View Full Version : Why should....
B.H.
29 Jun 2009, 02:45 AM
Why should atheists and agnostics be the ones who rule society and the religious among the population be sidelined?
<BH goes and ducks for cover behind his couch>
Why should atheists and agnostics be the ones who rule society and the religious among the population be sidelined?
<BH goes and ducks for cover behind his couch>
They shouldn't. They aren't. That's an odd statement.
Maybe you are noticiing a shift. The people who know how to do things get the jobs of doing those things. Since religion of the strong belief variety is typically a result of ignorance of some kind, perhaps the jobs you are looking at require a higher degree of education in a broader variety of things.
Otherwise, :dunno:
HTH.
Jobar
29 Jun 2009, 03:16 AM
Why should the sane be given the job of running society, and the insane locked safely away in asylums?
;)
I'm joking, of course. But societies are best run by the most secular and realistic members of the populace; history has shown, I think, that the world is best governed by the worldly, instead of by the other-worldly.
Jobar
29 Jun 2009, 03:30 AM
More. As a practical example, consider the previous two US presidents. I'm sure that all will agree that Bill Clinton was quite secular in his approach to government, and that George W. Bush was quite religious. Is there anyone who cares to argue that Bush was the better president, by any yardstick?
Note I'm not asking which was the better *man*, in the sense of more moral or saintly- which was the most effective leader, in terms of the country and the whole world? I think anyone who would choose Bush over Clinton in that respect *does* belong in an asylum!
B.H.
29 Jun 2009, 04:04 AM
Jobar said:
Why should the sane be given the job of running society, and the insane locked safely away in asylums?
Even I had to laugh at that one.:D
B.H.
29 Jun 2009, 04:06 AM
Why should atheists and agnostics be the ones who rule society and the religious among the population be sidelined?
<BH goes and ducks for cover behind his couch>
They shouldn't. They aren't. That's an odd statement.
Maybe you are noticiing a shift. The people who know how to do things get the jobs of doing those things. Since religion of the strong belief variety is typically a result of ignorance of some kind, perhaps the jobs you are looking at require a higher degree of education in a broader variety of things.
Otherwise, :dunno:
HTH.
Perhaps. However, it seem to me that more people have formal education now than they ever had in the past but it seems like everything is falling apart.
B.H.
29 Jun 2009, 04:09 AM
More. As a practical example, consider the previous two US presidents. I'm sure that all will agree that Bill Clinton was quite secular in his approach to government, and that George W. Bush was quite religious. Is there anyone who cares to argue that Bush was the better president, by any yardstick?
Note I'm not asking which was the better *man*, in the sense of more moral or saintly- which was the most effective leader, in terms of the country and the whole world? I think anyone who would choose Bush over Clinton in that respect *does* belong in an asylum!
Don't even try to trap me there. When it comes to character I would say Clinton had more than Bush, regardless of Clinton messing around.
Perhaps. However, it seem to me that more people have formal education now than they ever had in the past but it seems like everything is falling apart.
Two comments here:
Don't look at the past through rose-tinted spectacles. Things were always falling apart.
It's more complicated than being just about whether people have formal education or not. It's to do with a combination of knowledge and the ability to use it in conjunction with critical thinking. The proportion of people in any society who measure up in that respect is not necessarily going to rise just because more are getting formal education. Plenty of idiots graduate.
Eudaimonist
29 Jun 2009, 09:19 AM
Why should atheists and agnostics be the ones who rule society and the religious among the population be sidelined?
Why indeed? This wouldn't be my view.
eudaimonia,
Mark
LoneWolf
29 Jun 2009, 09:53 AM
Why should apples be purple?
tjakey
29 Jun 2009, 11:02 AM
In my view, to the extent that "things are falling apart," those things can be directly tied to religion. Suicide bombings, oppressions of women and gay people, religious tyrants clinging to power any way they can...
HinduWoman
29 Jun 2009, 05:17 PM
Why not? That is an even more important question.
There's religious and religious. I have a problem with leaders who hear voices from their god telling them to do things.
I also have a problem if they use their position as a means to proseletyse or impose their religion on other people.
Free in Freeport
29 Jun 2009, 07:23 PM
Nobody is sidelined. Just constitutionally prevented (in theory) from forcing your religion down other's throats by making it public policy. Or something.
Take off your hairshirt already. The "Pity me, I'm a christian in an atheist world" act is getting real old. Or just pray to your god that we'll be nicer to you.
sohy
29 Jun 2009, 08:38 PM
Where did you get the idea that atheists think society/government should be run by other atheists? There have certainly been some pretty nasty atheists running governments. Corruption and oppression are not traits that are only common to religious leaders. They seem to be an all too common trait of human leaders, both secular and religious. And, it's not just atheists that object to theocratic systems of rule.
Bane
29 Jun 2009, 08:40 PM
I'd have to say that religious intolerance from anyone is not a good idea. What is a good idea is for people to be judged on their own merit.:) Of course, because we're people, we'll find some reason to exclude somebody and label everybody. Excuse my cynicism, but that's my experience of people in general, and I am certainly not saying discrimination is acceptable, just that it happens one way or another. It's probably a remnant from some tribal culture we haven't gotten rid of.
tjakey
29 Jun 2009, 08:52 PM
Or one might suggest that religions of one type or the other have been running things for the last few millennia and have managed to fuck things up pretty thoroughly. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to give the other side a crack at it?
Garnet
29 Jun 2009, 10:32 PM
Why should atheists and agnostics be the ones who rule society and the religious among the population be sidelined?
<BH goes and ducks for cover behind his couch>
By "rule society" I'm going to assume you mean elected officials who run things. Why should religion or, a lack there of, be any kind of qualification?
Goldie
29 Jun 2009, 11:27 PM
Religion should have nothing to do with it...anymore than what kind of toilet paper you use.
Get real.:rolleyes:
BigEvil
30 Jun 2009, 03:29 AM
Religion should have nothing to do with it...anymore than what kind of toilet paper you use.
I would never vote for anyone who just used one-ply. Those folks are loonies.
Garnet
30 Jun 2009, 10:37 PM
Yeah, well, they're not as crazy as those people who put the roll on the spindle with the paper coming out from under the roll. Those are true nut jobs.
Jobar
30 Jun 2009, 10:57 PM
Or one might suggest that religions of one type or the other have been running things for the last few millennia and have managed to fuck things up pretty thoroughly. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to give the other side a crack at it?
The Soviets did about as badly as most theocratic governments, I think.
OTOH, many of the US Founding Fathers were extremely secular, if not actually atheists. And they did a pretty fine job, all in all.
rlogan
30 Jun 2009, 11:38 PM
It's more complicated than being just about whether people have formal education or not. It's to do with a combination of knowledge and the ability to use it in conjunction with critical thinking. The proportion of people in any society who measure up in that respect is not necessarily going to rise just because more are getting formal education. Plenty of idiots graduate.
Right on.
JamesBannon
01 Jul 2009, 12:05 AM
Well, it's better than a theocracy any day of the week. In actual fact, religious beliefs, or the lack thereof, shouldn't make any difference to the effectiveness of any administrator / representative. Sadly, however, that does not appear to be the case.
Schneibster
01 Jul 2009, 08:32 AM
Yeah, well, they're not as crazy as those people who put the roll on the spindle with the paper coming out from under the roll. Those are true nut jobs.Actually, there's a good reason for that. Ever had cats? Ever seen that commercial where the cat is pulling all the toilet paper off the roll?
Yeah.
Schneibster
01 Jul 2009, 08:33 AM
Why should atheists and agnostics be the ones who rule society and the religious among the population be sidelined?
<BH goes and ducks for cover behind his couch>I'm actually curious why you would think that's the case, or that anyone would think it should be. This came from somewhere, what's the source?
Christina
01 Jul 2009, 11:56 AM
Yeah, well, they're not as crazy as those people who put the roll on the spindle with the paper coming out from under the roll. Those are true nut jobs.Actually, there's a good reason for that. Ever had cats? Ever seen that commercial where the cat is pulling all the toilet paper off the roll?
Yeah.
I was going to leave that one alone because I'm not the greatest example of not-crazy but ours comes out from under because of a dog that used to grab it and run through the house with it if it came out from the top. There is a reason.
/TP derail
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.