Atheist takeover...

[Acim]

I can't say I'd never talk about my beliefs to anyone outside my circle. Sometimes a situation presents that simply calls for an expression of faith or belief. I like to think I'd be brave enough to speak out at that moment.

I would probably keep my worship as private as possible. Since my form of worship doesn't require any rituals, that would be pretty easy.

I would be reasonably cautious. But - if I was found out and arrested, I believe I would be able to hold fast to my faith and be bold.

Cool, thanks for that response.

It seems many here, myself included, would like to think we'd be brave enough to speak out at that moment. With what I've seen from persons of this site, I believe many would.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

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?

I wouldn't want to live in such an oppressive society. Freedom of speech and thought are the most important human rights. I would resist a society which kills people for their thoughts, as it would be exactly like a religion in itself.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Also, threats hardly ever work. Education and open minded debate are the only way to convince people.

 

[waitasec]

Also, threats hardly ever work. Education and open minded debate are the only way to convince people.

emphasis by me...

 

[T-Dawg]

Also, threats hardly ever work. Education and open minded debate are the only way to convince people.

Precisely the philosophy of my imaginary dictatorship .

 

[waitasec]

acim,

why would an atheist takeover have anything to do with restricting a persons personal world view, when the very reason atheism exists is because that is the very principle atheism endorses, freedom of thought... so please correct me if i'm wrong...isn't this more of an theocratic type of take over than an atheistic one?

 

[darkendless]

I'd like to remove public displays of ALL religious symbols and dress so that people are not instantly targeted as part of their religion.

Thats about as much of a atheist take-over i'd like to see other than the obvious dissocation between religion and political agendas.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

One good thing government can do is rid itself from any reference of religious belief or disbelief and they could start in my country by removing the Lord’s Prayer and other religious preambles from the opening of Parliament in my country and in America they can remove that thing that is much despised (by atheists and free thinkers in particular) "In God we trust'" off their currency.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

emphasis by me...

lol! if we only saw more of that somewhere!

 

[Acim]

acim,

why would an atheist takeover have anything to do with restricting a persons personal world view, when the very reason atheism exists is because that is the very principle atheism endorses, freedom of thought... so please correct me if i'm wrong...isn't this more of an theocratic type of take over than an atheistic one?

I'm not aware of atheism endorsing principles. Really? Really really?

"Atheist takeover" is the title. Admittedly, not best choice of words with regard to how I (intentionally) worded OP. But as far as titles go, I likey.

More like aristocratic takeover by those who now deem science (of a certain kind) is the only authority we need in determining who is "with us" and who is or has always been working against us. Again, this can be validated with 99.9% accuracy.

Hypothetically speaking.

 

[waitasec]

I'm not aware of atheism endorsing principles. Really? Really really?
"Atheist takeover" is the title. Admittedly, not best choice of words with regard to how I (intentionally) worded OP. But as far as titles go, I likey.

[/quote]
are you really surprised?
your OP assumes atheism endorses certain principles, right?

 

[Acim]

Does this question I'm asking right now assume you will reply?

 

[waitasec]

Does this question I'm asking right now assume you will reply?

i thought i approached you with the 1st question...
and i am following up with another question to your response.

care to respond to this one?
it only requires a yes or a no...

Originally Posted by Acim
I'm not aware of atheism endorsing principles. Really? Really really?
"Atheist takeover" is the title. Admittedly, not best choice of words with regard to how I (intentionally) worded OP. But as far as titles go, I likey.

your OP assumes atheism endorses certain principles, right?

 

[Acim]

your OP assumes atheism endorses certain principles, right?

It is asking self identified atheists how they might respond in a particular environment where "existence of God is proven, with 99.9% accuracy" to be mental defect, and no longer tolerated by TPTB.

I may sometimes assume atheists (not the ism, but the ists) endorse certain principles, but OP is not making that claim, IMO.

 

[waitasec]

It is asking self identified atheists how they might respond in a particular environment where "existence of God is proven, with 99.9% accuracy" to be mental defect, and no longer tolerated by TPTB.

I may sometimes assume atheists (not the ism, but the ists) endorse certain principles, but OP is not making that claim, IMO.

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.

to me it looks like the OP sets up the notion that atheists would endorse the principle of thought control...

a mental defect, like apathy is for the deviants of society, present a danger/threat to society.

what you set up in the OP is that the actual idea to think for yourself, which would have no dire consequences to society, is somehow considered a mental defect... i don't get it.
a very big part of atheism is about thinking for ones self...figuring things out without being told what to think...

i think...

 

[Acim]

to me it looks like the OP sets up the notion that atheists would endorse the principle of thought control...

Not to me. Could you underline area where you are getting that from?

what you set up in the OP is that the actual idea to think for yourself, which would have no dire consequences to society, is somehow considered a mental defect... i don't get it.

Maybe because you're spinning it into a way that is challenging to understand. Perhaps ask someone else in the thread that responded how they "got it."

a very big part of atheism is about thinking for ones self...figuring things out without being told what to think...

i think...

I get 47 different responses to what is atheism and/or is a really big part of atheism. The common response of "nothing more than lack of a belief in god(s)" doesn't seem to jive up with what you are saying here. Would be interesting to start a thread and see how many variations we get of "what does atheism mean (for you self identified atheists)?" I don't think that is this thread.

 

[Meow Mix]

Atheism isn't a worldview, but atheists have worldviews just like anyone else. Don't confuse the two. I doubt that very many people, atheist or not, would be okay with allowing people to be killed by an oppressive state if they can do anything about it.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Atheism isn't a worldview, but atheists have worldviews just like anyone else. Don't confuse the two.

:yes:

 

[waitasec]

Not to me. Could you underline area where you are getting that from?

here:

For atheists: would you actively resist this in any fashion?

the mere question is questionable...
why would you ask that question if it wasn't already understood that any empathetic person would resist such an obvious flawed system...if you haven't noticed there are atheists that resist DOMA

Maybe because you're spinning it into a way that is challenging to understand. Perhaps ask someone else in the thread that responded how they "got it."

the entire premise is challenging because it's really an insult, although i do not think it's intentional.

The common response of "nothing more than lack of a belief in god(s)" doesn't seem to jive up with what you are saying here. Would be interesting to start a thread and see how many variations we get of "what does atheism mean (for you self identified atheists)?" I don't think that is this thread.

i get the feeling you don't understand what atheism is...

 

[Acim]

here:

For atheists: would you actively resist this in any fashion?

the mere question is questionable...
why would you ask that question if it wasn't already understood that any empathetic person would resist such an obvious flawed system...

Perhaps you missed the word "actively" in the question. I passively resist genocide in Africa. I don't actively resist it. I passive resist laws on drugs in the U.S., I don't actively resist them. I could see an atheist, with a particular bias (as this thread has demonstrated) that may passively resist the authoritarian government I brought up as hypothetical. Others have come on and said they would actively resist it. There are degrees in here I'm sure, and I'd actually be surprised (pleasantly so) if atheist would go to great extremes to protect rights of theists. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that I would be surprised if some responded in that way. Great extremes being akin to atheist saying they'd set up own church building (for theists) and if government came near it, they would be shot on sight.

the entire premise is challenging because it's really an insult, although i do not think it's intentional.

Then I think you are spinning it in way that is more of an insult than what is there. I do not see it as insult. If anything, those who are self identified atheists on this thread and/or chose to answer that question directly, and chose to respond in such a way to either state or imply they would be okay if such authority existed to get rid of theists, are the ones who would insult you. In my estimation (haven't really tracked things in formal way), I would say it is 90% who would actively or passively resist it, and about 10% who would not.

i get the feeling you don't understand what atheism is...

I get the feeling it is ambiguous. Give me the thread to demonstrate this ambiguity, and I will.

This is not that thread.