Should atheism be illegal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Newbie2 said:
Atheism=no God, False religion=the wrong god
Click to expand...
Newbi2, great post. Although atheism is, as you have correctly stated, having no God; I think it goes deeper than that. It seems to put the individual as the final arbiter of good & evil, right & wrong, and everything else. This would seem to elevate the atheistic individuals as gods. So maybe they just have the wrong god also!? 😉
 
Wirraway said:
The error in logic is in equating criminal conduct with sin. Such crimes aren’t illegal because they’re grave sins. They’re illegal because various penal codes criminalize certain kinds of conduct. The fact that concepts of sin and crime sometimes overlap doesn’t logically imply a one-to-one correspondence.
Click to expand...
Actually some things that ARE crimes (i.e., against the law of man) are in fact the only moral thing to do. I am sure that we all can name a few.
 
D317 said:
Newbi2, great post. Although atheism is, as you have correctly stated, having no God; I think it goes deeper than that. It seems to put the individual as the final arbiter of good & evil, right & wrong, and everything else. This would seem to elevate the atheistic individuals as gods. So maybe they just have the wrong god also!? 😉
Click to expand...
Exactly! 👍
 
Exalt said:
I think they’d still be called atheist, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Only by those that do believe in them, Christians were considered athiest by the Romans and it was a crime to be an athiest in the Roman empire.
 
First. As a few have already pointed out the obvious, how can it be enforced? Second. We live in a democracy,(or so i thought). This is a throw back to the treatment of the cathars. Just because a person has no belief in anything divine or supreme, surely they should be free to believe in nothing.:mad:
 
magisterfaust said:
First. As a few have already pointed out the obvious, how can it be enforced? Second. We live in a democracy,(or so i thought). This is a throw back to the treatment of the cathars. Just because a person has no belief in anything divine or supreme, surely they should be free to believe in nothing.:mad:
Click to expand...
Although slightly off topic, I cannot refrain from pointing this out. First of all, we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. Second of all, living in a democracy is no guarantee of freedom of any kind. Socrates lived in a democracy. Those around him didn’t like his ideas so they voted he should consume hemlock and die. Some freedom.

Our freedom is guaranteed by the written contract of the Constitution.

Yes, people should be free to believe in nothing. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy.
 
This all makes me wonder though. When you are young in a family of Christians, Jews, Muslems, or Scientologists, atheism basically is illegal in your little world. To question God would be unthinkable in such a family, and of course the parents will usually hammer theism into their child;s head for at least the first few years. Yet, such behavior is justified as being supposedly good for the child, so theoretically, if you hold the tenants of basic theism to be true, why not allow the government to “hold people’s hands” (albeit maybe over a crystal ball :rolleyes:) ???

Seriously though…
 
Bennie_P said:
Only by those that do believe in them, Christians were considered athiest by the Romans and it was a crime to be an athiest in the Roman empire.
Click to expand...
I think atheists need a word to describe themselves that isn’t in someone else’s terms - because an atheist isn’t just atheist to the Christian God, they’re atheist to all the gods that *you’re *atheist to.

Maybe… “Naturalists.” As opposed to “supernaturalists.” But I think “Naturalist” has a nudist connotation, unfortunately…

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
 
Exalt said:
I think atheists need a word to describe themselves that isn’t in someone else’s terms - because an atheist isn’t just atheist to the Christian God, they’re atheist to all the gods that *you’re *atheist to.

Maybe… “Naturalists.” As opposed to “supernaturalists.” But I think “Naturalist” has a nudist connotation, unfortunately…

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything nudist about it, ***but ***there are still at least dozen other ways to undress the word naturalist.

For one funny little example, in Cub Scouts you can earn the “Naturalist Activity Pin”. So if “Naturalist” suddenly meant “Atheist”, there would be a lot of empty Church’s on Scout Sunday! 😛

Why not “Anti-External-Interference-in-the Universe…eists”

Or “Lone Hitchhikers”

Or “Fellow human beings”

And for agnostics “Anti-Conclusionists”. In public I’d abbreviate it as “A Con”. :cool:
 
Nudists are Naturists, not Naturalists. Because calling themselves Adamite Heretics just sounds so confrontational, you know?

And no, atheism shouldn’t be illegal, anymore than undistributed middles or ambiguous terms should be illegal. Bad logic is not a crime–even basing your whole life on a self-contradictory (therefore meaningless) statement.

Whether they should have the right to vote, is a different question. Generally Christians are for it, but Rationalists are against it.

Yeah, you heard right. Voltaire and Rousseau and especially Robespierre thought atheism was so obviously irrational that atheists should be classed as insane and denied political liberty.
 
Laurence_of_PA said:
This all makes me wonder though. When you are young in a family of Christians, Jews, Muslems, or Scientologists, atheism basically is illegal in your little world. To question God would be unthinkable in such a family, and of course the parents will usually hammer theism into their child;s head for at least the first few years. Yet, such behavior is justified as being supposedly good for the child, so theoretically, if you hold the tenants of basic theism to be true, why not allow the government to “hold people’s hands” (albeit maybe over a crystal ball :rolleyes:) ???

Seriously though…
Click to expand...
Years ago when I was still an SDA, one of my friends from church had two sons, 7 and 4 years old. She read them Bible stories at bedtime and took them to Sabbath School every Saturday. They said grace before every meal together. And the older boy went to parochial school. One day I was visiting her and she was obviously distressed. She had been talking to her four year old, and he had told her straight out somewhat emphatically that he did not believe in Jesus.

The government has no business pushing theism or any other kind of ism, but even if it did that doesn’t mean that even the youngest will buy it.
 
Hastrman said:
Yeah, you heard right. Voltaire and Rousseau and especially Robespierre thought atheism was so obviously irrational that atheists should be classed as insane and denied political liberty.
Click to expand...
That’s funny. I don’t even like Rousseau (I hate him) but he got THAT at least right.
 
surely for athiesm to be made illegal, this would have to take place in a court of law. Then would it not be for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the existence of God to make a case.:cool: :tiphat:
 
No, atheism should not be illegal. We have freedom of religion in this nation and I hope it stays that way.
 
Filius99993 said:
That’s funny. I don’t even like Rousseau (I hate him) but he got THAT at least right.
Click to expand...

If Christians started locking up atheists as insane, they would be no different from the Soviet Union, which locked up Christians for the insanity of faith in Christ. When Christians become indistinguishable from followers of a totalitarian ideology, it’s time to read “Animal Farm” - especially the last chapter.​

Christianity only harms itself by using such means. Are atheists to wear a yellow star ? If they aren’t recognised, they can’t be arrested for atheism. Maybe they should be killed. That would be an easy, & traditional, solution. Christ was offered an easy solution by Peter - who was called “Satan” for offering it: easy solutions are often a betrayal of Christ.

Going on about how sinful atheism is starts at the wrong point. We have to start with people as we find them - not treat them as fodder for our ethical judgements.
Otherwise, we will be in danger of depersonalising them - & non-persons don’t matter if one is building the ideal state, whether Catholic or Communist. Non-persons are an obstacle to it - so they can, even should, be “liquidated”.

Imprisoning atheists for “ThoughtCrime” is the first step to such a Dystopia. The Church has dirtied itself with such nonsense before - must we make the same mistakes again 😦 ?
 
Exalt said:
Atheism is quite possibly one of the worst sins in the eyes of the Church. It includes a complete rejection of Jesus, the authority of the Church, the love of God - almost every single Catholic doctrine about the divine. It most certianly is a mortal sin, if the other two conditions for a mortal sin are met.

Other grave sins are illegal, such as murder, rape, theft, etc. Atheism, which is just as bad (if not even worse) than those sins, ought to be illegal too. Also, it would be a deterrant to conversion to atheism and most likely result in significantly fewer atheists.

So, why shouldn’t atheism be illegal? Where is my logic wrong?
Click to expand...
:mad: The United States Constitution 1st amendment is the one about Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Thats the one about freedom of religion, which surely includes the freedom to believe in no relgion. Yeah!!!
If you wish to change the constituion then surely it would be a more moral act to scrap amendment 2. That’s the one about the right to bear arms. An outdated constitutional right.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.
I am astounded that anyone would think it logical to make athiesm a crime. 😦
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

If Christians started locking up atheists as insane, they would be no different from the Soviet Union, which locked up Christians for the insanity of faith in Christ. When Christians become indistinguishable from followers of a totalitarian ideology, it’s time to read “Animal Farm” - especially the last chapter.​

Click to expand...
I love George Orwell. Animal Farm is so awesome… but I like Brave New World better than 1984. People certainly have the rights of thinking.
 
Atheism should not be illegal. There is no compulsion in religion and by delegalizing it we would violate the basic God’s principle of human free will…
 
In his day Jesus walked with the most unpopular people of His world. He walked with people like prostitutes and tax collectors and even… GASP those dirty rotten steenking atheists of the time, that is people who just didn’t believe in God, just because nobody else would be their friends. Jesus was a friend to the friendless because these people needed God.

When He returns, it will be the same way again. Only, if some Christians had their way and outlawed atheism, then where would Jesus be? He would be with them and He would be calling the Christians the new Pharisees and striking to overturn them. This of course would anger the Christians because he would be a threat to their political power. They would be very frustrated and unable to understand the actions Jesus would do because the tradition of the Church is to have open doors. And the reason for those doors to remain open is so that people’s souls can be saved.

You outlaw atheists and atheism, where could they go to have their souls saved?

I get very disheartened at the hostility that many Christians express towards atheists. In wanting to outlaw atheism, they become the pharisees concerned only with their flock. And lose the lessons that Jesus warned us against.

Christianity is about saving souls. That is what matters.

You can’t save souls with closed doors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top