Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ellapennella

Communism , Totalitarianism & Atheism

423 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1o29
22 hours ago, EnderOTD said:

Watch out for any politician that advocates for the dissolution of the electoral college, removing one of the most important road blocks to mob rule is not only irresponsible, but will be the first step to tyranny.

The Electoral College was created to protect slavery.  It was part of the settlement in which every slave was counted as 3/5 person without giving them the vote in order to give Virginia an advantage in selecting the President.  It was immoral when it was created and has long out-lived any practical use it ever had.

If by "mob rule" you mean democracy, we can't end it soon enough.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:
1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

I don’t see how a simple lack of belief in something is connected and thought of as a totalitarian state of being.

 

 

Simple? I don't mean simple people, I'm talking about  rulers of a nation.

Part of your OP: 

Quote

When Atheist argue that they do not want religion , what do they think they will get ? 

Are you saying Atheist rulers of a nation are arguing they do not religion? If that is the case, where are your examples? Seriously, you need examples for your claims. Where are they? 

My observation and opinion, like I said in my previous post: 

Quote

In fact, if Atheists want a totalitarian states, (if using the states as an example) how come there isn’t a lot of Atheists in the government trying to do just that?

So, show me where there is just that. 

Because, from your short OP, you made mention of Atheism, which I also quoted from a dictionary site: 

Quote
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

That's, the way it looks like to me, just saying everyone. If you're implying Atheist rulers of a nation, it would have been much easier for you to mention that in your OP. Where are they arguing this, the rulers of the nation? Give examples linked to credible sources. Because, it still stands, that I haven't seen a lot of Atheists in government doing that. 

Are you just using the U.S. as an example. Are you using all the nations? I think, you should have mentioned that to begin with. Because Atheists, Atheism, and them arguing about it, seems to imply everyone, and the arguing seems to imply debaters on this forum. I think, it's understandable to assume what I did. 

I would also advise that you should read over what I said, that you quoted, and your reply. I referred to the act of not believing, as simple. Go ahead, go back and reread that. 

Ok, ......................... I hope you did. ;)  :tu:  

Now, the other thing is, is to prove this is happening. And I'm hoping you had or will do now..............................

................... oh wait, I did already mentioned showing examples, didn't I? ;)  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
5 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

That's, the way it looks like to me, just saying everyone. If you're implying Atheist rulers of a nation, it would have been much easier for you to mention that in your OP. Where are they arguing this, the rulers of the nation? Give examples linked to credible sources. Because, it still stands, that I haven't seen a lot of Atheists in government doing that. 

Govt rules mostly ban people from pushing religion while at work.  That applies to atheism, too, as it is a functional religion.  Most people abide by the rules.  Only a tiny few, and those mostly religious fundamentalists, think they are above such things.

Doug

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, Ellapennella said:

I think  un checked atheism would definitely lead to such tyranny.

And what's checked Atheism? 

What about unchecked religious? 

And where are you getting these thoughts? Granted, I think of the U.S.S.R., but I also think it was mostly the other two. And as some here have presented, the first two of the OP doesn't really add and become the third point of the OP. 

And besides, the term used of 'unchecked Atheism' seems to imply all Atheists here, not governments and/or nations. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
4 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:
12 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

That's, the way it looks like to me, just saying everyone. If you're implying Atheist rulers of a nation, it would have been much easier for you to mention that in your OP. Where are they arguing this, the rulers of the nation? Give examples linked to credible sources. Because, it still stands, that I haven't seen a lot of Atheists in government doing that. 

Govt rules mostly ban people from pushing religion while at work.  That applies to atheism, too, as it is a functional religion.  Most people abide by the rules.  Only a tiny few, and those mostly religious fundamentalists, think they are above such things.

Exactly, I think a good point to make. (if we are talking about the states and only the states) And also mentioned that I believe it's also banned in public places as well. Retail.... etc. etc.  I agree, that it also pertains to Atheists and atheism, but I think the more accepted thought is that atheism is not a religion. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s unchecked anything will lead to tyranny.  

I would tend to agree with you on that. Though, I think it's a good point to mention: 

Quote

I am Christian but I would not want some Puritan faith dictating to me how to live. 

And that's how it would muck up a lot of things. If one wants to control their belief, there are the rest, who feel the same way. And knowing how that would affect one's self, is a good way of seeing the bigger picture, I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
53 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I believe that it is historical fact that those nations that respect GOD are blessed.

Historical fact suggests otherwise.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

To uphold a Communist belief system then several things are needed:

1. People need to believe that they are all equals.

2. People need to believe they are nothing more than biological robots.

3. All people that disagree with Communism or point out its obvious flaws need to be demonised as corrupt, greedy, self-centred, or evil.

Religion is at odds with all three but especially the third. With the third if there is no punishment for treating good people poorly then its easier to overcome the moral conflict it causes inside oneself. Funnily enough, its always why sociopaths are attracted to the political left not the right.

Despite that I have my own belief, and it keeps me 'grounded', ;)  I believe, I often get :huh: on how some religions are 'trusted' in their higher power will definitely punish. And I said, definitely, meaning it has happen all of the time, with objective proof. It's not a certainty that what is talked about after death, is really is what is going to happen. There really is no objective proof. So, how does the living know for sure, a person has been punished? 

How does a belief keep a person of really not doing evil and the like? I think a good example would be those who don't understand or are not aware of such higher powers and such, and perform bad things. If this is to be believed, that one will be punished by the higher yet mostly unseen power, where are the definite examples that shows it 'really did it'?

So, the way I see it, it's not following a religion, it's a point of view. And, there could be varying points of views. What about those who cause tyranny, using religion? The various religious cults come to mind for me. 

Frankly, I think what keeps tyranny, is adhering to actual people made, people enforcing, laws, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

The Law, The State and the bodies ...
 

Quote

 

~

Time Team Special 58 (2014) - Secrets of the Body Snatchers - YouTube

 

~

 

~

The days when a dead body is worth more to the lawful world than a life ... curious fact : a dead body cannot be stolen because according to the law, it does not belong to anybody :yes:

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

Those are two different things.  We don’t have to like those who argue against GOD.  It is their right.  But I am against removing GOD from public places but GOD must first be and remain in one’s heart.  If he is there, he can never be removed.  I’m not saying to retreat but in a secular government, we can stand and fight it.  It is our right.  And true atheism does not seek to remove GOD either.  I can’t see where a cross or the Ten Commandments offends any atheist.  I think atheist are more reviled by the history of the Church and the hypocrisy of Bible thumpers.

Here's the thing, if God is insisted to be placed everywhere, so should every other belief of higher powers. And seriously, the Flying Speggetti Monster should be too. Right? It cannot be one over the other, and expected to be a peaceful way of life. The existence of God is not a certainty for all. You can't insist I have God in my heart or mind, because I grew up to not knowing about God at all. So, expecting me to have something that didn't prove itself to me in the first place, how can I firmly believe honestly, it actually is there. 

It just seems that this is boiling down to thinking it's a point of view that is doing the job, and not that it actually exists. And, any point of view can do the job, either that or the reverse. 

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
41 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

And that's how it would muck up a lot of things. If one wants to control their belief, there are the rest, who feel the same way. And knowing how that would affect one's self, is a good way of seeing the bigger picture, I believe. 

It’s not a matter of control but of respect.  ‘Control’ implies the wrong aspect.  ‘Control’ is what defined the early Church in how it reacted to Roman and Muslim influence.  To some degree, that was good but there was no other entity to check that power.  ‘Respect’ is how one interacts with their environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
travelnjones

This are three things that while they have an intersection they each include other things as well.

 

image.png.8a70221c6640f28a797cf446efeca396.png

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:
44 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

And that's how it would muck up a lot of things. If one wants to control their belief, there are the rest, who feel the same way. And knowing how that would affect one's self, is a good way of seeing the bigger picture, I believe. 

It’s not a matter of control but of respect.  ‘Control’ implies the wrong aspect.  ‘Control’ is what defined the early Church in how it reacted to Roman and Muslim influence.  To some degree, that was good but there was no other entity to check that power.  ‘Respect’ is how one interacts with their environment.

If that is the case, wouldn't it be easier, (and more tangible) to respect the environment and all that's in it to see, like the government and such? Wouldn't you agree, there are seemingly a lot of examples of various people respecting all elements of belief, and feeling that has guided them positively? 

I. as a secular (non-religious) raised individual, respects my parents, our laws, and the forces of nature. So, I feel I have behaved and acted in the proper and caring way in society. I'm trying to understand how some see respect for a higher power and thinking it keeps people in check in the same way that respect for our laws do. The way I see it, I consider it trustworthy of a quicker action from not respecting things we actually see, like the laws, the forces of nature, and the like. As I have mentioned before, I have seen a neighbor, (in a place I lived years ago), who claimed to me she respected God, and yet takes advantage of other people's stuff, and tried to do that with me. I think, what she did was wrong, and yet, for all the respect she claims she gives God, she wasn't punished for something she felt freely doing. 

You know, one can respect something unseen for so long, before one realizes one can take advantage of it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
3 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Remember there have never actually been a communist country. Not even the USSR claimed to be communist. They claimed they were working towards communism, not that they actually achieved it. So if no one have done it, how can you make a claim like that ?

I don’t think it matters if no country has ‘achieved’ it.  It’s not a matter of academics.

 

On a personal note I don't mind people being religious, as long as they follow the rules and norms of the society they live in and dont try to push their views on others. 

That goes with politics too, but all other forms of government (other than our Constitutional Republic) do not follow the rules and norms of society.  Our Founding Fathers railed against all these other forms as they were defined in the Declaration of Independence.  Then the rules and norms of society where established by the Constitution.  All other flavors of government do not respect the rights of the individual.  Only ours protects those rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EnderOTD
2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

The Electoral College was created to protect slavery.  It was part of the settlement in which every slave was counted as 3/5 person without giving them the vote in order to give Virginia an advantage in selecting the President.  It was immoral when it was created and has long out-lived any practical use it ever had.

If by "mob rule" you mean democracy, we can't end it soon enough.

Doug

It was created to protect less populated states from being ruled by the highly populated.  If you were to abolish the EC why would any presidential hopeful bother campaigning in the fly over states?  It would lead to one party rule and tyranny.  I would be okay with abolishing it if California and New York would agree to have no vote on the president, do you not see how that is unfair.  The US isn't a Democracy, its a constitutional Representative republic of states with common goals, do you really find it wise to remove the input from some 30 member states of the said republic?  If we were a democracy do you think the unpopular legislation(at the time) of women suffrage and segregation would have passed in the first half of the 20th century?  Mob rule would have dictated that women and blacks remain second class citizens.  You're okay with that?  Mob rule is the last thing this country needs with how polarized we've become, and it saddens me that people are being swayed against their better interest into believing it a viable option.

Edited by EnderOTD
spelling and bold
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
44 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Here's the thing, if God is insisted to be placed everywhere,

I don’t think GOD insists in being placed anywhere, GOD *IS* everywhere.

 

so should every other belief of higher powers.

If there is a place for everything else, then why not GOD?

 

And seriously, the Flying Speggetti Monster should be too. Right?

Not exactly.  I think there are serious religions and non-serious religions.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is one of the non-serious.  I think all the serious religions can trace their origins back to one source.  If you look at the world’s religions, they all share the same core beliefs, it is just the manner in which they represent the Divine Creator.  Is not the Trimuti the same as the Trinity (Brahma = GOD, Shiva=Jesus, Vishnu=Holy Spirit)?  The reason is that they both evolved from the original first faith.  If someone wants to pay homage to the FSM, fine.  The public place is not just for the expression of religion.

 

It cannot be one over the other, and expected to be a peaceful way of life.

It can be.  The state will dictate that.  But our government does not establish a state religion.  That is ultimately left to the People (the nation is Christian, the government is secular).  And because it is, the government can neither restrict religion (i.e. by removing icons).  As long as the government abides by that, one can only expect to have peace.  provided that any particular religion does not try to usurp the power of the government.  Humans are in government, so I don’t mean that they can’t seek divine guidance.  I think divine guidance would be all inclusive because of the precedence the Founding Fathers set by establishing a secular government.  I do not want to see Islam try to replace our Constitution with Sharia law and neither would I want to see a group like ‘The Moral Majority’ to seize power and bring back the Inquisition.

 

The existence of God is not a certainty for all.

That does not prove or disprove GOD.  It just means that some are indifferent to GOD.

 

You can't insist I have God in my heart or mind, because I grew up to not knowing about God at all.

And I wouldn’t want to, but because GOD is in mine, I would not want you to insist that all external representation of him is removed or even restricted.

 

So, expecting me to have something that didn't prove itself to me in the first place, how can I firmly believe honestly, it actually is there. 

That’s entirely up to you.  He probably did prove himself to you, you just weren’t receptive to it??  You might down the road which would be great or you never will.  If you are ever curious and I am in the right position, then I can help you to understand.  Although, there are probably others far better capable here than I.

 

It just seems that this is boiling down to thinking it's a point of view that is doing the job, and not that it actually exists. And, any point of view can do the job, either that or the reverse. 

I would think it is a bit of both.  One’s thinking must be willing to accept the possibility.  If you are not ready, then you won’t believe.  No amount of force will change that.  One has to delve into the dimensions of time-space and thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

If that is the case, wouldn't it be easier, (and more tangible) to respect the environment and all that's in it to see, like the government and such? Wouldn't you agree, there are seemingly a lot of examples of various people respecting all elements of belief, and feeling that has guided them positively?

Yes, of course. ??

 

I'm trying to understand how some see respect for a higher power and thinking it keeps people in check in the same way that respect for our laws do.

I think that is a bit complex, but where do you think our laws come from?  Without GOD, Man would be living by his own morals.  Man’s morals are based on “doing unto others before they do unto you”.  GOD’s morals are based in right or wrong.  In other words, Man morals are subjective.  That creates inequality.

 

As I have mentioned before, I have seen a neighbor, (in a place I lived years ago), who claimed to me she respected God, and yet takes advantage of other people's stuff, and tried to do that with me. I think, what she did was wrong, and yet, for all the respect she claims she gives God, she wasn't punished for something she felt freely doing. 

Without being privy to more pertinent information, I would say she does not respect GOD and is only paying lip service.

 

You know, one can respect something unseen for so long, before one realizes one can take advantage of it. 

I would think that is true with anything seen or unseen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
4 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Exactly, I think a good point to make. (if we are talking about the states and only the states) And also mentioned that I believe it's also banned in public places as well. Retail.... etc. etc.  I agree, that it also pertains to Atheists and atheism, but I think the more accepted thought is that atheism is not a religion. 

 

While not banned in public places as a matter of law, most businesses don't want somebody preaching in front of their door and will run off anyone who makes themselves obnoxious, as is their right.  The property owner gets to decide who is trespassing and who is not.

Certainly atheists would not consider themselves a religion, but it is sometimes hard to see that when you're talking to them.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, EnderOTD said:

It was created to protect less populated states from being ruled by the highly populated.  If you were to abolish the EC why would any presidential hopeful bother campaigning in the fly over states?  It would lead to one party rule and tyranny.  I would be okay with abolishing it if California and New York would agree to have no vote on the president, do you not see how that is unfair.  The US isn't a Democracy, its a constitutional Representative republic of states with common goals, do you really find it wise to remove the input from some 30 member states of the said republic?  If we were a democracy do you think the unpopular legislation(at the time) of women suffrage and segregation would have passed in the first half of the 20th century?  Mob rule would have dictated that women and blacks remain second class citizens.  You're okay with that?  Mob rule is the last thing this country needs with how polarized we've become, and it saddens me that people are being swayed against their better interest into believing it a viable option.

That was part of it, too.  The "landlocked" states, like Rhode Island and Massachusetts, were afraid that those with large land claims, like Virginia and New York, would soon have such huge populations that they would totally dominate a house whose membership was controlled by population.  Part of the deal that created the Constitution was that the big states had to turn their western lands over to the Federal govt.  Except for three areas (the Virginia Military District and Western Reserve  in Ohio and the Clarke Grant in Indiana) this was done.  North Carolina ceded Tennessee to the Federal govt, except for enough land to pay its Revolutionary War land warrants.  But the Federal govt didn't want it and ceded the land to the State of Tennessee.

If you're talking about fair:  I live in Oklahoma.  If you're not a Republican, you get no vote in national elections.  It's the winner-take-all approach.  Doesn't make the slightest difference how I vote, the state's delegates are going to the Republicans.  Perhaps we could do something about this, like require delegates to be apportioned in the same proportions as in the election.  That would make the state a lot fairer.  And if it could be applied to Oklahoma, why not California or New York?  Oklahoma already has one-party tyranny.  And that doesn't count things like North Carolina's current election problems and poll tenders defacing ballots they don't like (Texas) and candidates poll-tending (Colorado).

There was a New Yorker who had the job of poll watching in a Wyoming election.  He was not aware that Wyoming law permitted women to vote, so when he saw one doing so, he approached her husband and objected.  The husband told him that that lady had helped him hold off an Indian attack for three days, had given birth during a snow storm while he was off tending the herd and that she could out-soot any man he knew:  you tell her.  I think by now that if we hadn't granted women suffrage, we'd have had a revolution on our hands - same with blacks.

BTW:  segregation was legal in the south, but not most of the rest of the country during the 50s.  So the north (actually, it was Johnson, a Texan) got busy and voted in civil rights for blacks - is that your definition of tyranny?

I see that there is little practical way to have a true democracy for anything much larger than a small town.  Representation of one sort or another is necessary to get things down to a manageable size.  But there is nothing that says our government has to represent states or billionaires while ignoring their citizens.  I think we will retain a bicameral system as part of our checks and balances and the lopsided representation can be retained there..  I think it's time that our legislators represented their constituents instead of their donors.  I think we-the-people need to take back our government.

The Electoral College is not necessary and should be abolished forthwith.

Doug

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
4 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Here's the thing, if God is insisted to be placed everywhere,

I don’t think GOD insists in being placed anywhere, GOD *IS* everywhere.

Ok, it looks like you're making a claim there, right? 

Why do you say this? Where is your proof? 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

so should every other belief of higher powers.

 

If there is a place for everything else, then why not GOD?

:huh:  

Ok, (kind of looks like you went backwards on that, or reversed the thinking............ whatever) the point was, God is being mentioned as suppose to be there, so I asked you, why not everything else? (point being, it would make sense, if one higher power((you can't prove)), then every others should too.) Gets kind of crowded, don't you think? 

What you're saying makes yes, but as you insist God being everywhere, so should others, so yeah, others are, yes God should be there. It kind of goes back to the same thing. It gets kind of crowded, right? How do you feel about that? 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

And seriously, the Flying Speggetti Monster should be too. Right?

 

Not exactly.  I think there are serious religions and non-serious religions.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster is one of the non-serious.  I think all the serious religions can trace their origins back to one source.  If you look at the world’s religions, they all share the same core beliefs, it is just the manner in which they represent the Divine Creator.  Is not the Trimuti the same as the Trinity (Brahma = GOD, Shiva=Jesus, Vishnu=Holy Spirit)?  The reason is that they both evolved from the original first faith.  If someone wants to pay homage to the FSM, fine.  The public place is not just for the expression of religion.

And what constitutes a religion in the serious or non-serious status? Wasn't Christianity in that category once? Who is to say what is serious, when you really cannot prove any of them, one hundred percent of the time, as it is. I have a one worshipper(me) religion, or belief, that I take very seriously. Are you going to label my belief non-serious? I hope not, for I will be very offended. ;):yes:  

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

As I have mentioned before, I have seen a neighbor, (in a place I lived years ago), who claimed to me she respected God, and yet takes advantage of other people's stuff, and tried to do that with me. I think, what she did was wrong, and yet, for all the respect she claims she gives God, she wasn't punished for something she felt freely doing. 

 

Without being privy to more pertinent information, I would say she does not respect GOD and is only paying lip service.

It would be interesting if you had the chance, you try telling her that. See if she agrees with you. From what I could tell about her and her body language, she definitely believed in it, and felt she had a right to use it and take advantage of others. I think, she felt, that was how she was to get anything. 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

You know, one can respect something unseen for so long, before one realizes one can take advantage of it. 

 

I would think that is true with anything seen or unseen.

 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

You know, one can respect something unseen for so long, before one realizes one can take advantage of it. 

 

I would think that is true with anything seen or unseen.

 

I would mostly feel it's the unseen, since the seen can react back. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

It cannot be one over the other, and expected to be a peaceful way of life.

 

It can be.  The state will dictate that. 

Oh yeah, that's peaceful. :rolleyes: 

Quote

But our government does not establish a state religion.  That is ultimately left to the People (the nation is Christian,

Mostly Christian. And even that, it seems to me, those numbers are dwindling. 

Quote

the government is secular).  And because it is, the government can neither restrict religion (i.e. by removing icons).  As long as the government abides by that, one can only expect to have peace.  provided that any particular religion does not try to usurp the power of the government.  Humans are in government, so I don’t mean that they can’t seek divine guidance.  I think divine guidance would be all inclusive because of the precedence the Founding Fathers set by establishing a secular government.  I do not want to see Islam try to replace our Constitution with Sharia law and neither would I want to see a group like ‘The Moral Majority’ to seize power and bring back the Inquisition.

I think, what I don't think you see, is that granted no one should be restricted to seek divine guidance, but they shouldn't enforce it on others either. And when it's insisted within the area of government and the public, then all types of guidance, divine etc, has to be included, and that's get crowded. And, on that note, Atheists probably have the right to insist that their philosophy should be adhered to, if they are to be included. 

As for divine guidance being all inclusive, well, can all religions work in the same way, in one path? I would even think two varying Protestant would come to a cross roads in their practices, ............. like Baptists and congregational, maybe. Where does the line cross, when all religions follow the same practices and then it's all inclusive. 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

The existence of God is not a certainty for all.

 

That does not prove or disprove GOD.  It just means that some are indifferent to GOD.

Do you think that all, who don't believe in God, are indifferent to God? No, it doesn't mean they're indifferent, they just don't believe he exists. Are you saying, that I who grew up not reading religious books, not going to religious meetings, and having anything religious in the household at all, is just being indifferent to God? 

Indifferent?!?! I would think it would take a presence of something, to be indifferent to it. I have not seen any evidence of the orthodox God. I'm not saying he may not exist entirely, but considering he seemingly is not being shown as being around to prove his existence, would tell me, there is a big likely reason he doesn't exist. I'm not being indifferent to him, I just believe he exist, because I just don't see him. 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

You can't insist I have God in my heart or mind, because I grew up to not knowing about God at all.

 

And I wouldn’t want to, 

 Good! :tu:  I hope not. 

Quote

but because GOD is in mine, I would not want you to insist that all external representation of him is removed or even restricted.

That depends on where all that is. If it's in a public place, than everyone else, including me, will put all external representations there too. I wouldn't want you to not stop practicing your faith, because I know that is wrong. 

Keep in mind to which quote of mine, you replied to. I mentioned being told not to have God in my mind or heart, (cause you did mention that is what you wanted, right?) I wasn't talking about external representations of him, which is another subject. 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

So, expecting me to have something that didn't prove itself to me in the first place, how can I firmly believe honestly, it actually is there. 

 

That’s entirely up to you.  

I'm talking about your expectations, not my path. 

Quote

He probably did prove himself to you, you just weren’t receptive to it?? 

And how would that play out? For something that wants people to follow them, making it hard to follow, (not being receptive? Seriously?!) doesn't seem like a good plan to take. 

Quote

You might down the road which would be great or you never will.  If you are ever curious and I am in the right position, then I can help you to understand.  Although, there are probably others far better capable here than I.

I have mentioned, I have my own belief system. I do feel, I have been 'receptive' to aspects of my belief. I just don't think it's the orthodox God. (If you think it is, then you might want to talk to him to make himself better known) I don't need material things like the bible, or others to make me understand. I understand through my belief practices of my belief. 

I'm good. :tu:  So, don't you worry about me. 

So, the point is, you can't expect me to believe your religion, because it's not something to make a good job of showing itself. Hence, it can't through the process of not being in the areas like Church and such, to see it. 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

It just seems that this is boiling down to thinking it's a point of view that is doing the job, and not that it actually exists. And, any point of view can do the job, either that or the reverse. 

 

I would think it is a bit of both.  One’s thinking must be willing to accept the possibility.  If you are not ready, then you won’t believe.  No amount of force will change that.  One has to delve into the dimensions of time-space and thought.

You making this sound like something that only people who want to search for it, can get it. That's not the point. The point is, I don't think you can expect all to believe it, if they don't see it in the normal sense. 

Am I getting this wrong about your point? Did you not put here, that you think all should have God in their heart? 

2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

I'm trying to understand how some see respect for a higher power and thinking it keeps people in check in the same way that respect for our laws do.

 

I think that is a bit complex, but where do you think our laws come from? 

Many things, not just from religious point of views. 

Quote

Without GOD, Man would be living by his own morals.  Man’s morals are based on “doing unto others before they do unto you”.  GOD’s morals are based in right or wrong.  In other words, Man morals are subjective.  That creates inequality.

Do you think the bible was written by God, with no human writing down the words to it? What proves that it was all God, and not man assuming that God said that? So, in that mindset, that could be man writing down those morals and rules. 

And pretty much, man's morals are seemingly based on experience and observation, and seeing how right and wrong plays out in front of them. 

Since I grew up without religion, are you saying I don't know right or wrong? 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

While not banned in public places as a matter of law, most businesses don't want somebody preaching in front of their door and will run off anyone who makes themselves obnoxious, as is their right.  The property owner gets to decide who is trespassing and who is not.

Certainly atheists would not consider themselves a religion, but it is sometimes hard to see that when you're talking to them.

Doug

How many Atheists have you been talking to? ;)  :D  

Despite some's fervor to it, not all are like that. As I know, not all of each religion is like that either. Atheism is still something that doesn't believe in religion. 

And I believe, you're quite right about the businesses part of it. :yes:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I don’t think it matters if no country has ‘achieved’ it.  It’s not a matter of academics.

First I wasn't actually adressing you with my post, it was a question to Ellapennella. Second how can we discuss the link between communism and totalitarianism if we have no example of the former ? Such a discussion can only be theoretical.

The point I was trying to make is that people tend to throw around political labels without actually knowing what they mean.

It might come as a shock to you but I'm not going to defend communism, I don't like it, but I am going to try and make people use the terms correctly. Personally I'm partial to representative democracy and a market based economy. History shows that, with the appropriate checks and balances, this is by far the most effective solution.

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That goes with politics too, but all other forms of government (other than our Constitutional Republic) do not follow the rules and norms of society.  Our Founding Fathers railed against all these other forms as they were defined in the Declaration of Independence.  Then the rules and norms of society where established by the Constitution.  All other flavors of government do not respect the rights of the individual.  Only ours protects those rights.

I would have liked to comment on this, but I'm afraid that the secret police will come and take me away if I say anything critical about our political system. :rolleyes:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2/25/2019 at 1:47 AM, Will Due said:

 

Few things are one and the same Ella. But some things do go hand in hand sometimes.

 

 

Secular totalitarianism.

Pretty close to the same thing as the religious totalitarianism of time immemorial. But worse in my opinion.

Without secularism doing the hard work of freeing everyone from the religious oppression and persecution of old, we wouldn't have the religious freedom we all enjoy today. Like being free to discuss these issues in a place like this for example without ending up being burned at the stake. 

But now this very same secular mindset is vehemently attempting to sell us all into a new type of bondage. Slavery to something at least as bad if not worse (because of who is doing it); secular totalitarianism

And we're already seeing how some secularists are now using all of their tools to oppress, persecute and "burn at the stake" anyone who opposes them in their quest.

 

 

Do you fear an atheist viewpoint so much because of your upbringing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.