Is Atheism a threat to Freedom

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, put more words in our mouth. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, it isn't saying anything else.

Christianity along with a number of other theistic religions are the ones who are historically the ones to deny freedom of speech and prosecute crimes such as (but not limited to) "obscenity" and "blasphemy" and "communism".

It's not the atheist that gives a f**k about how much f*****g s**t one spills from their dirty f*****g mouths.


Also not the ones who are particularly offended by pornography.

Atheism could also be used to justify cheating on exams for example, it is only wrong if you get caught.

Also, I have been a victim of atheists being intolerant so don't tell me that Atheists are tolerant people (I know that there are atheists out there that are tolerant, but to blame everything on religion and religious people is bull). I'm sure many people whom are religious could say the same thing. You spout off about tolerance, yeah you're tolerant as long as people are saying something you agree to.

With how kindly you speak of them and view them, I can never imagine an atheist having trouble tolerating you.

You call people stupid for believing in Christianity and you expect them to not take offense. People are still human, not robots.

I know I have the diplomatic tact of a freight train, however your diplomatic tact isn't any better.

I'm getting angry now. You don't seem to understand what Atheism is. Atheism isn't the lack of a moral compass, it's the lack of a belief in gods. Having a moral compass is IMPORTANT. You can lack a moral compass being religious or not.

That they're part of the legal system doesn't make them special in any way. Saying it's okay for the government to take away peoples' rights is basically buying in to "might makes right". It's like saying it's okay for a stronger person to beat up a weaker person just because he's stronger. If you take that view, there's no such thing as "rights" or even "ethics".

Such a view is not only ethically bankrupt, but repeated prisoner's dilemma experiments have also shown that that strategy is suboptimal; a more cooperative attitude is more optimal.

The ethical position that makes sense, in the absence of religious guides, is not to expect anyone else to follow stricter ethical rules than one does oneself. Given that, the ethical rules that provide one with the greatest protection and the greatest freedom boil down to libertarianism: your freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose, and your freedom to make agreements is limited to promises you can keep.

If anything, government should be shaped by those individual rights: ideally, the rules of government should have to be consented to by every person governed. More realistically, government should be limited by clear contractual rules that are directly or indirectly agreed to by the governed on creation of the government, so that those who later immigrate or are born into the jurisdiction may understand the rules and have the option to leave the country if they don't like them.

The idea that government determines individual ethical rights is exactly backwards. In fact, it's individual rights that ethically determine the limitations of government.


No, that's not "Atheism's standpoint" at all. That's just the standpoint of a few atheists who haven't actually bothered to think through issues of philosophy and ethics.

Okay...rather than simply deflect because you're talking in general talking points with "you" being pointed at me like as if I'm representative of a giant group, I'm just gonna go for it and see where it goes:

Prove to me you're not stupid for believing in a book of thousands of years old myths and an invisible superbeing that doesn't like it if you masturbate to pornography and has an entirely unexplained problem with gay men.


This is not an issue of multiple intelligences either where you cite an entirely unrelated matter. Prove god exists or you're just some dumb monkey imitating other monkeys doing the same thing. Either that or quit talking in idiotic generalities and changing the subject when you're proven wrong in the stupid things you're saying.

Christians, by and far, have the upper hand in being against freedom of speech and most freedoms in general compared to atheists.

Yes, lets talk about Hitler. He sought religions icons and magical devices. One, for instance was the spear of longinus... you know the one that pierced Christ's side?

So tell me sir, why Hitler(the atheist), who didnt believe in that crap would think it would give power to his armies?

Because he wasnt an atheist. Thats why.

@ Fuzzy

He sure as heck wasn't Christian either...

@ psychohist

There can be moral atheists, but I'm not talking about atheists as individuals. The Chinese Government tries extremely hard to suppress Christianity because they are afraid of it for a reason.

You have a poor idea of what rights are. Governments do not grant them, regardless of the gubbermints that purport that they do. It is simply that relatively decent governments abstain from trampling upon them.

For example, you have the right to life and liberty. All natural expectations are that you will live your life traveling where you wish. The government simply says "I will not impede this". You have the right to food and water. If you are hungry you will seek them out. A good government declares that it will not hamper you in your pursuit.

And so on. Rights are nothing magical. They are simply opportunities to act according to natural whim. Neither your imaginary god nor your delusional government seeks to deny you those things.

We are in agreement there. He might have thought himself one however. But then, every Christian does, dont they? The truth of that is the crux of your final judgment.

No true Scotsman?

With his Jewish blood, it might have been "no true Aryan".

I think you should be. There are most certainly atheist individuals that have the faults you describe, so you would be correct if you were indicting (some) atheist individuals, just as antiChristians can find some examples of evil people who happened to be Christian. It's just the generalization to atheism as a whole that's mistaken, just as the generalization to Christianity as a whole is.


Actually they don't any more. They used to do so when they were actually communist because Christianity, like any religion, is a threat to any communist government.

However, a communist government is not the only form of government that may be atheist. The U.S. constitution doesn't mention religion other than to prohibit Congress from establishing one, for example, so it's as atheist as it is religious.