Oh come on man, please, your scraping the barrell; I was quoting one of your consituants. That was not my statement, it was his. Your desperate.
No. Its my first time debating on a dominant Atheist site. Now I am asking what a dominant Atheist world would be like; and I want to examine that hypothisis.
Just to correct slightly; People have talked about athiesm having no principles other than that atheism, they haven’t said that would entail doing nothing. Atheists can certainly have principles other than just that atheism - that’s one of the problems with the question you’re asking, in that, very likely, the things that an atheist rule would see would likely have very little to do with that sole position on the existence of gods.
Put another way; let’s imagine a world ruled by theists. Theism, alone, doesn’t really tell us much about the people in question’s principles; they might be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, etc., and within those overall categories again we have yet more further levels of differing principles. Asking what a world run by theists would be like doesn’t get us anywhere, because there isn’t really any principle we can pin down based just on theism. The same is true for atheism.
They are your statements - they are not quotes - YOU SAID IT.
YOu are trying to extend and confuse that ‘atheism is in and of itself NOT a philosophy and in and of itself does nothing’ to what atheist do and do not have or will or will not do.
You either truly do not understand the concept or you are being willfully ignorant of it in these threads.
In other words, Mickiel, you believe atheists want everything to be exactly like it is now, just with something replacing religion. Have you considered that maybe that’s not true?
Define “atheist” as you understand it to be.
A dominant atheist world? Well, there’d be lots of black leather, whips & chains for sure. And stiletto-heeled thigh boots for the ladies.
This board? Unless you have a very nonstandard definition of atheist (which it appears you do), it’s not.
I, for one, have made no secret of my theism, nor have several other posters, including several who have posted in this thread.
Perhaps you should define your terms, first.
Well yes I have. As Theist must be examined, so must Atheist be examined, neither is exempt in my view. With a cause , we must consider is it just? I myself am against so many things in religion, conversely I am against the movement that there is no God. So I am really neutral in this thread , believe it or not. I am just asking what Atheism will do for the world, if Religion does nothing? What are you going to do, if those you dispise are eliminated? If this monster called religion is defeated, will you be a monster? Will your way work?
And I see no harm in asking that.
Do you honestly believe atheists believe this as a matter of faith? That religion is a monster?
That’s certainly not the case nor is it a prerequisite for being an atheist.
Again, perhaps you should define your terms.
It appears you are using a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Apparently, according to YOU, one cannot be an atheist unless one actively despises organized religion. I assure you, that is not true in general for real-world atheists, though it is true in particular, for a few.
Well as others have said this will really depend on the society-some atheistic societies may look like Sweden while others may look like North Korea or 1980s Romania.
In the case of the United States I’d expect:
-Gay marriage would probably be legal nationally
-There’d continue to be controversy over abortion even if pro-life forces were somewhat weakened. Probably both abortion and birth control would be federal funded but with the overall result that abortion rates are reduced somewhat
-Liberalization of drug laws and an end to the Drug Wars
-Less restrictions by the FCC
-More widespread legalization of euthanasia in the states, including something like the Groningen Protocol being implemented in some states
-Further societal dissipation, compared to the Japanese or even most European populations Americans are far more individualistic and the loss of established churches (along with other social organizations such as say the Freemasons already in decline) is going to increase individual atomization. Probably higher suicide rates as a result.
-Partly related to the above, a rise in illegimate births and fornication
Speaking as a Christian, I find that some of these results would be beneficial and others would be less than preferable
I can’t believe this, although I would,like too. I think you Atheist need to define the term, yet I notice none of you have; which is suspect in my view, instead you want my definition. I mean, heres an opportunity for you to define Atheism, instead you just let me rave on and on, instead of being clear about it yourselves, as if you really don’t care, or don’t know. I maintain, if you would remove something so dominant in human society, you must replace it with something. Doing nothing will not work in my view.
Replace it with science, or something; Atheism has to step to the plate in this, or in my view, they will face a resolution that they will find is empty handed.
Again, I’m a Christian, but I happen to be one that can read and comprehend what other people write.
You’ve been offered a definition. Atheism is no more and no less the lack of belief in a god or gods. You can even look it up in a dictionary! Note that this definition does not include any philosophy.
It’s like theism. I’m a Christian, which means I’m a theist. But what I believe does not apply to all theists. Much like what any particular atheist believes does not apply to all atheists.
If you can’t understand or believe this is the definition, that’s your problem, not everybody else’s.
No, the opposite; high religiosity tends to be connected to high rates of out-of-wedlock births and marital instability.
As a Christian, do you have views as to what you think an Atheist state would not profit humanity?
Atheist: Someone who disbelieves in god/gods/goddesses.
Now, what definition do you use?
Then by this definition, Atheism is NOT;
an organization
a defined movement
a branch of government
political
So my question is, how can a nebulous belief that gods do not exist, that has no organization lead this world?
The same.
Who says it has to?
How can a nebulous belief that gods exist lead the world? It can’t.
Specific instances of theism (Christianity, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc) may produce a subset of members who develop a governing philosophy. Even there, it’s not usually the entire subset (like all Baptists or all Shia or whatever) but a small subset of those.
Theism itself DOES NOT provide a philosophy to ruling the world.
Likewise, specific instances of atheism may produce a subset of members who develop a governing philosophy.
But atheism itself DOES NOT provide a philosophy to ruling the world.
This is really basic logic at work here. You’re fighting the definitions and insisting the definitions are wrong based on your misguided assumptions and hidden biases.
By the way, we actually did basically this debate not too long ago.
Here’s the thread.
Same incorrect definition of and misconceptions about atheism, to boot.