Make an Atheist Country.

[theyounghistorian77]

What Frenger said. When you start reading the constitutions of the various states that once made up what was behind the Iron curtain, both in the Baltics and interestingly in the Balkans (and especially since the bloody dissolution of Yugoslavia), it should strike you as interesting the number of nations that have adopted secular constitutions. This is not some mere carry-over from the USSR, seeing as these very same states are now engaging in forging an identity that is in opposition to what the USSR stood for as a whole and said constitutions are a part of that. The new liberal identities (on paper at the very least) of these various states far better represents my secularist values than what the old regimes ever did or claimed to do.

 

[Estheria Quintessimo]

I have ruffly and quiclkly read through the previous posts.

And trouble popped up, ASAP

I only simply asked... to make an Atheist Country..... and see the result...

NOTHING.

All the religious people around the world are now laughing at you morons.

....

So are you dumb people really completely not able to think of a way to make an country work based on on Atheist principal?

Seriously,... You can really not be THAT stupid.

 

[Estheria Quintessimo]

You must be thinkling Ihis is a joke topic...

It fncking is not..

See my goddamn serious face and my total disrepect for religion.

I bloody mean it! weakness shows. I have no use for morons.

Girlschool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbR2eczApEI

Be honoust in your responds or fncking piss off!

 

[Engelbert]

I have ruffly and quiclkly read through the previous posts.

And trouble popped up, ASAP

I only simply asked... to make an Atheist Country..... and see the result...

NOTHING.

All the religious people around the world are now laughing at you morons.

....

So are you dumb people really completely not able to think of a way to make an country work based on on Atheist principal?

Seriously,... You can really not be THAT stupid.

What does Atheist mean to you? .... hating religion? asserting very strongly that God does not exist?

I'm not sure what it means to you. You have mentioned that atheists can be believers in the supernatural. What about an atheist country where all the atheists believe in the supernatural?

What atheist means to you might inform what kind of country you have in mind. Is it a tolerant country, or an intolerant one?

I get the feeling that you're a bit of an anti-theist. Are you perhaps searching for an anti-theist country, rather than just an atheist one?

 

[Prolescum]

I have ruffly and quiclkly read through the previous posts.

Clearly...

And trouble popped up, ASAP

I only simply asked... to make an Atheist Country..... and see the result...

NOTHING.

Precisely. It's a fucking stupid idea.

All the religious people around the world are now laughing at you morons.

Nope. They, along with many of us, are laughing at you, you dumb fucker.

So are you dumb people really completely not able to think of a way to make an country work based on on Atheist principal?

Are you, you hick thicko, really completely not able to think of a way to make an country work based on the not-collecting-stamps principle?

Seriously,... You can really not be THAT stupid.

Pahahahahahaha!

You must be thinkling Ihis is a joke topic...

No, it is a risible one. If you feel up to it, you could learn the difference. Just thinkle about it for a moment.

It fncking is not..

It fncking is.

See my goddamn serious face and my total disrepect for religion.

Your serious face is much the same as your going-to-the-toilet face. Your intolerance will do nothing but foster further hatred. You are unnecessarily offensive and utterly puerile, and I would have you impeached were you to gain a modicum of authority. Fortunately, you are left impotently waving your proverbial cock at a computer screen.

I bloody mean it! weakness shows. I have no use for morons.

I have no doubt that a mind as seemingly shallow and simple as yours confuses a matter of opinion with righteousness. It is you who is weak; it is you who is moronic; it is you who has nothing of value to contribute.

Girlschool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbR2eczApEI

Be honoust in your responds or fncking piss off!

I think you'll find that most, if not all, opinions expressed on this website are honest. If you can't handle the truth, I suggest you fncking piss off to facebook or wherever the other anti-theist fuckwits hang out online.

P.S. Name calling isn't nice, is it?

 

[theyounghistorian77]

*sigh*

I have ruffly and quiclkly read through the previous posts.

And i observe that my point has still been missed.

And trouble popped up, ASAP

I only simply asked... to make an Atheist Country..... and see the result...

NOTHING.

So are you dumb people really completely not able to think of a way to make an country work based on on Atheist principal?

Because we're aware that "Atheist countries" so-called have actually been put into practice, with diabolical results.

See my goddamn serious face and my total disrepect for religion.

Yea and what you seem to be advocating is either an unrealistic utopia, or another totalitarianism. Either way, nobody with any sense of rationality is going to be comfortable with it.

All the religious people around the world are now laughing at you morons.

Not all, just the crazies, and actually isn't it just more a case of dislike than anything else with their rationale being said "practiced atheist countries" have committed some of the worst atrocities in history :!:

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Whilst i was typing that quick post this song popped into my head. Doesn't make me feel any better.

 

[Estheria Quintessimo]

Seriously,...

I do not get it.

If you want a society without religion,... then I figure you would have thaught on how this society would look like and act.

One of the basic AGAINST in any religious discussion, is that those withouth faith in a supreme creator are anarchists and have no morals.

So I provide a platform to proof them wrong,... but all you do is fuzz and bicker.

... basically proving their point and proving them right.

It seems this forum lacks people with vision.

 

[Inferno]

Just because you do not understand the finer points of contention between an atheist and a secular country does not make us without vision.

In the very first reply to your post, he_who_is_nobody said:

I think you mean secular country. Those already exist.

I would keep the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

A secular country is a good idea, a secular country provides freedoms for both religious and non-religious people.
But what do you even understand under an atheist country? Atheism just means "without god", nothing else. If everyone lost their faith in god tomorrow, nothing would change. Things will only change if at the same time people drop their will to be subjugated, if they drop their irrationality. If people actually did that, the world would be so extremely different that we might not be able to imagine it.

I asked: "Atheism according to whom"? If you take the values of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson and Baruch Spinoza, you might be going in a direction I approve of. But there are and were other atheists who do not hold the same values as I do, simply because atheism says little about values.

That's why your question about an "atheist country" makes very little sense.

 

[Engelbert]

Seriously,...

I do not get it.

If you want a society without religion,... then I figure you would have thaught on how this society would look like and act.

One of the basic AGAINST in any religious discussion, is that those withouth faith in a supreme creator are anarchists and have no morals.

So I provide a platform to proof them wrong,... but all you do is fuzz and bicker.

... basically proving their point and proving them right.

It seems this forum lacks people with vision.

Not all of us want a society without religion, or without the freedom to be religious. Some of us despite lacking belief in religion, do not desire its immediate eradication. My position would not be one that seeks the elimination of religion, but one of tolerance in a secular country, where the problems of religion are criticised to an extent, but the freedoms of the religious are not curtailed as long as they keep within the laws of the state. I am not as radically secular as some, as I think that sometimes traditions and culture can be valuable, whilst others will seek the eradication of any visible glimpse of religion. However, problems such as rules on contraception and the subjugation of women are clear examples of religious ideas, that I believe deserve criticism.

Tolerance is quite a big factor in many people's outlook.

You are criticising the responses here.

Could you please define what you believe atheism to be. This will help to clarify what this atheist country is that you are thinking about and how exactly it differs from a secular one. Explicitly atheist states seem to have a bad recent history.

Could you then consider the idea of a secular country and explain why an atheist country might be better than a secular country and what the difference is. Definition of Secular

It's fair enough that you would like a country without religion. This is idealistic. I would suggest that it is not realistic though. Perhaps you are just looking for ideas and thoughts on the hypothetical utopia that you would like to see. That's a fair enough conversation to have, but my opinion is that I'd probably choose a secular state, rather than an explicitly atheist one... in reality and hypothetically.

One slightly counter intuitive thought is that in developed states such as the UK, where Law and government is still intertwined with religion and has been for centuries, is that the overall strength of religion seems to have waned rather more than it has in an explicitly secular state like the US. Does that mean that despite its problems, an expressly religious state can eventually lead to a less religious nation than an explicitly secular one? If I have recalled this correctly, I have heard Dawkins muse on this issue. A consideration he offers is that in a secular nation where religion is free, it can become big enterprise and business. Turn it into a profit maker and it becomes a business like any other. Expose it to the markets and as is evident in the States it can become a hugely successful and powerful force. Comparatively, religion in the UK over the same period has steadily dropped in presence, power and adherence. Because religion in the UK is part of the establishment, it is controlled and not subject to market forces, it has become stale and dated, rather than moving and competing with the times, being able to operate as a business and thus has lost status. So, is it actually the case that a secular country can lead to increased religiosity, or is this example too problematic to draw valid conclusions? I believe this to be an interesting question, but that perhaps it is unlikely to be a trend that we will see again, but who can predict the future? I believe that the best answer we have to this in every case is to provide good education (including RS), which would be a staple for me in any hypothetical society you would like to talk about.

 

[Prolescum]

Seriously,...

I do not get it.

That much is obvious. You have received several responses that have clarified why an "atheist" country is not particularly desired, yet you seem to have ignored them. Or called them idiots.

What exactly were you expecting? This website doesn't exist so that atheists can slap each others' backs, but simply to foment the discussion of ideas rationally (The only collective belief of its team is that if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas). That your idea is daft is no fault of other commenters, but your own lack of a wider perspective.

If you want a society without religion,...

I don't care whether religion exists or not, only that it has the capacity to infringe upon others (our hard-earned rights); that's where I draw the line.

then I figure you would have thaught on how this society would look like and act.

Societies generally don't base their entire culture upon a non-belief, let alone a singular one; you'd still have libertarians, communists, conservatives, sports fans, geeks, spies, pot-heads, murderers, and furries. The only difference would be which minority you choose oppress.

One of the basic AGAINST in any religious discussion, is that those withouth faith in a supreme creator are anarchists and have no morals.

...and it is rightly pointed out that this contention is risible on the face of it and resoundly ridiculed. One doesn't require a whole legislative arrangement to rebuke it.

So I provide a platform to proof them wrong,...

Yet you failed so completely. Why is that? If you take nothing else from this thread, make sure that question sinks in.

but all you do is fuzz and bicker.

Because we don't have such a dogmatic view of atheism? :lol:

That's hilarious. Crap ideas receive short thrift. Simple. Here's a recent example on another topic.

... basically proving their point and proving them right.

Right that atheists have no morals? That, dear friend, is a non sequitor.

It seems this forum lacks people with vision.

Hahahaha! You gloss over (or ignore) any response that doesn't conform with your views, so what's the point in going over it again?

Other commenters have stated that it's a bad idea and, more importantly, why. That they've rejected the premise of the thread does not mean they "lack vision", it means they aren't blinkered, and are trying quite hard to help you understand their positions.

 

[australopithecus]

Seriously,...

I do not get it.

If you want a society without religion,... then I figure you would have thaught on how this society would look like and act.

One of the basic AGAINST in any religious discussion, is that those withouth faith in a supreme creator are anarchists and have no morals.

So I provide a platform to proof them wrong,... but all you do is fuzz and bicker.

... basically proving their point and proving them right.

It seems this forum lacks people with vision.

Oh, do fuck off. As I said previously, your angry teenager brand of atheism is best left to those developing pubic hair for the first time. When your hormones have settled down, feel free to join us in the world of adulthood. You can leave your hilarious black and white myopic angst at the door.

To summarise; I'm not an anti-theist, I don't care if religion exists, I care that religion doesn't have power over societies. Secularism > atheism.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

*sigh*

And i still observe that my point has still been missed. But i'm sure everyone else can see where i'm getting at.

Seriously,...

I do not get it.

Yes we've gathered.

If you want a society without religion,...

Yea, a totally unrealistic utopian scenario.

then I figure you would have thought on how this society would look like and act.

Well i happen to have this little thing called knowledge of History, also Political Science. Two things which you thus far have completely unaccounted for. So quit dealing with Utopias because there simply is nobody here who is going to believe in what this poster represents :!:

And you have also failed to explain how your personal conception of Atheism, which it seems would affect your personal governance of a hypothetical Atheistic nation, would be any different to what said poster above represents.

In short, what Engelbert has already said:

Could you please define what you believe atheism to be. This will help to clarify what this atheist country is that you are thinking about and how exactly it differs from a secular one. Explicitly atheist states seem to have a bad recent history.

One of the basic AGAINST in any religious discussion, is that those withouth faith in a supreme creator are anarchists and have no morals.

Ahhhh Misquote Dostoyevsky. Also we can more than deal with that (and him, and Alyosha) separately

It seems this forum lacks people with vision.

No, we're just grounded in reality.

 

[Inferno]

I believe this shouldn't be missing in this thread: QualiaSoup - Secularism

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No I said Atheist Country.

A secular person is not the same as an atheist person. A secular person will write you a 'Happy Christmas' card. An Atheist person will take a shit below your Catholic Christmas Tree.

I think you mean an Anti-Theist country.

Only an anti-theist would do something like that - if at all.

Seriously,...

I do not get it.

If you want a society without religion,... then I figure you would have thaught on how this society would look like and act.

One of the basic AGAINST in any religious discussion, is that those withouth faith in a supreme creator are anarchists and have no morals.

So I provide a platform to proof them wrong,... but all you do is fuzz and bicker.

... basically proving their point and proving them right.

It seems this forum lacks people with vision.

If you want to know what a atheist country might be like, read Zuckerman's Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

I think you mean an Anti-Theist country.

Only an anti-theist would do something like that - if at all.

I don't think so. I'm an anti-theist and so was Christopher Hitchens. Certainly none of us would even contemplate such a thing.
As I said, what Estheria is thinking of is a crazy person.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I think you mean an Anti-Theist country.

Only an anti-theist would do something like that - if at all.

I don't think so. I'm an anti-theist and so was Christopher Hitchens. Certainly none of us would even contemplate such a thing.
As I said, what Estheria is thinking of is a crazy person.

I know, Inferno, I meant no insult to you, Hitchens or any other anti-theist.

I still feel this is what she's talking about, country-wise - though, as was said, a crazy person (extremist) with regard to said activity.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[theyounghistorian77]

If you want to know what a atheist country might be like, read Zuckerman's Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment.

Kindest regards,

James

Hi Dragan Glas

As i have yet to read the cited work, is it possible to give a summation of what the work says about the dictatorial regimes that i have briefly touched upon in this thread, also secularity in relation to a nations constitution (which i have also touched upon), if it says anything at all?

Kindest regards
Also James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If you want to know what a atheist country might be like, read Zuckerman's Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment.

Kindest regards,

James

Hi Dragan Glas

As i have yet to read the cited work, is it possible to give a summation of what the work says about the dictatorial regimes that i have briefly touched upon in this thread, also secularity in relation to a nations constitution (which i have also touched upon), if it says anything at all?

Kindest regards
Also James

The reviews on Amazon would give you a fair idea of its content, James.

He doesn't touch on those - his book covers interviews with various people mostly in Denmark and Sweden, and their attitudes to God, religion and morality.

Generally, they're not bothered much about the first two - it's only if someone shows extremes of faith/belief (evangelicals, for example) that they become uncomfortable with such displays of over-emotionality - ie, being possibly unbalanced.

Neither are seen as necessary for morality - just up-bringing. Religious institutions are generally seen as little more than social tapestries which help knit a community together.

Kindest regards,

James