Should atheism be illegal?

[Lief_Erikson]

We can see how the Father deals with idolatry in the Garden of Eden, or how Jesus deals with it in the Gospels. Jesus revealed the truth to Israel, and when they rejected it, he ultimately punished them when he ascended to be seated at the right hand of the Father. He pleaded with them to accept his mercy, and when they rejected it, he punished them through the military might of the Roman Empire.

God the Father behaved in a similar way in the Garden of Eden. They had Free Will, so they had the ability to choose evil. But the ability to choose evil does not give the right to choose evil. So they were punished and banished.

The Jews practiced punishment of idolatry throughout the Old Testament days, and the Catholics did as soon as they had a legitimate role in government, and so had the legal authority. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Paul advocates the same (bolds below are added).
1 Timothy 1:8-11:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Paul clearly is referring to human use of the law, for he says, “if one uses it legitimately,” rather than “if God uses it,” and we know he was referring to the Old Covenant Law, because all of this is a reference to people “desiring to be teachers of the law,” (v. 7). The term “teachers of the law,” is only used in the NT to refer to teachers of the Old Covenant Law. The ceremonies and rituals of the Old Covenant Law are fulfilled and so no longer apply. The civil law is maintained, but filled now with mercy, in its application. The moral law is also maintained- it is eternal.

The law, according to Paul, should still be wielded in the case of the “godless,” the “unholy,” and people who hold to “whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God.” That doesn’t only include heresy- it pretty much defines it.

Jesus stated this principle too, in Luke.

"A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?' Sir,’ the man replied, `leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’ "

The fig tree, in the parable, was Israel. It didn’t bear fruit, so God the Father, as John the Baptist foretold, was ready to destroy it. But Jesus interceded on Israel’s behalf, and for a time, punishment was staved off. Ultimately, though, the full penalty must be exacted if people refuse to repent.

We see this in the actions of Jesus in the New Testament, once he had ascended into heaven, and in the actions of God the Father throughout the Old Testament.

Idolatry is the root of all evil, according to Romans 1 and Wisdom 14. All evil actions have their root in idolatry.

St. Francis of Assisi supported the punishment of heretics, as did Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and countless others. It was the accepted position of the Church all the way throughout Church history until Vatican II. Though it is true that some of the Early Church Fathers contested its validity, the Church accepted it as soon as it gained political power.

This was not an injustice. It was not a sin. The government has a responsibility to maintain justice and to protect his kingdom.

Non-believers can often be like suicide bombers. They spread the devil’s lies, even though they have good intentions, and thus they tear people away from the faith. They themselves are often going to hell (not always), and they are taking others with them. It’s like suicide-bombing hellfire rather than physical fire.

The Church always understood that heresy and unbelief could not be tolerated within its community, because of its destructive nature. That’s why excommunication, separation of a person from the Church, exists. It is absurd that in today’s society, most people are concerned about whether someone is scourged, fined or banished for being of a different religion, but they don’t seem to care about excommunication. Excommunication is by far the most dire penalty of the lot! Paul said himself that it is surrendering the person “into the hands of Satan,” so that he might come to see the truth of his sinfulness.

It is absurd that in today’s society, we can accept this form of punishment, but we can’t accept civil punishments. Spiritual punishments of this kind are far more severe.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Consider also that the Catholic Church clung to its view opposing religious freedom until the mid-20th century. In the 19th century you see plenty of open statements by popes condemning religious freedom, and there was never an official Church statement overturning that until the mid-20th century. It was Protestants and Enlightenment philosophers-and virtually all of the Enlightenment philosophers were idolaters-who led the way for religious freedom.

Who has God’s truth? The Reformation and Enlightenment, or God’s Church? For those here who believe in religious freedom, what a terrific irony you must see that God’s Church had to be led to truth by schismatics, heretics and idolaters! It was led to new truth, too, I must add, as the only backing for religious freedom in Catholic tradition is in the writings of a few of the Early Church Fathers, but not all of them, and the Catholic Church rejected their view in the fourth century and has continued to reject it throughout Catholic history until the 20th century. God’s Church rejected this new truth for centuries even after it had become accepted throughout the West, and had to be essentially dragged into accepting it!

This was not the case. The Catholic Church clung to its tradition in spite of criticism from outside, and it only yielded on this critical issue of justice because liberalism from the Enlightenment had infected the Church.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

All of this said, we need to remember that God can have close relationships with non-Christians and can and does often take them to heaven. This is because they are ignorant of God’s will and thus forgiven by God for their idolatry. Therefore no one should be punished for idolatry unless they have a good understanding of the truth. That’s why the Inquisition tried reasoning people out of their unbelief for weeks before condemning anyone.

We need to work with everyone in love and present God’s truth to everyone through evangelism.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I appreciate the sentiment, but you’re kind of barking up the wrong tree. I’m an agnostic, not an atheist, but whether or not I love God is entirely dependent on whether I know God. How can I love something I can (from my own experience) only describe as ‘probably a figment of someone else’s imagination’?

If I knew the divine, I’d make up my mind whether to love it or not – but I don’t. And since my mind, or (so far as I can tell) any human mind, isn’t up to the task of knowing in such a way without assistance, if anything’s going to be done the mountain’s gotta come to Mohammed.

God reveals himself to anyone who earnestly seeks him. If you pray that he will reveal himself to you, he will. He can be known in a direct, powerful, man-to-man way.

Have you ever read the Book of Acts? The relationship with God described there is available to anyone who asks God for it.

I sought God for six months, praying every night, for him to reveal himself to me, and at the end of that time, he did, in a powerful, real way that I was caught completely unprepared for.

Jesus said in the scripture, “If you, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will my Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to the one who asks him?”

Just test the truth of this for yourself by praying to the Lord to reveal himself to you in such a powerful way, and he will. Believers do not have to rely on guesswork. Our faith is not blind faith, but seeing faith, the faith that a child has when waiting for his mother to bring him breakfast in the morning. He knows his mother will do it because his mother always has, and his relationship with his mother shows him his mother loves him. He has a great deal of inductive evidence supporting his view that the mother will provide him with breakfast. He isn’t wandering the street and believing that someone will show up to give him breakfast. That would be blind faith. As we can see in the Book of Acts, though, the Lord can powerfully reveal himself to his disciples. I’ve experienced that too, myself, so I know it’s true. Millions of Christians aside from me have also experienced it.

So don’t give up. Praise God, his truth and a personal relationship with him is available to you and to everyone who seeks it. And it is active and powerful- you’ll know it when it comes to you.

 

[D_M]

Yes – even the wackos who call me a queer, drug-addled, hellbound Nazi soul-rapist (I’ve gotten every one of those at some point – love em, but it won’t stop me pushing their buttons for their own good)

Indeed – however, the Athenians who set up that altar already had the idea that Something was out there. I’m not starting with that assumption.

Inductive reasoning: I have not seen the hand of any God at work, nor have I found any ironclad argument for the existence of a deity (and trying to find such a thing is a bit counterproductive for people who have ‘blessed are they who have believed, and yet not seen’ in their scriptures). Since I have no evidence for the reality of the divine, until that changes I assume it likely isn’t real.

I’m glad to hear you love your neighbour, God’s image is present in your neighbour, and loving your neighbour as yourself is a fulfillment of the law.

I’m having difficulty trying to see this ‘inductive reasoning’ you speak of in your argument though.

You say that because you have no seen any perfect argument or convincing proof assumedly as well, that you to reason that God is probably something that others have made up.

Allow me to show why I have such difficulty seeing any reason to this:

I have never seen DNA, and have not myself ever been given any convincing proof for its existence. I am told that people are able to view it under a powerful microscope and that for some years now people in laboratories have conducted experiments and studied these very tiny acids and bases, but I myself have never seen them with my own eyes or been given any convincing proof to its existence… therefore I must conclude DNA was probably made up by others… is that correct?

The analogy to your own argument is that because you yourself have never seen anything that convinced you there was a God, even though you are more than likely aware of the supposed existence you have been told by others of miracles, exorcisms, apparitions and even a man coming back the dead, because you have not seen these things or any other thing that is convincing yourself, therefore He was probably made up by others who claim He exists according to what you state.

I’m not able to see what method of reasoning makes either conclusion probable… how about you?. . .

 

[Mirdath]

I’m glad to hear you love your neighbour, God’s image is present in your neighbour, and loving your neighbour as yourself is a fulfillment of the law.

Quite so, though honestly I prefer the expanded ‘law’ – not only should one love the Samaritan, but also the priest and the Levite. Even if they don’t act particularly neighborly, they’re still in the same boat as the rest of us. So I like the version given in the sermon on the mount better.

I’m having difficulty trying to see this ‘inductive reasoning’ you speak of in your argument though.

At a basic level, let us say that I do not think there is such a thing as a naturally orange crow. Every crow I have ever seen is jet-black; the dictionary definition mentions black plumage; and then somebody tells me there is an orange crow right outside my window. If I cannot see this crow, why should I believe it to be real?

I have never seen DNA, and have not myself ever been given any convincing proof for its existence. I am told that people are able to view it under a powerful microscope and that for some years now people in laboratories have conducted experiments and studied these very tiny acids and bases, but I myself have never seen them with my own eyes or been given any convincing proof to its existence… therefore I must conclude DNA was probably made up by others… is that correct?

But if you get a microscope and conduct an experiment, you can see it for yourself. I did that in the first week of bio lab years ago. The claim that DNA exists is easily backed up by evidence.

The analogy to your own argument is that because you yourself have never seen anything that convinced you there was a God, even though you are more than likely aware of the supposed existence you have been told by others of miracles, exorcisms, apparitions and even a man coming back the dead, because you have not seen these things or any other thing that is convincing yourself, therefore He was probably made up by others who claim He exists according to what you state.

I have never witnessed a miracle. Once I visited Conyers, the site of a supposed apparition of Mary (not approved, as far as I know, and I’m not surprised), and one of the attractions was a crying statue. It was rather underwhelming when one of the workers had to rub the statue’s forehead down with a damp cloth to get it to weep.

But that’s getting away from the point. How does one verify the claim of an extraordinary, divinely worked occurrence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that has not been forthcoming.

 

[ribozyme]

But if you get a microscope and conduct an experiment, you can see it for yourself. I did that in the first week of bio lab years ago. The claim that DNA exists is easily backed up by evidence.

Did you really see the DNA, or did you merely see chromatin fiber. I do not think DNA can be seen with a normal microscope.

 

[D_M]

Quite so, though honestly I prefer the expanded ‘law’ – not only should one love the Samaritan, but also the priest and the Levite. Even if they don’t act particularly neighborly, they’re still in the same boat as the rest of us. So I like the version given in the sermon on the mount better.

At a basic level, let us say that I do not think there is such a thing as a naturally orange crow. Every crow I have ever seen is jet-black; the dictionary definition mentions black plumage; and then somebody tells me there is an orange crow right outside my window. If I cannot see this crow, why should I believe it to be real?

But if you get a microscope and conduct an experiment, you can see it for yourself. I did that in the first week of bio lab years ago. The claim that DNA exists is easily backed up by evidence.

I have never witnessed a miracle. Once I visited Conyers, the site of a supposed apparition of Mary (not approved, as far as I know, and I’m not surprised), and one of the attractions was a crying statue. It was rather underwhelming when one of the workers had to rub the statue’s forehead down with a damp cloth to get it to weep.

But that’s getting away from the point. How does one verify the claim of an extraordinary, divinely worked occurrence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that has not been forthcoming.

I knew what inductive reasoning is, although I thank you for your intention of being generous in providing explanation, I meant I did not see the logic in your argument.

As the other poster refers to, I would need an electron microscope in order to actually see and identify the individual DNA fibres, and I do not have access to an electron microscope, nor am I likely to any time soon. I therefore am unable to verify its existence from my own knoweldge. I’m sure the existence of DNA must be backed up by evidence, but I myself have never seen this evidence, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, and therefore should I conclude it was probably made up?

If not, then why conclude that a miracle you cannot verify was most probably made up?

I simply don’t see the logic to this.

We obviously do not base every last thing we believe in something we can verify. But a scientific fact, for instance, we would not question, but a religious fact we would… why??

Why do I not say that I deny the existence of DNA, and along with that gravity, energy, thermodynamics, the speed of light, etc. and claim that until I myself am presented with some indisputable verifiable evidence for these things I will refuse to believe that they could exist?

Yet what is the difference of what I propose there with the reasoning that comes from the corners of non-believers who ask the same of religious facts that have likewise been observed by others and not themselves?.

 

[Minnie31]

So, why shouldn’t atheism be illegal? Where is my logic wrong?

If not believing in a god or gods should be illegal, then perhaps children who don’t believe in Santa Claus should be illegal too.

Your “logic” here is simply your opinion based on your understanding of the catholic belief system.

 

[Mister_De]

Atheism probably would be illegal if the Supreme Court hadn’t declared it a religion.

 

[Minnie31]

Atheism probably would be illegal if the Supreme Court hadn’t declared it a religion.

It’s a good thing we have laws that protect all of our citizens.

 

[Mirdath]

Did you really see the DNA, or did you merely see chromatin fiber. I do not think DNA can be seen with a normal microscope.

It was a while ago, so I’m not sure I can answer that – I do know that my usual ineptitude at lab work held true and I got to see someone else’s results. However, the point stands: the existence of DNA can be verified with relative ease.
D M:

I’m sure the existence of DNA must be backed up by evidence, but I myself have never seen this evidence, nor am I likely to in my lifetime, and therefore should I conclude it was probably made up?

If not, then why conclude that a miracle you cannot verify was most probably made up?

As I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. DNA is thoroughly backed up; you can even see it for yourself with some effort. Miracles are not.

We obviously do not base every last thing we believe in something we can verify. But a scientific fact, for instance, we would not question, but a religious fact we would… why??

Why do I not say that I deny the existence of DNA, and along with that gravity, energy, thermodynamics, the speed of light, etc. and claim that until I myself am presented with some indisputable verifiable evidence for these things I will refuse to believe that they could exist?

Because, I’d hope, you know that that indisputable evidence happens to exist, whereas it does not for the miraculous – by its very nature. The miraculous is the unexplainable.

 

[newbetx]

Hmm… almost 8% say “yes.”

Very interesting, but still much lower than I thought it would be. (I was expecting around 35%)

Maybe we’re more tollerant of the unbeliever than you thought… why did you think about a third of us might think it was OK?

God gives each of us the ability to choose. I’d say that 92% that say “no” understand this basic belief.

 

[goofyjim]

You are correct. You can not tell someone what they can and can not believe however, you can make the public exercising of aitheism illegal and you can make the promotion of the idea that God does not exist illegal. The will is free but laws are based upon action. You go after the actions associated with being an atheist not the will or the thought.

Our thoughts can only be judged by God and He will judge our thoughts, word and deed.

Exactly what actions of an atheist should be made illegal? None. Excepting of the course the ordinary criminal activity to begin with.

 

[D_M]

It was a while ago, so I’m not sure I can answer that – I do know that my usual ineptitude at lab work held true and I got to see someone else’s results. However, the point stands: the existence of DNA can be verified with relative ease.

As I said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. DNA is thoroughly backed up; you can even see it for yourself with some effort. Miracles are not.

Because, I’d hope, you know that that indisputable evidence happens to exist, whereas it does not for the miraculous – by its very nature. The miraculous is the unexplainable.

I’m not a scientist, but I’m under the impression that with a normal microscope I can only see a strand of material, and cannot actually look at the alternating series of proteins and bases that identify this thing to be DNA. As far as I know it could simply be just a strand of material and something completely different than what I am told, and have no evidence that proves to me or that I can verify that this is genuinely the coded strand of genetic material it is claimed to be.

How do I know that my boss’s name is really Jamie? I have not seen his birth certificate and cannot verify this fact, should I conclude it probably isn’t real?

How do I know that gasoline I use in the car is genuinely unleaded as stated? I have never verified it myself, nor has anyone I know for that matter, and will not take the opportunity to, should I assume it probably isn’t true?

How do I know that the news broadcast is actually live? I have no way of verifying this, should I assume it must be a hoax?

How on earth could I know that indisputable evidence exists for scientific facts? How?? I have simply been told that it exists by others who themselves are simply quoting a tiny minority of people who have claimed to have seen this evidence and have never seen it myself, nor am I likely to,

If you had seen a miracle you would I think have indisputable evidence for the existence of God, but otherwise you simply are forced to rely on the testimony of others who have seen these things that prove His existence, (unless of course you should see it one day yourself), but the logic you present, which I cannot see the logic to, is that even though I accept all these other things throughout my life without having seen such evidence, and which I will never verify, I demand to see it for this and will refuse to believe until I see it.

 

[Mirdath]

If you had seen a miracle you would I think have indisputable evidence for the existence of God, but otherwise you simply are forced to rely on the testimony of others who have seen these things that prove His existence, (unless of course you should see it one day yourself), but the logic you present, which I cannot see the logic to, is that even though I accept all these other things throughout my life without having seen such evidence, and which I will never verify, I demand to see it for this and will refuse to believe until I see it.

Again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ‘Hi, my name is Jamie’ is hardly extraordinary. ‘An omnipotent, omnipresent, (generally) omnibenevolent immortal died so you can be happy for all eternity’ is. Until you make that distinction, I don’t see much point in pursuing this line of discussion.

 

[D_M]

Again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ‘Hi, my name is Jamie’ is hardly extraordinary. ‘An omnipotent, omnipresent, (generally) omnibenevolent immortal died so you can be happy for all eternity’ is. Until you make that distinction, I don’t see much point in pursuing this line of discussion.

I have told you the existence of extraodinary evidence though: miracles, exorcisms, apparitions, a man coming back from the dead, these are all pieces of extraodinary evidence for this extroadinary claim of the existence of This God.

But you argue that because you yourself have not seen this evidence yourself therefore you assume it is probably not true.

I would agree that Jamie’s name is not an extraodinary claim, but my point was from an epistemological perspective people obviously did not need confirmation of evidence in order to believe things were true.

The existence of a set of molecules in which is coded the identifiable building blocks of life that have commonalities among all species and phylums… is that not an extroadinary claim? It essentially cuts at the very roots of the existence of all life on this planet; I would think it to be somewhat extroadinary. And yet I did not need see the evidence myself in order to believe it was true, and I presume that neither did you.

In case you sense some hostility know that I don’t judge you, I simply think your argument is illogical.

 

[cynic]

By your statement above, it would also beg the question, how can you enforce a “thought” process…yet under the Communist rule in the Soviet Union, millions of people were forced not to believe.

And I would have less of a problem with Atheists if they would STOP trying to enforce THEIR “non-belief” on the rest of us through court actions…for instance Michael Newdow and his continued attempts to destroy ANY sort of public display of faith.

many atheists are libertarians. I’s say now days that’s the more common association.

 

[neat62]

many atheists are libertarians. I’s say now days that’s the more common association.

Not sure where you get that from…can you provide some stats or evidence of that?

Also…can you deny that communism is directly related to atheism?

 

[cynic]

Why does it need to be related to communism?