h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Stalin's body count was pretty high.

Personally I have never bombed anyone, nor heard it suggested that I should. If you don't want to be tarred with Stalin's brush, don't tar me with that of a handful of Muslims who are not even supported by the majority of Muslims.

The Inquisition?

Stalin's bodycount is relevant how?

There's a category difference between

(a) doing something terrible while you're an atheist and the other bloke is another bloke
(b) doing something terrible BECAUSE you're a Catholic/Protestant/Muslim and the other bloke is a Protestant/Muslim/infidel.

If you can't see that difference, I'm not sure a discussion is even possible.

SoRB

"If you don't want to be tarred with Stalin's brush, don't tar me with that of a handful of Muslims who are not even supported by the majority of Muslims."

Are you a Muslim?

And I'll go with SoRB - Stalin wasn't comitting genocide because he didn't believe in gods - he was genocidal because he was a maniac.

And I'll repeat the question - are you a Muslim?

"a world run solely by atheist fundamentalists is a terrifying prospect."

Yes. Imagine how horrible a world it would be where decisions were made solely on the basis of how the real world works, rather than how we wish it worked, or how our distant ancestors thought it worked. Yup, terrifying. Medical treatments based on evidence. Education focussed on telling the truth about things like sexually transmitted diseases rather than pretending that abstinence education works. Disgusting. A society in which the needs of the people of today outweigh the opinions of the people of a thousand years ago. Bizarre.

We *know* what a society run on religious lines looks like. We have millenia of examples. It is a litany of violence, oppression and ignorance. We've tried prayer as a cure for tuberculosis.

A wise man once said something like "A society built on Christian values has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and not tried." True enough. We've stuck with Old Testament values.

But equally, a society built on non-religious values has not been tried, and due to the general low intelligence of the average human, probably never will be. The ignorant, stupid and superstitious will always be with us, and as long as there are priests to prey on them, religion will exist. Shame.

SoRB

What's your take on blasphemy laws SoRB

EITHER extend blasphemy laws to cover all myths and irrational beliefs OR repeal them all. I honestly don't mind which. There is no defensible basis for protecting one juvenile superstition over another.

Anyone fancy drafting a bill enshrining in law the right to belief in alien abduction, copper bracelets for rheumatism, Derek Acorah, Uri Geller, Osiris, Woden and the flying spaghetti monster?

SoRB

How dare you speak of the flying spaghetti monster.

Stone him.

And stone offsoon for taking the name of the flying spaghetti monster in vain.

I'm sorry SWL, you'll have to be stoned for saying um...

You know what you said, just stand against the wall alright?

And stone SWL for metioning my unworthy name in the same sentence as TFSM.

Damn.

Never mind it's not all bad, I think these people are demonstrating to the vast majority of us that they are just a prejudicial, unloving, uncarring, irrational, deluded, bigotted, discriminatory, intolerant, narrow minded, warped, insecure, jaundiced, backward, redundant, obsolete, UNINTELLIGENT bunch of very very sillies indeed!

Is that a woman? Fanny you KNOW it's men only at stonings. Has anyone stoned SWL yet?

Oh he's always stoned!

Is that beard real?

Were you refering to the group trying to repeal laws or those on line who have hijacked the discussion and replaced it with silliness... aggressive attacks and put downs I find it interesting icons dissappear as people loose the ability to be objective in disscussion and resort to name calling

Okay, ignoring all the sillines and getting back to the discussion...

No, I am not a Muslim. The post I was replying to mentioned suicide bombing, which unless something is being seriously underreported is a mainly Muslim activity.

I apologise for bringing Stalin into the discussion; it was a cheap bit of point-scoring and irrelevant to the question at hand.


I find the prospect of a world run by atheist fundamentalists terrifying. Religion would be banned, in all its forms, or at least those holding religious beliefs would be barred from positions of influence. We would certainly be unable to secure academic positions, and could plausibly be denied higher education. At worst, believers would be institutionalised due to their dangerous and potentially infectious mental illness. Morals are already being ignored in favour of convenience. This is not a trend that has a happy ending.

To answer the basic original question: why shouldn't theist influence legislation? We're citizens, aren't we? We have votes?

Who was it who said "I have a problem with people who hold their atheism to be an article of faith"?

In some ways, atheism is becoming not unlike a new religion with Richard Dawkins as a prophet.