Governments Using Atheism by Force

[Interbane]

"Stalin was number one in world history at enforcing atheism."

And he committed atrocities in it's name? HA! Atheism wouldn't exist without a religion to be a-theistic of. The bottom line is religion is an exclusionary enterprise, same as racism and nationalism.

[Penelope]

Robert posted: that atheists were a sorry and superficial lot.

Not true, because whichever way you look at it, the atheists on here are absolutely passionate.....and not superficial at all.

Mr. P said

to live as we please without being discriminated against or having to deal with the simpletons who just cannot grasp how we can live without THEIR god.

This simpleton is at least trying Mr.P.

The title of this thread is 'Should the Government Enforce Atheism'. The ones with any kind of religious faith at all, would be discriminated against in this scenario, NOT the atheists.

Please note, not all religious people want to proselitise (spelt wrong, I know) and convert others..... some of us also want to live and believe as we please.

I am interested, however, in the viewpoint of atheism, being a person who just cannot imagine how it pans out.

[Interbane]

What are you talking of when you say you can't imagine how it pans out Penelope? Things fall so easily into place when you shed theism. The puzzle pieces fit well while I was a churchgoer in high school, but there was always a small amount of finagling I had to do to maintain the religious worldview. With atheism, there is no finagling. There are unknowns, but those are acceptable and inevitable unknowns, since we are finite creatures. The pieces of the puzzle fit together with far greater ease as an atheist, and amazingly none of what you call 'spirituality' is lost, it's simply renamed.

[Mr. P]

Robert posted: that atheists were a sorry and superficial lot.

Not true, because whichever way you look at it, the atheists on here are absolutely passionate.....and not superficial at all.

Mr. P said

to live as we please without being discriminated against or having to deal with the simpletons who just cannot grasp how we can live without THEIR god.

This simpleton is at least trying Mr.P.

But see...that makes you NOT a simpleton! I respect people who try to learn...to eductate and edify themselves and others.

Interbane: I have been thinking about the whole a-theism thing. I really am starting to not like the atheist lable because it does imply that it requires a theism to be functional. I guess that is what the whoile Humanism movement was about. I really want to try to not use atheism to define myself anymore.

Also, your point about religion being exclusionary...of course it is. But I do NOT see lack of belief being exclusionary. Again, I may not respect the belief in a deity for what it is, but I can totally respec a person that can look past their belief and try to still come together with all. I just find that people who do not believe are more capable of being more inclusive...so long as those who believe can accept the lack of belief.

Hmm...did I just make sense?

[Penelope]

You made perfect sense to me in that post Mr. P.

I guess we are all a little bit worried about 'the mind police'?

Interbane:

When I say, I cannot see how atheism, pans out.....I mean, that, like you I stopped going to Church, and performing rituals and offering empty worship/sacrifice to 'God' years ago.

But, unlike you, I can't live with idea of life being purposeless, without life seeming futile......ergo.....I am still living with a sense of the 'profound'. You call it a 'crutch' to keep me going. I call it a necessity.

For you, science is enough. The World is enough. Not so for me. There has to be a bigger picture. I demand my right to look for that bigger picture. If there are other people who don't believe there is anything more, that's OK by me. Most people are not interested either way.

I don't trust human beings enough to deal wisely or even compassionately with the dilemmas posed by new discoveries in science. I don't even trust them enough to deal humanely and truthfully, with the 'death penalty' for murder......so how can I trust them to deal humanely with such issues as cloning, animal research, genetic engineering and etc.....Without due reference to some higher intelligence.

Whether there is a higher intelligence......cannot be proved either way. But I find sufficient evidence, for my own intellect.....to carry on with the search. I only demand the right to do so in my own way. That way, means exploring other peoples' ideas and viewpoints. So I am interested in people from other cultures, with a different viewpoint and from historic cultures with an antiquated viewpoint.

[Interbane]

Mr. P: "But I do NOT see lack of belief being exclusionary."

I agree, though I strive to be superficial!

Penelope: "For you, science is enough. The World is enough. Not so for me. There has to be a bigger picture."

Well, I place more stock in philosophy than science, though I do love my gadgets! I agree that there is a bigger picture, but also realize that taken in perspective, it's impossible for the human brain to comprehend this picture. The attempt, the desire, to see this big picture allows acceptance of such concepts as spirituality and God. These things to me seem to be answers arrived at in the process of satiating said desire.

Penelope: "how can I trust them to deal humanely with such issues as cloning, animal research, genetic engineering and etc.....Without due reference to some higher intelligence."

An archimedian anchor point for morality seems to help on these issues. Yet even if we do reference a higher intelligence, how does that help us in our judgements? In the end, believers or not, people are the ones making the choices. Referencing a higher intelligence has its own pitfalls regarding moral choices. Give your input here, I'm curious.

[Penelope]

Interbane:

Referencing a higher intelligence has its own pitfalls regarding moral choices. Give your input here, I'm curious.

A Buddhist Nun once said to me, 'It is no use talking to people about spiritual matters if they don't feel ready to do so, it just makes them angry'. So I come on here because people on these sort of threads on this forum are more than willing to talk about such. These subjects, are what engage and absorb me. So, selfish reasons you see......

When I talk about referencing a higher intelligence....I certainly don't mean consulting The Bible. The Old Testament in particular can be quite horrifying in what it says 'God' says. 'Pitfalls' is not the word, it can be quite heinous.

That is not to say that I don't read any of the Bible. I also read The Upanishads on a fairly regularly basis, and the Bagavad Gita. Not the Koran, because I haven't got a copy. But I do read books which pertain to archaic wisdom and other books on philosophy and religion, including Richard Dawkins!

I also have learned from books and from my Budhist Nuns and Monks, at our local Budhist centre, how to meditate.

So I have learned to trust and believe in this higher source.

I think it is important to do so because, we all, as human beings have a tendency to follow the crowd......

For instance, the German peoples are often blamed for causing, or complying with the hollocaust . But I maintain that it is nothing to do with being German. That awful piece of history could have happened anywhere in Europe, given the historical circumstances, and a charismatic lunatic.

I hope learn how to know that I would have capacity to see through what was/is happening........and not just go along for the sake of maintaining a Status Quo, which should not be maintained.

Winston Churchill once said, that he wondered what would happen if all the troops, refused to go to battle and continue to be cannon fodder, which was how they were treated in the first world war. What would have happened, if they had been more aware? That 'they', were not 'the uniform' which they were wearing.

I am sorry that I do not know how to word this more skillfully.

It is just that when I take time to meditate or practise keeping in touch with (whatever it is). I seem to perceive things more as a 'whole'.

I seem to trust my own judgement more and not be so influenced by 'the hidden persuaders'. Advertising, political propaganda, religious fervour et al.

I don't do it because I think it will give me eternal life, or because it will be like having a magic lamp to make all my wishes come true. It just makes me feel stronger and more self-reliant.

PS - Although I still buy fashion items and make-up because I am influenced by the adverts and hope they will make me look like Kate Moss.....even though I am 63 years old and getting a bit broad in the beam.....

See, it also helps me to laugh at myself.

[DWill]

I hope it's okay to butt in, Penelope. I just wanted to say that as far as I know, atheism doesn't take a stance against conceptions that people may call God, but that aren't theisms in the normal sense, that in other words don't posit a God that acts for or against us in history--through supernatural means--and whose special creation we are. Otherwise, I think that if we want to think of a force and name it God, atheists have no reason to dissent as long as supernatural powers are not claimed for it. Deism and some forms of Buddhism seem to be two such reasonable types of belief.

[Penelope]

DWill:

Otherwise, I think that if we want to think of a force and name it God, atheists have no reason to dissent as long as supernatural powers are not claimed for it.

I sometimes am tempted to name it 'Clarence' or even BooBoo.

It does seem 'supernatural' to me. However, I am willing to call it 'The Force' because the film 'Star Wars' was such a gift to me......

And 'The Force' seems supernatural......but it will probably just turn out to just be 'God' after all.

Thank you DWill.....you are SUCH a reassuring presence on here.

Btw.....Ralphinlaos...sends you his warmest regards.

[Saffron]

Btw.....Ralphinlaos...sends you his warmest regards.

Penny: What has become of Ralph? I never see him on BT or see that he has made a post.