Religion and Atheism

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

So true. I believe the moment you 'open your mouth', it is inspired with an ideology.

I'm sure you have your own views of the world. Some formed by popular opinion, some by upbringing and some by personal experience. You have your own ideology. Whether it's inspired by a teacher, role model or personal heroes, it's a way that you see things and it affects the decisions you make on a daily basis.

[Muhaha]

Re: Religion and Atheism

So why is it wrong to be "Robotic"?

[hipeter924]

Re: Religion and Atheism

It doesn't matter if you vote democrat or republican, the results are decided by higher powers that are out of your control. This is called corruption.

It doesn't matter if you are a spiritual being who makes decisions based on empathy or an atheist robot that makes decisions based on statistics and data. You're prone to manipulation either way.

It doesn't matter either way and people are wasting their time over the debate.

What does matter is being sucessful in life and the goal of either camp is to make sure that doesn't happen.

The U.S.S.R was founded on state sponsered Atheism and built a Communist Empire. Religion was forbidden. America fought for the freedom of religion and built a Capitalist Empire under the belief of a deity. Both systems have been successful in controlling human life.

Truth is knowledge. Knowledge is freedom.

Why all the fuss?

Any Atheist that has any sense understands that religion or supernatural belief can only be ended through freedom of consent (meaning people adopt Atheism from a free choice or decision).

For this reason the best system is one based upon Secularism, the notion of no one religious belief controlling society (aka like the Catholic Church did in the medieval ages) and the church and state being separate (so neither can violate or damage the rights of the other) and if there is any religious teaching it has to be given on an optional basis.

The USSR was not secular, and used force to prohibit religious belief (which any sensible Atheist would be against because that violates what I said earlier as free choice or decision) and tried to eliminate the Armenian church (and failed) and many other religious groups when they were in power.

Or in simple terms....

Atheism without Secularism = Bad
Religion with Secularism = Good
Doesn't actively discriminate against either but not Secular = Neutral
Atheism with Secularism = Good
Religion without Secularism = Bad

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Atheism without Secularism = Bad
Religion with Secularism = Good
Doesn't actively discriminate against either but not Secular = Neutral
Atheism with Secularism = Good
Religion without Secularism = Bad

Good or bad for who? The mentality of the government/rulers determines the policies imposed on the people.

[hipeter924]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Good or bad for who? The mentality of the government/rulers determines the policies imposed on the people.

Yes it does, if you have a dictator then obviously everyone is going to be oppressed or repressed in some way. If you have a democracy it might be corrupt, hate a particular religion/ideology, and/or be racist and oppress or repress in its own way too.If Secularism is in place as it should be then it is good, Turkey is an example of a state that claims to be secular but really isn't due to Islamic Nationalist control of the education system.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Yes it does, if you have a dictator then obviously everyone is going to be oppressed or repressed in some way. If you have a democracy it might be corrupt, hate a particular religion/ideology, and/or be racist and oppress or repress in its own way too.If Secularism is in place as it should be then it is good, Turkey is an example of a state that claims to be secular but really isn't due to Islamic Nationalist control of the education system.

An effective dictator that works for the benefit of the nation doesn't oppress... a dictator that works for his/her own benefit and/or for the benefit of outside nations tends to be oppressive.

A true democracy is run by the people, that means the people tell the government what to do and how to run. An elected representative in a democratic nation that doesn't listen to the will of people is just an elected dictator which in some cases is worse than a self appointed dictator.

Saddam Hussein was secular. He was also a dictator that was put in place by the same western powers that later hunted him down.

Turkey is at a tipping point... it is at odds with its Islamic identity and the adaptation of western culture. I believe the west has lost the culture war in both Afghanistan and Iraq so the choice for the Turkish government is simple... the hard part is convincing the people.

[hipeter924]

Re: Religion and Atheism

An effective dictator that works for the benefit of the nation doesn't oppress... a dictator that works for his/her own benefit and/or for the benefit of outside nations tends to be oppressive.

A true democracy is run by the people, that means the people tell the government what to do and how to run. An elected representative in a democratic nation that doesn't listen to the will of people is just an elected dictator which in some cases is worse than a self appointed dictator.

Saddam Hussein was secular. He was also a dictator that was put in place by the same western powers that later hunted him down.

Turkey is at a tipping point... it is at odds with its Islamic identity and the adaptation of western culture. I believe the west has lost the culture war in both Afghanistan and Iraq so the choice for the Turkish government is simple... the hard part is convincing the people.

Every dictator works in his self interest in the end (for good or worse), effectively as I have read many times a dictator doesn't have to self-interested and oppressive but in the vast majority of cases they end up being that way.

A true democracy does not exist, at least in dictionary or political terms. Very few if any countries under a 'democratic system' are elected with a majority of people, Obama was elected for example by only 26% of Americans, and in Australia and other countries where it is actually compulsary when you add up the people allowed to vote and don't and the opposition then no government in Australia's history has ever been elected upon a majority.

Democracies are also heavily influenced by political and corporate lobby groups which either bribe or heavily influence the elected representatives such as the case of the USA (Israeli-Turkish lobby heavily influence the US congress) this serves to undermine the people's political power or rights as their representatives more often than not once elected serve those lobby groups once elected rather than their constituents.

Also Saddam Hussein wasn't Secular as he favoured one religious group if you ask the other ethnic/religious groups in Iraq aka those who weren't from his favoured ethnic/religious group such as the Kurds.

As for Turkey it seems to be controlled by Islamic Nationalists but I can't be too sure, but certainly the rest of the middle east does not like Turkey because of its lip service and alliance with the United States, and of course its relationship with Israel.

[Sip]

Re: Religion and Atheism

It doesn't matter if you vote democrat or republican, the results are decided by higher powers that are out of your control. This is called corruption.

...

Truth is knowledge. Knowledge is freedom.

Why all the fuss?

This thread is very very very confusing. Religion, political outlooks, types of government, empathy vs reason, etc etc etc. It is hard to say anything meaningful.

So here is the first post of the thread again: "Why all the fuss?" which I guess is asking why all the fuss about religion and atheism when in the end they don't matter in outcomes of elections as elections are corrupt?

I am not sure I agree that in the US election results are "corrupt" (the choices may be . But again, I am really trying to make some sense of this whole thread and I can't.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Also Saddam Hussein wasn't Secular as he favoured one religious group if you ask the other ethnic/religious groups in Iraq aka those who weren't from his favoured ethnic/religious group such as the Kurds.

The Kurds were causing trouble... not because Iraq wasn't secular but because outer forces were giving the Kurds political strength to defy Saddam's ruling. Kurds don't consider themselves Iraqi, they have always wanted their own region to govern.

This thread is very very very confusing. Religion, political outlooks, types of government, empathy vs reason, etc etc etc. It is hard to say anything meaningful.

So here is the first post of the thread again: "Why all the fuss?" which I guess is asking why all the fuss about religion and atheism when in the end they don't matter in outcomes of elections as elections are corrupt?

I am not sure I agree that in the US election results are "corrupt" (the choices may be . But again, I am really trying to make some sense of this whole thread and I can't.

Well, you always hear that religion and politics shouldn't mix... separation of church and state, etc.... when if fact they are so tied together that they are nearly the same thing. It takes some sort of ideology to make decisions and create laws.

[Sip]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Well, you always hear that religion and politics shouldn't mix... separation of church and state, etc.... when if fact they are so tied together that they are nearly the same thing. It takes some sort of ideology to make decisions and create laws.

Sure it takes some ideology to make decisions and create laws but why must it emanate from religion? One can certainly have morality and a sense of right from wrong without religion ... no?

For example take the 10 commandments ... do we really need religion to tell us that cheating, stealing, murdering, etc are bad things? Can't a smart person figure this out on her own?