A question for Atheists would you ban or outlaw Religion if

Post Reply New Topic

Homosexuality is mentioned in religion and religion is social pretense, so homosexuality could be just the same. Sure it's documented in nature in a few circumstances, but we document all kinds of lies for religion, so why not homosexuality as well?

So you want to take someone who has been fed religious doctrine and had their existence compromised and punish them for it? Huh? Why not just tell your daddy made up their religion? It seems like insanity to teach one thing to people and do something else, then expect people who have taken it to heart to make good decisions. It destroys lives. It causes harm, maybe to people you don't like, but Hitler didn't like Jews apparently. So what's the difference? Religion destroys lives that might have otherwise turned out different with more advanced medical care and the potential of life extension to replace what has really been lost in their experience. How can the people who made up religion ever compensate people for the harm done by it? It is an existential harm greater than any other. The only problem I see with immortality is that when it comes, the mindset that comes with it will virtually erase the need for religion and a whole lot of people who have been lied to are gunna be pissed off... so why not make peace with them and make it for them... They are those who need it most afterall. It seems alot more ethical to me than letting people live inside a lie and die never seeing the outside for what it is.

Non Theists all ready have some unpleasant views on theist and vice versa baning religion would cause a war all over the planet thank about how many religions are in the world banning them all would not end well and a great war would break out.

See my post to DC.

So if someone kills an Atheist because they don't like Atheists or can't accept their non-beliefs, what do you call it? Personally, I'd like a definition of hate crime that allowed it to protect more broadly... Rather, give hate a definition and let people show that there was hate to prosecute in such a way.

How about my suggestion of a segregated state where religion gets to live in towns specifically noted for allowing religion and Atheism could live in other towns. The laws of the religious would have bearing only unto themselves and not to atheists. The two societies would live with their own laws as different states under a Federation which would specifically protect all life and be otherwise limited.

No need for war if you have a segregated state as I suggested... read it!

The point is you take away all world religions you open up pandors box and will have to deal with a bunch of angry zealots not just christians jews or muslims but all religoious people would ban together to fight against the ban of religion.

You can not create a entire state for the religious do you know how many religions their are in the world? It would not be possible to fit them all on one side and the non theists on another side it wouldn't work.

Or people could tough it out and learn one way or another that they can live together without having to kill each other instead of sending everyone off to live in their own communities where they won't have to (god forbid) coexist with people who think differently than they do.

Where would you put all of the religious? The middel east their are so many religions in the world some of them don't do any harm at all like wicca you never see them doing anything evil they just practice their faith in peace.

Zoning laws. Perhaps there will be fewer Atheists, but in time their population may grow and people will have the opportunity to live outside of it and will leave, some may even leave Atheism. When one population grows, you allocate more land to them or create zones that allow both. Of course there will be limits on the minimum size of either to preserve both cultures, but let the population dictate the size and allotment of space for development and allow the government to make land and real estate exchanges where property is deemed to be of equal value, this way, both states can support their population. It will be similar to a student exchange program where the exchange is permanent.

Say Charlie Atheist lives in religious land and Christian Lyria lives in Atheist land. Both own property and have jobs and have applied to move to the other side. Each person switches living arrangements and lives in the other land. People living in mixed populations would be considered visitors.

Say there are more Atheists wishing to move to Atheist land or visa versa... A residence would become an Atheist residence as soon as someone applied with the Atheists to become one. Thus they could receive a court exchange for a property near Atheist cities. Rinse and repeat and sooner or later you will have segregation that is determined by the community they wish to live with. No one would feel as though they are an outsider and no one would have to live under system they did not like. The sanctity of life and existence would be preserved. If Christians built huge mansions outside of Atheist cities to raise the land value and restrict freedom from religion, the mansions could be traded for lots of smaller properties and many Atheists could live there. If Real Estate values became considerably different in any given area, the government could make adjustments using the fractional reserve system.

Each state, religious and Atheist would receive an equal vote in the Federal government regardless of population.

A person found to be lying about their religion or Atheism to damage the segregation of society could be tried as a spy and instantly impeached from any branch of office by the Head of Religion or Head of Atheism. These positions would be by appointment and appointments would be made by the incumbent. Both must have been born in the state of their office from families who are of the same society which they are to be appointed as Head.

No... this won't work. Because and Atheist will still not get to live by Atheist law and outside of social pretense. Maybe during the period of transition, Atheists could have their own laws and their tax structure, but the very existence of religion compromises the Atheist way of life because the religious will never treat an Atheist with the same opportunity and respect that they would another religious person and they will interfere with the families of Atheists. True Atheists that reject social pretense are generally isolated, there are more pseudo-Atheist establishments than there are actual Atheist establishments and Atheists will always be treated like they are the enemy to preserve the religious culture. It is a prime example of a minority inequality. The religious speak a language that requires one to play along to communicate and if they don't want to play along and thus support a system they don't agree with, they aren't given equal opportunity of expression.

Perhaps companies could be required to hire and promote Atheists at equal pay rates as part of affirmative action? This might work, but still, getting a date could be hard, the same with making friends who feel the way you do about things and affirm your feelings.

They contribute to social pretense.

Anyone who actually believes that people believe beyond the age of 12 is being abused by social pretense.

If you really want a segregated state than sure... the religious will soon die off when they refuse to live by reason than by fairy tales.

Antarctica.