands for, I might have been burned at a stake by now.

I don't believe that people can choose their religion, and thus it is evil to try to coerce them or punish them for what they believe. That being said, they should not be able to practice their religion when that practice means not living and letting live. This country was supposedly founded on freedom, and it is this freedom that has made it one of the best places to live in the world.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I was seriously wondering about this topic before I read this other thread (see here). The other thread pretty much gets at what I was thinking, but is coming at it from opposite angle.

Suppose a faction of society, that holds a viable sense of authority, were to claim they have definitive evidence (or proof) that God / gods do not exist. That it is clearly a delusion and will now be treated, aggressively, as such. Determined to be extremely harmful (psychologically speaking) to society and needs to be eradicate.

Believers must renounce their belief. To the point where if anyone is caught uttering or practicing some sort of religious ritual or spiritual act, it is crime punishable by death.

Questions are:

For atheists: would you actively resist this in any fashion? Essentially saying persons have right to practice their beliefs in private way? Would you even go as far as provide safety zone (housing, or whatever) for believers in your area? Or, would you go along with TPTB (authority) and help round-up the wrong-doers to be elminated?

For agnostics: Pretty much same questions as those posed to atheists, with possible addition along lines of, might this policy cause you to lean one way or the other? Like, identify with atheists clearly so you are 'saved?' Or maybe identify with theists in a principled fashion?

For theists: Do you relinquish your beliefs in such a way where you never, ever talk about it, except with most trusted comrades? Or perhaps not at all? Do you restrict yourself from any sort of congregations, rituals, acts (like prayer, meditation, etc.)? Or do you possibly go out in blaze of glory sticking strongly / proudly to your faith, and say openly practice until 'they' come to take you away?

It smacks too much of the State atheism and the state telling us how to think and am totally against state sanctioned atheism or state sanctioning anything to do with religion such as those much despised theocracies. The state and religious beliefs and disbeliefs should be separate.

 

[Acim]

Liking the responses so far. But I do have reasonable follow up to those that did reply.

If providing safehouse / refuge to believers (against tyrants) meant they would practice their spirituality under your roof / in your presence, would your reply still be the same? Also, what if it was in vein of them (believers) remaining vigilant for God, and to whatever degree evangelical? Such that, they feel safe in your presence, but given the 'reality' of the time, they feel even more convinced that 'people need saving' and to be made well aware of the Word? You may disagree, and every chance they get, in your presence, they pray for you, and tell you that they are praying for you.

Hopefully, I've painted that scenario okay. Would you still feel (strong) desire to make a place for them on this planet to exist, especially if that place was part of 'your' space?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was seriously wondering about this topic before I read this other thread (see here). The other thread pretty much gets at what I was thinking, but is coming at it from opposite angle.

Suppose a faction of society, that holds a viable sense of authority, were to claim they have definitive evidence (or proof) that God / gods do not exist. That it is clearly a delusion and will now be treated, aggressively, as such. Determined to be extremely harmful (psychologically speaking) to society and needs to be eradicate.

Believers must renounce their belief. To the point where if anyone is caught uttering or practicing some sort of religious ritual or spiritual act, it is crime punishable by death.

Questions are:

For atheists: would you actively resist this in any fashion? Essentially saying persons have right to practice their beliefs in private way? Would you even go as far as provide safety zone (housing, or whatever) for believers in your area? Or, would you go along with TPTB (authority) and help round-up the wrong-doers to be elminated?

Of course I'd resist it.

I'm not just an atheist; my atheism is only one expression for me of freethought. I think that people should be free to form their beliefs based on free inquiry, and should not be coerced into believing or not believing any particular view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Liking the responses so far. But I do have reasonable follow up to those that did reply.

If providing safehouse / refuge to believers (against tyrants) meant they would practice their spirituality under your roof / in your presence, would your reply still be the same? Also, what if it was in vein of them (believers) remaining vigilant for God, and to whatever degree evangelical? Such that, they feel safe in your presence, but given the 'reality' of the time, they feel even more convinced that 'people need saving' and to be made well aware of the Word? You may disagree, and every chance they get, in your presence, they pray for you, and tell you that they are praying for you.

Wow... you must have a really low opinion of atheists if you could even entertain the notion that we would throw people out to face execution just because we don't like the fact that they're acting all religious.

 

[Father Heathen]

Liking the responses so far. But I do have reasonable follow up to those that did reply.

If providing safehouse / refuge to believers (against tyrants) meant they would practice their spirituality under your roof / in your presence, would your reply still be the same? Also, what if it was in vein of them (believers) remaining vigilant for God, and to whatever degree evangelical? Such that, they feel safe in your presence, but given the 'reality' of the time, they feel even more convinced that 'people need saving' and to be made well aware of the Word? You may disagree, and every chance they get, in your presence, they pray for you, and tell you that they are praying for you.

Hopefully, I've painted that scenario okay. Would you still feel (strong) desire to make a place for them on this planet to exist, especially if that place was part of 'your' space?

I would take the ones that ask dumb questions and turn them in for the reward money.

 

[Koldo]

I was seriously wondering about this topic before I read this other thread (see here). The other thread pretty much gets at what I was thinking, but is coming at it from opposite angle.

Suppose a faction of society, that holds a viable sense of authority, were to claim they have definitive evidence (or proof) that God / gods do not exist.

I don't see how this scenario could ever become possible. But anyway...

For theists: Do you relinquish your beliefs in such a way where you never, ever talk about it, except with most trusted comrades? Or perhaps not at all? Do you restrict yourself from any sort of congregations, rituals, acts (like prayer, meditation, etc.)? Or do you possibly go out in blaze of glory sticking strongly / proudly to your faith, and say openly practice until 'they' come to take you away?

If it really became proven beyond reasonable doubt that God does not exist ( which is not possible, but let us assume it is ) then i would become an atheist.

For atheists: would you actively resist this in any fashion? Essentially saying persons have right to practice their beliefs in private way? Would you even go as far as provide safety zone (housing, or whatever) for believers in your area? Or, would you go along with TPTB (authority) and help round-up the wrong-doers to be elminated?

I would say people have the right to practice their beliefs, but i wouldn't want to get involved.

 

[waitasec]

For atheists: would you actively resist this in any fashion? Essentially saying persons have right to practice their beliefs in private way? Would you even go as far as provide safety zone (housing, or whatever) for believers in your area? Or, would you go along with TPTB (authority) and help round-up the wrong-doers to be elminated?

For agnostics: Pretty much same questions as those posed to atheists, with possible addition along lines of, might this policy cause you to lean one way or the other? Like, identify with atheists clearly so you are 'saved?' Or maybe identify with theists in a principled fashion?

are you serious?

 

[Acim]

Wow... you must have a really low opinion of atheists if you could even entertain the notion that we would throw people out to face execution just because we don't like the fact that they're acting all religious.

I would take the ones that ask dumb questions and turn them in for the reward money.

I don't know where I would get the notion that non-theists/atheist types would throw people out. It is like I just made it up.

Which I did. This is hypothetical question. It is like the game scruples, and I'm just taking things to a particular extreme to see how people might respond.

Like, I'll answer my own inquiry.

As a theist, I would still practice spirituality and would be actively working (though it might show up as passive) to undermine both the 'new system' and the logic which I believe, given the premises, is based on fallacy. I'd essentially be doing things in vein of what master fiction writers do when they tell one story on the surface, but are really telling another story for those with discerning eyes. And while all the adults in the room might be (or may not be) freaking out over the new policy in place, I'd make sure I did everything I could to teach kids, "there is another way." I think I'd be a bit like Ben Kingsley's character in "Schindler's List." Pretending to help the man, while not so secretly doing all I could to undermine him/it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not just an atheist, but also non-religious, so I wouldn't back any religion - including a state-religion, such as communism or the society you described.

 

[Acim]

I would say people have the right to practice their beliefs, but i wouldn't want to get involved.

What if for some, practicing their beliefs meant:
a) doing all they could to convert you. Afterall, convert enough to the Light side, and we no longer have to live under the (hypothetical) tyrannical rule.
b) not converting you (actively), but between pleading and hoping you give particular believers a place to practice / congregate. Say your house (could be floor or room of your choosing). And if you say no to this, no getting involved, a possible result is TPTB make it a point to actively destroy all those establishments buildings where it is known that the only activity that goes on there is whatever believers do (or used to do, ha ha ha). So, the scenario then becomes, they (believers) do it out in the open, because there is no safe place indoors to do it. Thus, your non involvement leads to public genocide of sorts. Cool?

 

[Acim]

I'm not just an atheist, but also non-religious, so I wouldn't back any religion - including a state-religion, such as communism or the society you described.

There is no form of government you would support? Even one based on scientific evidence? Again, in this hypothetical, the evidence strongly suggests, has wide consensus, that religious belief is a very harmful mental disorder that is determined (in this hypothetical) to be largest cause of war, murder, deceit, willingness to harm others. TPTB are simply asking you to assist in getting rid of this problem. You don't have to do any of the dirty work, just point out those among you that you suspect are believers. Doesn't mean you know for sure, and we won't be just taking your word. We now have tests, that are 99.9% accurate in determining who the religious folk among us are.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There is no form of government you would support? Even one based on scientific evidence?

Do you think religion and government is the same thing?