Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
No ironic giggling from my end Quetos. You are wrestling with issues serious to you, and I take a respectful position.
From your post, I still get the impression that you hold to the position that we must be serving some purpose, else all life and existence is meaningless. Life is what you the individual make of it.
I will live a full and exciting life, one day my body will give out, and for me, it's all over. That is it, just one ride on the Roller Coaster of Life.
Your proposition to limit the human life span to just twenty years does have a tinge of efficiency to it, but as a human being, I do not want my species to be reduced to one that removes quality of life in the desperation of species survival. Growing old and creating life experiences is a big part of being human and living a full life. I would rather the human race dies out than stoop to such a level where one's life-span is reduced just because of fear.
From Dylan Thomas
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
I, in my young 20's was close to what you describe, a heavy sense of nihilism, what is the purpose of it all? I never believed in a god and it was becoming clear to me god is an unevidenced human created fiction/lie. I followed the rabbit hole down, (for me, the chemistry route, I was in college chem classes at the time,) until I arrived at the same conclusion you seem to be battling with. That everything is meaningless: that there is no meaning to life.
I struggled with this on again off again for a few years.
Then eithir on the toilet or in the shower (I forget which now!) I realized, having no meaning, and that life is meaningless, does not have to be a bad thing.
But even better, it frees you to make up what ever meaning you want for your finite life. I personally picked happiness. Along with its supporting cast of, confidence, satisfaction, accomplishment, helping others, learning, and attachments to others (this includes love.)
There are no rules, I can change what meaning I want at anytime, total freedom.
Ever since I have done exactly that, and I am excited to learn new things and new ways to reach the above. I never dealt with depression, or urge to do drugs to try and numb myself.
This realization has worked really well for me so far. Be happy to discuss more if you happen to be interested.
That would seem to violate the principle of relativity quite badly.
"Firstly, the physical consequence of traveling at the speed of light is that your mass becomes infinite and you slow down. According to relativity, the faster you move, the more mass you have."
Over to you...
If you are going to quote someone else, you need to tell us whom you are quoting. Please correct that by editing your message to include the source of that quote.
The laws of physics are invariant for all inertial observers. That includes the forces that springs exert, the rate chemical and nuclear reactions take place, the way an electrical circuit works; and yes even the density of the observers blood.
If this was not the case (if what you said was accurate), it would be possible to construct an experiment that used a human body (or anything else like springs, chemicals, electricity) to detect unaccelerated motion, which is strictly forbidden by the principle of relativity.
What is going on is relativity. But relativity can be described as the notion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. If you are in a spaceship going 1/4 the speed of light, and if you could not look out to confirm your velocity, your body could not tell if you were going 1/4 the speed of light or 2 MPH.
A little over two hundred years ago the first railways were constructed. Many people feared that the human body could not withstand going 30 MPH, they sincerely believed that such velocity would kill a person.
If you were in an elevator that was free-falling, and if you could not look out, you could not tell the difference whether you were falling down an elevator shaft or floating in space.
It is all about relativity.
"According to relativity, the faster you move, the more mass you have."
I must correct your error.
According to Special Relativity, the faster you move, the more mass you have.
But even based on this Special Relativity, one of it's postulates is that "the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial frames of reference (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference)".
@ LogicFTW and David Killens
I am very interested!
Gotta love the fact you thought this on the John or while having a shower – my realisation of this was in an equally benign place. How old were you? I was around 40ish – just wondering if it’s age related?
“There are no rules, I can change what meaning I want at anytime, total freedom.” Exactly. Absolutely correct. This was the most liberating thought I’ve ever had. You can literally change your mind about absolutely anything at any time, take any stance you like.
But this thought does have its downfalls. It does presuppose the individual thinking it is of a kind heart and good natured.
Consider Ted Bundy and other psychopathic serial killers. They too have decided they can change the meaning of their lives at any time… Unfortunately their happiness (not pursuit but rather attainment) comes from killing and/or raping people. Throw paedophilia, rapists, sado masochists and the like into the mix… You get the idea. After all, for the continuation and sustainment (?) of the human race as a whole, yeah, it can handle these individuals and continue quite happily... I mean, it's great to shout out: "Hey baby! Life's what you make it!!!" But, I put it to you, it ain't quite that simple.
After all, the only thing which is going to give you any kind of comeback is either another human being – be it in what we’ve decided to call the Law, a random individual - or your conscience. Under Christianity revenge is a bad thing - but under EOBF, if the family of a raped and killed child wants to kill the killer themselves, hell, let's throw them a baseball bat an say: "Have at it..." Should we care because we have a gland in our heads which causes the emotion Empathy? Is this reason enough to stop the family that wants to kill someone the human race doesn't need?
This is where things get tricky… It seems to come with a caveat – You can be free, find happiness, do what your heart desires - but only if you have a kind heart and choose to do what society (I.e. what other human beings around you) deem appropriate.
EOBF has a huge affect on how we conduct ourselves - and comes with the knowledge that no one human being has the right to dictate to the rest of us. In fact, no group of people have that right either. After all, I can change my mind as I go can't I? Can't I?
Chewie isn't it?
This train of thought, for me, naturally continues into politics, the law and social science. It begs the question: What are the true beliefs of an EOBF society – being fully aware all these beliefs are simply ‘what we’re all agreeing to at this moment in time’? What laws do we impose?
At the moment we seem to be living under the hangover of Christianity – As an example I have absolutely no problem at all with people committing suicide if they want to. I realise there’s an argument to be had around people not able to communicate their wishes for themselves, but when it comes to people fully aware and doing it to themselves, I don’t see the problem. There are many of these examples, but I’ll just mention this one for now… I think it makes the point. (that suicide is still against the law - and, as such, is a hangover of a Christian belief system.)
And I fully admit, there is a duality of morality which emerges once you start to think about stuff like this – on the one hand we have you as an individual, a human being, and what you want but then we also have the consideration of EOBF – in which we know there is no point to any of this, that we can make the point whatever we like – sooooo… What is the point? And if that point is hedonism then I put it to you that what makes some folk happy, is the exact opposite for others.
Gents, the overriding question remains: What is the point of human existence from a human’s point of view who believes in EOBF? I submit to you both that you are putting forward hedonism which is a human's view from a human's point of view. I don't think your taking EOBF into account because of the reasons above. But I am absolutely happy to include: And how are we to conduct ourselves, socially, economically, politically. lawfully in getting there?
After all, with EOBF, there is absolutely no reason not to go full hedonistic and do exactly what you like, when you like, how you like. (So go down the pub, see a woman you fancy, rape her, go home and tell your wife of 20 years what you've done. She kicks off: "But hell honey, it made me happy! Get over yourself already... You take life too seriously! doesn't mean anything anyways... But don't worry honey, I'll stay with you because I love you and that was just a quick rape shag...' Making the point because you mentioned 'Love' After all, a quickie rape shag won't stop you loving your wife will it?) Only other people will stop you - but there's no other reason not to. My brother says this is the reason religions put themselves forward as a reason for there existence. I reject that. The concept is stupid. I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to bow my head to some dead Jew boy nailed to a cross, no matter how much the story pulls at my heart strings. But, the rejection of religion does not deal with the point itself - and with the world turning ever more EOBF, I can deffo see this becoming a real big problem.
Is the answer from someone who has raped, murdered and stole: "I did it because it made me happy." To become an acceptable answer?
Because if it is not, then "I am happy" is not an acceptable answer to existence. "The reason for existence is hedonism" is not acceptable because the human race does, and always will, include psychopaths. Question: How do we proceed?
Your post seems to ask one overriding question, "what keeps us from going totally psychopathic and sociolpathic?"
Two things, our genetics and our brains.
As humans, we are a social species, and a lot of our impulses and behaviours are developed for social benefits. Many other social animals also display such behaviors. Even dogs have been tested (and proved) a sense of fair play among themselves. And fair play is one component of ethics. I don't know if dogs truly think things through completely, but they do practice ethical behavior. Being nice and co-operating with others is in our genetic makeup. It is a survival tool.
My brain also contributes to controlling my behavior. I once spent an entire year doing the Grizzly Adams thing, lived in a log cabin far removed from human communities. But despite my experience and training, I fully understand that I can not survive without others. From truckers who transport the food I need to the doctors I may need one day, to firemen to electricians who provide electricity, they are the links in the chain of my survival. In fact, if one of those links is weak, my life is threatened.
Thus, even if I was not punished by society for going on a killing spree, that act could initiate a chain of events that lead to my premature death. Or possibly a much lower standard of life.
Now, this part I cannot definitively pinpoint how it works, be it age and experience of just my internal brain chemistry. But I have learned to be more empathic to others. I have developed the ability to mentally walk in another's shoes. When I see a very old lady struggling to make it across a busy street, I understand (at least partially) her problems and frustrations.
I also fully understand the sheer terror one would experience if they were murdered. Being dead is bad, knowing you were to die at the hand of another is worse.
"Is the acceptable answer from someone who has raped, murdered and stole: "I did it because it made me happy." To become an acceptable answer?"
@ David Killens
Hmmm... Questionable. With today's computers and mobile phones we, as a race, are becoming more distant from each other. Our brains are simply a product of Darwinism. "Don't eat the red poisonous berries" those that did died, those that didn't survived and passed the genes on. To make the conclusion today that the natural state of the human being is subservience and society driven - I'm more of the mind that this is a result of hermits and those who didn't follow the laws were ostracised and so didn't pass their dna on.
I put it to you our social nature is not a result of an idea of social etiquette but rather the result of a reproduction and survival technique. With the advent of modernisation and our move away from social interaction, (And need to not eat the red berries - i.e. follow 'the rules' in order to survive) I believe these traits will disappear over time. Dogs have been cross bred over a long period of time from wolves (all dogs are ancestors of wolves) where those wolves which showed a kind temperament were domesticated - this is well documented and easily researched should you wish to. Consider the life of the squid - squids rise to the surface of the ocean in their millions to reproduce. During this ascent, they eat each other in their absolute droves. My point being, looking to nature for loving acts - well, it's just as easy to see horrific acts. Black widow spiders mate and then the female eats the male.
I understand what your saying but, again, the death of say 20 electricians in any one city will see a shortage, prices will rise and electricians will move to the city for the extra money - or occupations which have a surplus will see individuals train to become electricians..With 8 billion of us, it is easy to fill any occupational hole due to death - either due to natural causes or by our own hands.
If your premature death occurred after you had passed on your dna while I agree it means a great deal to you, in the 'grand scheme' of things, to the human race as a whole, it means nothing. It is also very interesting to note nearly all so called 'great works' are achieved in someone's youth - 20 to 30... Be it science, art or whatever.
Your kinda putting forward the argument of your individual death or a drop in your 'standard of life' is a reason for not going on a killing spree? I guess this site is called Atheist Republic, and, as such, while I totally agree I don't want to be killed (nor do I have any desire to go on a killing spree) I'm asking the question, do people going on killing sprees really have a detrimental affect on society as a whole? While I don't want to have an argument about America's crime rates and continual creation of school shootings and serial killers - are these having a detrimental effect on America still leading the world in, well, kinda all areas of advancement? I put it to you that it isn't.
With modern day Political Correctness and general sway towards helping all minorities, should an Atheist based country base all of it's laws on a single emotional response - i.e. Empathy? Should we allow any single emotion to 'rule' us? Dictate to us? It's all good and well giving this a quick 'yes' answer - but wouldn't our 'standard of living' advance far quicker if we put our resources into our society's advancement rather than spending it on people who will never contribute anything to said society? Secondly, just as you, personally, have become more empathic (it appears) as you have grown older, there are many who have not. Should they bow their head to you because you have? Should a single individual's emotional considerations be taken into account when considering society as a whole? If you answer is yes, then I'd say that's the problem with our society today - we are still hung over from monachy thinking - of having a single individual dictating to the rest of us - that modern democracy isn't democracy at all but rather we vote in our next 4 or 5 year dictator.
Hehe! It's not so much the being dead bit that bothers me - after all, I won't be around to regret it... It could be argued you'll never experience being dead as your consciousness wont be there to experience it. it's the dying bit that worries me! It's the thought of death, not the being dead which is the problem! If I were to choose my death? Walking around, enjoying the scenery in my nineties when a random bullet blows my brains out. Here then not, no worrying about it, just here and gone.
These are not points I support personally - when I consider myself as a human being and looking at it from my point of view. This is an attempt to look at society and the human race objectively. The question: How should an Atheist Republic run itself? When considering this, I cannot help but to think that NO emotion should run society. Be it either love or hate. In considering this answer I find it impossible to not consider what the goal of society is. If the goal of society is to 'walk around in a paradise' I put it to you that we can negate all technological advancement and simply live in mud huts and achieve this goal - thus, the paradise idea isn't enough - it is too simplistic a goal.
The United States no longer (if it ever did) "lead the world in all areas of advancement". Foir a period after the Second World War, by virtue of its military and untouched relatively social fabric manage to impose its consumerist and TV inspired societal image on a world desperate for release from destruction.
Since then, and since the debacle of Vietnam, the US has shown itself to be an idol with not just clay feet, but clay torso, albeit supporting the largest military in the world.
It now has the most corrupt system of corporate governance outside of its old enemy the Russian bloc. So much so that that the same people are financing both systems.
Killing sprees seem to be largely where gun control ( the lack of which is a product of unregulated capital) is lacking, and religion is forced upon the citizenry as a way of enforcing conformism. A system where "top dog" influence and influencers is prevalent from grade school and up and goes completely unchecked if not actively encouraged.
try not to be such a silly.%^%%$$#$ .
"America still leading the world in, well, kinda all areas of advancement?"
The USA leapt ahead of other nations after WW2 by default, all the other major players were spent and bankrupt from the war. The USA did not invent plastic surgery, rockets, swept wings for high speed aircraft, angled carrier decks, or radar, or jet engines, those leaps in technology came from other nations. Even the technology for the nuclear weapon came from outside of the USA. The USA gained a "temporary" advantage. But witness such nations as Japan and Germany, they built their modern nations from rubble and almost nothing. Yet today, they are economic and technological powerhouses.
Modern auto manufacturing is structured around the "just in time" parts delivery system. This is one reason why the automakers from Detroit had a huge sag in sales and development, the Japanese came up with a superior production model.
IMO the USA is a powerhouse because it is large, has vast natural resources, does not have any hostile nations on it's borders, and it was built on the backs of slaves.
@ Old man shouts ...
fair enough, 2nd highest technology in the world. England is 7th.
If you just wanna live in some natural paradise, there is no point in having any technology. The point I'm trying to make is the environment is only required if it sustains the human race. If we reach a technological point where it is no longer required - then there's no point in having it other than: "It looks nice".
"fair enough, 2nd highest technology in the world. England is 7th."
And with theism imposing a preference to ignore reality and the sciences, each year the ratio (based on population) of scientists, engineers, and quality doctors will slide further and further back inside the USA. Other nations (especially Japan) are increasing the percentage of quality engineers relative to other nations. Basically, the USA is sliding back into the dark ages.
Did you know that Studio 41 is based out of Indonesia?
@Quetos Black widow spiders mate and then the female eats the male.
I once saw a nature doco about black widow spiders. Often when the female lunges at the male after sex, she only manages to grab a leg, and the poor old male hobbles away to fuck another day. They found some males with several legs missing, indicating that they kept coming back for more.
Hope and love spring eternal.
The camera men for Blue Planet 2 where on BBC breakfast the other day? When interviewed they told the tale of the penguins and the killer whales. The killer whales would turn up every day, catch a few penguins, play with a few and leave. They filmed for 30 days. On the last day, a penguin managed to escape. The programme producers decided to use that footage.
The female widow would have eaten the male, it just managed to escape. As the saying goes: "The exception proves the rule."
When I talk about humans being a social animal, I am discussing our lineage tracing back to over four million years ago. Pre-homo sapeins lived in small tribes/packs, and because they had little built-in weaponry, and had to rely on their brains and group actions, this social behavior was built into us. Only in the last 200,000 to 300,000 years ago did homo sapiens emerge.
The time frame I am discussing is in hundreds of thousands of years, going back to 4 million years ago. So we have social behavior imprinted deep into our genetic makeup.
Some species, such as man and wolves are social, while other species such as squid rely purely on sheer numbers. For them cannibalism is part of their behavior that rewards sheer numbers.
Modern urban life with the new gadgets such as computers, cell phones, and consoles have changed social dynamics, how you interacted with others a hundred years ago is very different than now. This is a huge seismic shift in human behavior, I doubt humans have ever seem changes come at such a rate.
So we are in uncharted territory when it comes to predicting what the norms will be in a thousand years.
"How should an Atheist Republic run itself? When considering this, I cannot help but to think that NO emotion should run society."
This is a very personal position, but IMO politicians should be elected only on a platform that solves the issues of the community they serve. Dogma should come second to fixing things. My personal idea of politics is that as we advance, different political and economic dogmas serves better than others. For example, capitalism is excellent at developing a raw nation, but other political dogmas (maybe communism or socialism) would serve a stable and established nation better.
@ David Killens
I guess we're both on dangerous grounds if we start stating things about early humans. (We simply don't have any data to really say anything) I put forward a Darwinian view of it. Looking to the earliest civilisation though, the Sumerians (4000 odd bc), you've got religion, slavery, wars, sex, sodomy... All the usual good stuff. So what little weaponry they did have, they used it to kill each other and force each other into slavery. Here's a link:
The point I'm trying to make here is, if we use the history of the human race as a stick to mark out our 'sociability' then it's all war, slavery, murder, rape... All the usual good stuff. But I will point out that the majority of the population isn't involved in all this. (Early Rome is a good example of this as well) The question I was asking is: Does it stand in the way of our advancement? I'm just drawing the conclusion that since all of this has always been a part of the human race, I guess not really? Which is shocking - but does appear to be true. (London, it is estimated, has 5000 slaves in it today - crazy!)
I agree 100%. The advent of computers has lead to us into uncharted territory. My only experience of this is my 9 yr old daughter runs home from school to log into a game where she meets up with all her school friends. So the social aspect is still there? But not the physical interaction. Chatting to my mum (80 odd) and she reckons it's all rose tinted glasses - that, in truth, when she was young they all just moaned, bitched and gossiped about each other!
I get what your saying - I do discuss this at length with my brother - he is a hardened socialist. I was watching Jeremy Poxon once on telly and he was on about an Indian king. (It might not have been India, I'm going from memory here!)This king was all about war and the like (the usual) but then walked out on a battlefield the following day, where he saw all the suffering and dying. It got to him. He set up a version of the House of Commons, people voted (he still sat above it all mind you) and he had a load of stones written up and placed all over India which carry the laws of the land - which includes how people should treat each other. Jeremy stated it was the first democracy ever to exist on earth - and before everyone starts kicking off, I'm just stating what he stated in the programme - I wasn't there, what the hell do I know - and please read on to see the point I'm trying to make as apposed to where on the planet democracy first appeared. I neither know nor care - the next sentence is the point!
But, unfortunately, he had a younger brother who totally disagreed with how his brother was ruling the kingdom. So he conspired against him, killed him, took the throne and the killing days continued.
The reason I'm telling you this is after watching the programme I realised that no matter what political system you put in place, the (swear word, starts with a C, make it plural) take over. I asked my brother about communism in Russia - how long did it work for? He said 3 years. I was shocked to hear it was only 3 years. 3 years before the Cs took over again. This, I feel, is the major problem with the human race. I don't feel like the vast majority of us are Cs - but somehow they always manage to take over and rule over the rest of us, no matter the political system.
It's because of this, and Atheism, I feel the only true way forward for us is true democracy. Majority rules so no one individual can rule and make law changes for financial gain, abuse their position (see: The Killings Of Tony Blair) and I do feel the answer to why is this the law, the answer being: "Because we had a vote and the majority of people in this country voted this way", from an atheist point of view, is about as good as a reason gets.
So we get to vote on everything and the government just implements the result. Switzerland has true democracy - and while my dad reckons: "It's a crazy system! They have socialist and near Nazi policies existing side by side!" I do feel this is the evolution of us politically. We should have true democracy not so much because it will be a better system, we should have it because it will stop the Cs from taking control, giving to the few and making the majority suffer. Or, at least, if the few are to benefit and the majority suffer, the majority agreed to it.
If the British people had been asked to vote whether or not to go to war with Iraq? I'd bet my bottom dollar we'd have voted not to. So all those British soldiers who lost their lives there (179) would still be alive today. So having true democracy would have very real consequences beyond just the "what laws should be implemented". And I do feel Atheism supports the true democracy idea.
Your thoughts folks...
Atheism supports nothing except incredulity at the idea of a god or gods.
All that wasted verbiage....
"All that wasted verbiage...."
Yup. Atheism is just a position, it is not and does not offer a solution to the ills of society. It appears to do so only because it is a counter to religion, which is a pestilence on the human race.
@ Old man shouts ...
Quoted from Wikipedia:
"Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell has argued that "atheist rulers such as Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot tortured, starved and murdered more people in the twentieth century than all the combined religious regimes of the world during the previous nineteen centuries"."
"In Julian Baggini's book Atheism A Very Short Introduction, the author notes: "One of the most serious charges laid against atheism is that it is responsible for some of the worst horrors of the 20th century, including the Nazi concentration camps and Stalin's gulags"."
"From the outset, Christians were critical of the spread of militant Marxist‒Leninist atheism, which took hold in Russia following the 1917 Revolution and involved a systematic effort to eradicate religion. ... The Bolsheviks pursued "militant atheism". The Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin energetically pursued the persecution of the Church through the 1920s and 1930s. It was made a criminal offence for priests to teach a child the faith. Many priests were killed and imprisoned."
"Historian of the Nazi period Richard J. Evans wrote that the Nazis encouraged atheism and deism over Christianity and encouraged party functionaries to abandon their religion. Priests were watched closely and frequently denounced, arrested and sent to concentration camps. In Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, the historian Alan Bullock wrote that Hitler, like Napoleon before him, frequently employed the language of "Providence" in defence of his own myth, but ultimately shared with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin "the same materialist outlook, based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity"."
That's the beauty of psychology - you can twist anything to support anything... Ya just gotta give it enough spin... As my psychology teacher once told me: "We're all insane, it's just the level which is in question."
But has Atheism been used to kill millions of people? Yep, it sure has.
Just from your first paragraph:
Hitler was not an atheist.
"But has Atheism been used to kill millions of people? Yep, it sure has."
But atheists have been guilty of mass murder, just like theists.
I am stealing a few lines from Hitchens, but when the Communists took over Russia, they inherited a system (created by theists) where the citizenry were trained to accept dictates from the top, and dissent was forbidden. That made it very easy for the Communists to whatever they wished. And since the Russian church propped up the monarchy, just like the royal family, they were an enemy of the state. When you take over a nation, the first thing you do is eliminate all possible opposition. And the church was definitely a threat to the communists.
Don't forget Rasputin was a holy man, and he caused a lot of nasty crap.
Although what happened was horrific, there was a lot more to the story than "they were atheists and thus murderous."
Hitler was not an atheist, and the SS was exclusively open to theists only. It was in their oath, sworn to Hitler before God. Since Germany was over 94% christian which deity do you imagine this oath was being sworn before, the Jewish deity perhaps?
I suggest if you wish to study history you don't parrot the biased lies of theists with an axe to grind attempting to rewrite history. Though the points which theists always seem ignorant of is that the actions of atheists are not caused by atheism as it has no dogma or doctrinal teachings, that all totalitarian dictators com it atrocities regardless of whether they are secular or religious, so pointing to numbers of people killed tells me a lot about your moral worldview. Lastly and perhaps most significantly if every atheists who'd ever existed was vile amoral cunt, it wouldn't validate religious superstitious myths one iota.
This is of course before we even start to note the mountains of research that shows atheists on any level playing field are at least as moral as theists, but without the need to adhere to barbaric and bigoted archaic rules.
If that is true then change schools, and do it now. You do now that in the US insane is not a clinical term don't you, but a legal one?
Actually Stalin publicly condemned religion whilst pouring massive amounts of money into supporting the Russian orthodox christian church, to help manipulate the populace. He claimed his secret police was modelled on the Jesuit order.
Nonsense, atheism has no dogma or doctrinal teachings, what an atheist does can't just be assumed to be derived from atheism. Though we know for a fact religion and theism in particular has been used to torture and murder countless human beings.
Hey, anybody know what the term is for somebody who in reality identifies as one thing, but then portrays themselves as a member of an opposing group in order to purposely act in such a way as to make the group look bad? I can't remember the term, but it certainly sounds very much like somebody on this thread. Just sayin'...
@Nyar Re: Agent provocateur
Yeah, that is the "official term." But I thought I heard of some internet "slang" term for it recently.
You may be asking the wrong forum.
"The reason I'm telling you this is after watching the programme I realised that no matter what political system you put in place, the (swear word, starts with a C, make it plural) take over. I asked my brother about communism in Russia - how long did it work for? He said 3 years. I was shocked to hear it was only 3 years. 3 years before the Cs took over again. This, I feel, is the major problem with the human race. I don't feel like the vast majority of us are Cs - but somehow they always manage to take over and rule over the rest of us, no matter the political system."
Communism as a dogma has some features that appeal to me, especially since it advocates a classless, egalitarian society. But where it failed in Russia was because the leadership decided to make the leap from a primitive society into the utopia of a communist society within one generation, imposing incredible hardships on the general population. And since brutal dictators took over control of Russia, they (and the unrealistic time frame), not communism were the reason for it's failure.
We are human, prone to mistakes, ignorance, prejudice, and peer pressure. It is my desire that everyone be educated on the various political dogmas in place, devoid of emotion and hysteria. Mention communism in Russia, and many will comment "yea, I wish we had it back", while if you mention communism in Alabama the response would be "it is evil and harmful".
And yes, it seems no matter what political system is put in place, the C's eventually find a way to take over. I fully agree on that item.
@ David Killens
I think the point concerning: "Whether communism is a good political system" is a mute point. I put forward (and you agree) that as any political system will lead, eventually, to the Cs running it, that no political system will ever work.
I feel like i've argued myself into my own corner when I consider this. True democracy is the only way forward - unless we take an A.I. and let it rule. Fancy a quick season of Travellers anyone? ;P