Would a "Utopian" atheist nation work in the U.S.?

Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 39
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
By your understanding of atheism, there can be no option other than totalitarianism and communism.

If I'm not forced to operate under such an ignorant understanding,  a US based society with a majority atheist (it wouldn't be an "atheist America"), I see religious pandering in politics going down and issues where religion was a primary basis for rejection or endorsement finding a new equilibrium.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
People is people....And religion or not, is a variable data construct.

And people believe what they are taught to believe...it's what is known as conditioning.

So for as long as children are conditioned to believe variable nonsense, then nothing will change.

Trying to enforce change only results in resentment, which inevitably results in a non-utopic reaction.

You've either got to re-educate the whole world with a single ethos all at the same time or not bother....If you could do the former, then it wouldn't really matter what the ethos was and given the growing human dependence on technology then maybe this will eventually be a technological possibility, or perhaps even, technology will do it for us without our say so.
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,006
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Another thing is that the meaning of Separation of Church and State tends to change. To the founding fathers, it meant not giving precedence of one religion (or denomination) over another. This lead to holding Sunday morning church services on capitol grounds allowing ministers from different denominations to take turns preaching the sermon. Today, this means remove all Christian influence and artifacts off government, and public property.  So who's to say what really is a constitutional move since it's apparently adaptable to contemporary opinion?
What percentage of the US population in, say, 1800, were non-Christians? How many hindu reps in congress were there? Was ther a sizable Jewish population in colonial Georgia? My point is the country changes and that document has to change with it. The founding fathers also called black people 3/5 of a person. Those denominations were CHRISTIAN denominations. When you place a ten commandments monument on the grounds of a federal courthouse that has to try a Christian against a Muslim in front of Christian judge, yes, you  are creating an environment of some preference (not to mention the ten commandments have absolutely nothing to do with any sensible law in about six of the ten...once you get past don't steal, don't kill, everyhting else is mind control).


17 days later

RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne

By your understanding of atheism, there can be no option other than totalitarianism and communism.

Why do you say that?


If I'm not forced to operate under such an ignorant understanding,  a US based society with a majority atheist (it wouldn't be an "atheist America"), I see religious pandering in politics going down and issues where religion was a primary basis for rejection or endorsement finding a new equilibrium.
If the majority of Americans were atheist, it wouldn't be an atheist nation. Absolutely correct.

The reason I used that term in the title is because there apparently are atheists who do use that type of terminology.


In this case they're not even addressing nations where there's a majority of atheists.
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
People is people....And religion or not, is a variable data construct.

And people believe what they are taught to believe...it's what is known as conditioning.

So for as long as children are conditioned to believe variable nonsense, then nothing will change.

Trying to enforce change only results in resentment, which inevitably results in a non-utopic reaction.

You've either got to re-educate the whole world with a single ethos all at the same time or not bother....If you could do the former, then it wouldn't really matter what the ethos was and given the growing human dependence on technology then maybe this will eventually be a technological possibility, or perhaps even, technology will do it for us without our say so.
I was brought up in an atheist household. I never went to church until I was 21, and it was not a family outing. How did I become a believer since I broke that apparently vital law?

I recall asking you though, in another thread, whether or not you think it's possible you may have been conditioned to believe the way you do (about a creator) from contemporary science pop-culture?
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
What percentage of the US population in, say, 1800, were non-Christians? How many hindu reps in congress were there? Was ther a sizable Jewish population in colonial Georgia? My point is the country changes and that document has to change with it. The founding fathers also called black people 3/5 of a person. Those denominations were CHRISTIAN denominations. When you place a ten commandments monument on the grounds of a federal courthouse that has to try a Christian against a Muslim in front of Christian judge, yes, you  are creating an environment of some preference (not to mention the ten commandments have absolutely nothing to do with any sensible law in about six of the ten...once you get past don't steal, don't kill, everyhting else is mind control).
This post is not very clear. You said the founding fathers (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, etc.) called black people 3/5 of a person. And then following that you said "Those denominations are CHRISTIAN denominations".

What denominations are you talking about?

BTW, do you have the same problem with Goldie Hawn's MindUp program introducing meditation via a Buddhist organization?
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Why do you say that?
You understand atheists to be pro-atheism or anti-religion (the same thing in your eyes), but I think that is overly simplistic. An atheist who is anti-religion is an anti-theist. Not all atheists are anti-religion (or "Pro-atheism"). Furthermore, someone can be a believer *and* be anti-religion. The way that you have represented atheists is without crucial nuance.

I'll check it out.
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@SkepticalOne
You understand atheists to be pro-atheism or anti-religion (the same thing in your eyes), but I think that is overly simplistic. An atheist who is anti-religion is an anti-theist. Not all atheists are anti-religion (or "Pro-atheism"). Furthermore, someone can be a believer *and* be anti-religion. The way that you have represented atheists is without crucial nuance.
I think I made it clear, or at least tried to throughout the thread, that I'm referring to a very small minority (of atheists). Basically atheist activists. But, not even really that as I don't think this thread would apply to all atheist activists. Military atheists might be more appropriate.

So this thread isn't necessarily aimed at you (but not prohibiting you from posting). As I pointed out in one post here, there are people on the internet, including some who post here at this site, who truly feel religion should be eliminated from society.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yep sure, I'm no different.

I take on board data and formulate ideas and responses.

Though, popular culture is  variable and all the available, diverse and opposing information is out there. I just don't see logic in popular theism/deism hypotheses.

Science is science (see basic definition). The knowledge derived from scientific scrutiny offers increasing levels of logical explanation....Nonetheless the inconceivable beginning remains so and we are left to speculate on the unknown fundamental principle.....Something from nothing....I am happy to refer to it as a GOD principle,  though  illogical tall tales just don't cut the mustard for me.

I would add, that like you my interest in such matters has come latterly. My formative conditioning was based in a Christian influenced society and education system, though my home life was very non-religious with a devoutly atheist Father and an indifferent Mother.....Therefore I think that it's fair to conclude, that how I think today is definitely reflective of my upbringing/conditioning.