What ideal do you hate the most?

[Stylesjl]

Theocracy

Beleive in god alone is cause for concern, a Theocracy is dangerous and should be treated as hostile

 

[MattJek]

Theocracy

Beleive in god alone is cause for concern, a Theocracy is dangerous and should be treated as hostile

For some reason, I believe atheism is more scary: Having no beliefs an nothing to live for

 

[Perfection]

For some reason, I believe atheism is more scary: Having no beliefs an nothing to live for

What makes a diety necceasary to give life meaning?

 

[HawkeyeGS]

For some reason, I believe atheism is more scary: Having no beliefs an nothing to live for

I don't believe that. Simply because someone doesn't believe in some form of divine being watching over the world does not mean they live for nothing. If anything it means they will make their life count here and now rather than 'live it up in heaven'. I do not see any reason for a God to be required but I have beliefs in over things. I believe that simply leaving the world a slightly better place than you found it is good enough reward in itself. Why do you need to live forever if you live a good life for 70-80 years?

 

[AngryPants]

I picked other. You left out: Al Gore's mom thinking it was ok for her to not get an abortion. That gets my vote.

 

[Arminius]

Theocracy!

 

[Mirc]

For some reason, I believe atheism is more scary: Having no beliefs an nothing to live for

I agree perfectly!

 

[Sidhe]

I don't believe that. Simply because someone doesn't believe in some form of divine being watching over the world does not mean they live for nothing. If anything it means they will make their life count here and now rather than 'live it up in heaven'. I do not see any reason for a God to be required but I have beliefs in over things. I believe that simply leaving the world a slightly better place than you found it is good enough reward in itself. Why do you need to live forever if you live a good life for 70-80 years?

Virtues of the religous

a)morals, not only that your just better morally than atheists
b)having a reason to live
c)self righteous knowledge that somehow and for some reason your better than the doubters and the arilegous

Virtues? of the non religous

a) amoral: have no moral code
b) have no reason to live, move from one meaningless experience to the next in, in constant suffering and pain
c) scum

Please, will the religous get over themselves for five minutes, it is possible to be a good kind and loving person with a positive and profound influence on the world without believeing in God, why do religous people think they have life down, and that atheists lives must be hell? If they were hell they'd probably turn to religion

 

[LLXerxes]

Where is Racism in this whole discussion?

Rascism, like terrorism, isn't really an ideal. It's just a practice.

Despotism! Come on, how much simpler does it have to get? It's practically some dictator, cruely running a country (in most cases), doing everything by his rule, not regarding anybody else's opinion.

 

[classical_hero]

For those who voted for Theocracy. You guys have no meaning of the word. Unless you have god ruling himself, then Theocracy is not a reality and thus it should not even be on the list. There is a better term for this. Those who want to establish religious rule is totally different, because there are those who believe in the morals from a religious book, but they are not going to say that everyone must abide by these rules. Thus Theocracy is not really an option. Literally Thocracy mean God Rule, so unless you can see God himself ruling, then you really should not be choosing this option.

 

[Reno]

For those who voted for Theocracy. You guys have no meaning of the word.

Is that so? From Wikipedia...

The term theocracy is commonly used to describe a form of government in which a religion or faith plays the dominant role. Properly speaking, it refers to a form of government in which the organs of the religious sphere replace or dominate the organs of the political sphere.

 

[classical_hero]

Is that so? From Wikipedia...

Etymologically is what I am going for. Literally Theocracy is from two Greek words meaing God and Rule. From the wiki definition, it is what some religious people think God would have them to do, which is totally diferent.

 

[The Capitalist]

Theocracy is by far the most dangerous form of government that any country would befallen into,especially in this vast and rapid world of fast change,that can definately make them ripe for being conquered,think of what happen to Afganistan.They insist on having the masses be governed by a priestly caste and monopolize thoughts.Similar to Roman Catholicism and ancient Egypt.Orthodoxical beliefs that discourage independant thinking(which can prevent innovations and new inventions for monetary means) and kill off anyone who is unconventional.Today's belief must always be yesterday.

 

[Fifty]

Etymologically is what I am going for. Literally Theocracy is from two Greek words meaing God and Rule. From the wiki definition, it is what some religious people think God would have them to do, which is totally diferent.

The meaning of words change. It happens. In 2006, it seems reasonable to take the word for what it means in 2006. You must have a really hard time talking about anything if you use the Etymological root of the word as its meaning today.

 

[The Tollan]

An alternative term that can be used is this (though whether the term Church can be applied to certain religious can be debated):

Ecclesiocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The term ecclesiocracy is used to describe a form of government dominated by a religious leader or body in the name of God, as opposed to the literal rule of God. The components of the word are "ecclesios" (church) and "kratein" (to rule). The term means “rule by the Church”.