/atheism/ - Atheism

By the way, if you see any vaguely atheistic posts, they're likely mine. If you reveal yourself too much, the mod likes to ban any questions or thoughts that makes them have to think too much about their beliefs.

Religion and freedom are incompatible.

Freedom is a lack of restriction. Religion demands dogmatic adherence to a set of rigid ideas that cannot be scrutinized and any attempts at loopholes considered heretical. It is a mental cage, a "soft" slavery. Any society that values freedom would ban religion like it does "hard" slavery.

>>14001

OP here, I agree somewhat. Tyranny takes many faces. Even something we might see as kindly and benign as the feminine persona, it can take tyrannical faces such as extreme feminism. Religion has tyrannical faces and we also have to be careful we don't give a tyrannical face to atheism. Anything can be taken to extremes. I was probably a bit harsh in my words there but I come from a religious background, I know the tyranny of religion in the household firsthand.

I remember in one debate Hitchens said that although Christianity comes to us all friendly,smiley, peaceful,relatively open and tolerate we must not forget how it acted when it actually had power. For most of its history it would be impossible for us(skeptics/atheist) to openly speak our mind, and its only because I has lost so much ground that we are allowed to

>They try to act all benign when they're in public to hide their evils

Interesting, now tell me: where do your conceptions of "benign" and "evil" com from? And why should I act according to them?

>>14011

I use the word "evil" because some relate to it but it's not a word I like to use because it may evoke the thought of supernatural bullshit, which to me it has nothing to do with. In my definition, it's people working against the peace of society.

In this society, we have a contract where people can generally do and say as you wish as long as it's legal. And legal having a basis for the immediate and physical, typically. Not based on something I believe because a supernatural being I think exists will hurt you if you do it. This is the definition of a mature and reasonable society. And if you wish to harm or impede the freedoms of others based on what you think your pet deity wants you to do, as with most schizophrenics, you will be dealt with by those that do respect the freedoms of others.

>>14015

>it's people working against the peace of society

According to this definition, only things like theft, murder or agression could be called evil. Censorship and death penalty for adulterers do not work against the peace of society in any way.

Even though you have correctly explained the concept of what is legal - what is permitted under the law - and what how justice happens in society - law abiding citizens punish criminals - you still haven't explained from where the legal code is derived from, which is the moral/ideological basis for it, and why your definition of evil and good is better than my definition of evil and good.

>>14016

Generally the way society works is that it tends to strive for the greatest freedoms for the greatest amount of people, simple as that. It doesn't have to have supernatural connotations behind it such as gods. It's not any "better", it just is because that seems to be what society does. This is basically utilitarianism. This is not what I want, necessarily, just what seems to be. But I'm not one about making laws of what people can or can't do but the minute you try to make laws to impede the harmless wishes of me or my loved ones, that's when your freedoms will likely be impeded because…that's how society works.

>>14016

Wait, did you just say censoring people and killing men for having bad thoughts of someone's wife, it doesn't work against the peace of society? Am I reading that right or are you just insane?

>>14019

> killing men for having bad thoughts of someone's wife

I was referring to adultery as the physical act. No one has ever been given a death sentence for thinking about adultery.

>>14017

>harmless wishes of me or my loved ones

Well, technically adultery causes harm to the cuck.

Also, you could say that blasphemy causes harm, since it depreciates the beliefs of someone. Therefore, censoring blasphemy prevents harm and therefore preserves the "peace of society".

>>14020

I thought the bible didn't distinguish between the internal and physical act, that it's still of one's heart? I forgot, it's been years since I read it. Also, "your people" not long ago in imageboard history were speaking about about being censored and in the history of christianity had to worry of being censored. Now that you think censorship might work for you, you're all for it?

>>14022

>now that you think censorship might work for you, you're all for it?

I'm just playing the devil's advocate, here friend. Trying to provoke some discussion.

>I thought the bible didn't distinguish between the internal and physical act, that it's still of one's heart?

Technically, the mental act is quite as bad as the physical act, but you can't legally condemn a person for sinful thinking.

>>14021

I'm probably unique as an atheist but I'm not one that likes to get diseases from some cheating whore or being cucked, I value my health so yes, there probably should be worse consequences for physical adultery. But then again, that's me. Some societies may have more polytheistic practices and that's fine too if that's what they want, just not for me.

Are you from /christian/. Not long ago they were speaking against the evils of censorship, but of course hypocritically the mod seems to ban any hard dissenting opinions so no surprise. But in the case of people saying mean words to you, you can just leave, cover up your ears, not listen, etc. But when someone gets physical with you or a loved one, that's not something you can ignore.

Trying to make a case for what words are demeaning to people or blasphemous, that's an issue no sane judicial executive or judge wants to deal with. Sometimes you just have to deal with things your own self.

>>14024

>Are you from /christian/

Yes. However, it would be useful to note that I don't believe in "internet evangelization". I found the idea of converting someone through posts in an imageboard or anything like that quite ridiculous.

Also, I think the mods should allow a bit more discussion with atheists, muslims and etc. on the board.

>>14017

Yes and the problem is the more deviant you are the more you will run up against the law which is formed on a consensus of peoples' prejudices. Laws are often formed from cultural norms, and the law can become a cudgel to beat the outstandingly creative into submission, particularly within a "tyranny of the majority."

Minorities usually don't get to make the laws, unless they're entrenched in big business or the government and can commit regulatory capture. Given the tendency toward prejudices, and for voters from the majority to vote for discriminatory laws, the safer and far-sighted thing to do is to err on the side of fewer laws/restrictions for individuals. Unfortunately, sometimes laws are required to impart ordinary rights and protect minorities from tyranny, like allowing blacks to rent motel rooms from racist southerners who used to say "No vacancies," and abolishing "separate but equal" restrooms. That's why its so important to have lawmakers who are better educated and mentally liberated so they can lead the herds of sheep who would follow group-think.

The business sphere requires special regulation to protect capitalistic minorities from oppressing majorities though. Business is a "game" in the sense that it has rules and strategies, and is led by people who have the time, money and inclination to learn the rules and gamble with other peoples' livelihood. It's natural to err on the side of more rules to preserve fair play and good behavior. I've seen cheat at a game of Monopoly, and it can be in our nature to cheat.

>>14025

Yeah, I don't go to either much, especially lately. Online discussion tends to be very uncivil compared to real life. I find it kind of funny when on /christian/ to see penis pump ads just above the reply box. I wouldn't have found a place like that to be much of a sanctum when I was a christian.

>>14028

I'm more a libertarian. Like programming, to me, simple and elegant, no code (laws) needed than necessary seems to be the way.

Then again, I'm kind of apathetic. Whatever forces work against me, I see it as kind of a challenge, not something necessarily to be abolished. Sometimes life, and the fun of it, is working within the constrained norms you find yourself in, McGyverism, basically.

>>14026

What bullshit. Christians still try to restrict personal freedoms and the only reason they aren't doing it on the level that Muslims are now is because their religion doesn't have the same hold on law as it once did.

Give them even the slightest chance to impose blasphemy laws and they'll take it in a heart beat.

>>14003

It would cease being rationalism then, which is what we should strive for rather than atheism. The whole point of atheism is we arrived here through rational inquiry. Tyranny's greatest weakness is scrutiny.

>>14026

>>14037

Both are opposed to freedom of thought, like any religion especially religions with this notion of blasphemy. But Islam is far more violent overall making it worse in that metric.

http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/

That said it'd be interesting to see some analysis on which religion has more thought restriction overall. Not sure they're equal in this regard either. Now of course every religion is equally retarded in the sense it privileges faith over reason, that is well established.

>>13996

>implying freedom is a good thing

>>14083

Yes, in a civil society freedom is a good thing. Unless you're someone who gets their feelings hurt by someone who says mean things about you or your gods or if you're offended by boobs, ankles, etc, it's not but if you want that, go to the middle east. There's plenty of cancer for you there.

>freedom

You are aware that most of the people who are trying to force you to accept sharia law and turn a blind eye to Islam are atheist scum, right?

>>14170

>right

No you are just projecting. The pope sucks muslim dick and the protestant church too.

On the other side:

Charly Hepdo is made by atheists.

>>14170

The most outspoken critics of Islam and Multiculturalism are members of the secularist movement. People like Hirsi Ali have to live their life under constant police protection and had death threads attached to other people's corpses for fucks sake because of their vocal criticism.

The four horsemen regularly show up in talk shows, debates and undertake consistant effort to prevent religious influence in politics and education. I don't see even members of the Christian right doing this.

While prominent and outspoken Christian politicians like Blair in the UK for example or even the pope himself were preaching multiculturalism and lobbying for cancer like state support for Muslim faith schools, the explicit legalization of male genital mutilation and the tax-exempt status of Muslim organizations(thanks German bishops and Christian democrats).

This is what Islamic influence looks like in contemporary Europe and the vast majority of secular atheists is against it while the representatives of the Chritians in Europe are readily supporting it because they prefer other communities being granted the same religious privileges out of fear from losing their own ones.

>>14172

Unfortunately a lot of progressive European Atheists fall for the unlimited tolerance dogma too. So many French and Germans say, "I have Muslim friends and they're fine people, and the media is just trumping up hate again." Merkel supporters killed my naive dream of having better quality political discussions in Europe than in America.

The Roman weren't Christian when they build the roman empire, but one thing for sure they were white nationalist.

>>14203

>b8ing with spooks

>>14203

Ask not what atheists can do for you but man the fuck up and stop whining about your persecution. Meanwhile, atheists have no tax-exempt holy institutions on most corners in America, we can't run for office in many places in the US for not believing in gods, we have to put up with justice warriors knocking on our doors in the morning (just happened this Saturday morning and the couple was speechless with what to say when confronted with someone who's studied theology for 20 years and knows his shit), and it's hard to make any jokes about gods without the politically correct justice warriors getting offended and stroking their persecution boner any time they face the slightest threat. Any time their religion's on top, it's because it's better, when it's on bottom, it's because they're being persecuted.

Question is, whiny faggot, what can you do for us, the most white male (non)belief of them all. Take a look at your comments and take a look at >>14199, realize niggers like you are the threat to white males.

>>14203

Most atheists are straight white men.

>>14203

>>14174

Just because SJWs are mostly atheists doesn't mean being atheist makes you an SJW. They also probably believe the earth is round and 2 + 2 = 4. Are you gonna deny those things because that's what SJWs believe? You think if you managed to convert an SJW to christianity they would stop sucking the muslim dick?