If atheists ruled the world

If you want to know what a world ruled by atheists would look like, just read Huxley's Brave New World. All societies run by theists have turned out poorly, but one run by atheists would be a technocratic nightmare.

Originally posted by rwingett
If you want to know what a world ruled by atheists would look like, just read Huxley's Brave New World. All societies run by theists have turned out poorly, but one run by atheists would be a technocratic nightmare.

that would make agnostics the perfect candidates to run the world.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
that would make agnostics the perfect candidates to run the world.

Don't get me started.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
that would make agnostics the perfect candidates to run the world.

You mean the "no nothings".

The US Constitution is quite Agnostic in its proclamations. The USA has been a shining light upon the world for a couple centuries. But alas, all good things must come to an end eventually.

If the USA maintained its rule based completely on the Constitution, we'd be just fine. But our fallen nature and the "angel of light's" dominion over the world has really done a number on things.

Oh well.

It's going to be great when the new Earth is established but until then, things will most assuredly, increasingly, and expotentially, get worse.

Have a great day!

The US Constitution is quite Agnostic in its proclamations. The USA has been a shining light upon the world for a couple centuries. But alas, all good things must come to an end eventually.

If the USA maintained its rule based completely on the Constitution, we'd be just fine. But our fallen nature and the "angel of light's" dominion over the world has really done a number on things.

Oh well.

It's going to be great when the new Earth is established but until then, things will most assuredly--increasingly and exponentially--get worse.

Have a great day!

Originally posted by sumydid
The US Constitution is quite Agnostic in its proclamations. The USA has been a shining light upon the world for a couple centuries. But alas, all good things must come to an end eventually.

If the USA maintained its rule based completely on the Constitution, we'd be just fine. But our fallen nature and the "angel of light's" dominion over the world has ...[text shortened]... hings will most assuredly, increasingly, and expotentially, get worse.

Have a great day!

Sing it again, Sunny. Excuse me, you already did.

Originally posted by rwingett
If you want to know what a world ruled by atheists would look like, just read Huxley's Brave New World. All societies run by theists have turned out poorly, but one run by atheists would be a technocratic nightmare.

The trouble is all societies have people in them, and people can/will screw up
the very best systems without fail.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
You mean the "no nothings".

you mean "know" nothings don't you? knowing nothing would surely place them on the highest standard of ruling quality.

Originally posted by rwingett
If you want to know what a world ruled by atheists would look like, just read Huxley's Brave New World. All societies run by theists have turned out poorly, but one run by atheists would be a technocratic nightmare.

Other than the flying cars and the test tube babies it's really not all that different. Not sociologically anyway.

Huxley did better than Orwell in predicting the future.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You mean the "no nothings".

We're all 'know-nothings' here Mr Hinds. Some of us have difficulty in accepting this, however.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Other than the flying cars and the test tube babies it's really not all that different. Not sociologically anyway.

Huxley did better than Orwell in predicting the future.

Things were much brighter in the society of Huxley's Island. Of course, economic forces doomed that society (which is probably how it would have been), but the society itself ran smoothly, and was not run by theists. It was run by atheistic mystics.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you mean "know" nothings don't you? knowing nothing would surely place them on the highest standard of ruling quality.

That's right. I have a habit of mixing up words that sound alike.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That's right. I have a habit of mixing up words that sound alike.

just wanted to make sure, "no nothings" could also apply in this case at an elevated philosophical level.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]"They might find that on the other rocks where secularism was not valued, the majority
faith soon developed into a tyrannical theocracy."


Which is a strong argument against theism and religion don't you think?


Anyhow, the way I was envisioning this, Is that groups get together to form a society for
running one, or more, of these habita sts
to colonise one of these habitats and I can't see any reason why that would be hard.[/b]

But you seem to be arguing atm that it wouldn't be practically possible to form a group of atheists
to colonise one of these habitats and I can't see any reason why that would be hard

I'm arguing that any effort to form a specific group of ANYTHING (Christians, Atheists, Knicks fans, Beer Enthusiasts, whatever) would eventually end up becoming a "theocracy" (or an Atheocracy, Knickocracy, Beerocracy, whateverocracy) in which outsiders would be subjected to repression. (No matter what you do, there WILL eventually be plenty of "outsiders".)

The idea behind secularism is that "outsiders" are fully included in the society BY DEFINITION - with everyone guaranteed the same freedoms, rights, and responsibilities. But this means accepting that society will be pluralistic and diverse.

Your rock may still retain an atheist majority, but unless they're willing to harshly repress the non-atheists, they will have to find a way to share power with them.