Would you support an Atheistic Theocracy?

[Tycoon101]

Would you support a government that professes it's belief in Atheism, or it's total rejection of other religeons?

It would make it law that all citizens must be Atheistic, and no other religions may be permitted into the society. All subjects would be taught from an Atheistic point of view, allowing no hindrance of science. There would be no conflicts of Church and State, there would be very few moral dilemmas...

What do you think? Is it utopian, or not?

 

[Stylesjl]

Supressing religion causes tension eg The Soviet Union

The Soviet Union no longer exists.

 

[Fifty]

Should have bumped this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112665


Atheism is not a religion.

 

[Arcadian83]

It is not an oxymoron (or maybe his wording was not techically correct), it is enforcing the absense of religion.

I dislike it just as much as any religious theocracy. I suspect in the absense of religion, people would worship the government, an that does not lead anywhere pleasant....

 

[ComradeDavo]

No I would not support it.

I would however like an athiest government which lets religions exist, but not get any privaleges/influence.

 

[Tycoon101]

It is not an oxymoron (or maybe his wording was not techically correct), it is enforcing the absense of religion.

Yes, that's what I meant.

But I did want some skeptics to look at a thread with an interesting title...

 

[Irish Caesar]

Of course not.

And as a Catholic, I wouldn't want to live in a Catholic theocracy either.

 

[Fifty]

Theocracy is a form of government in which the divine power (in monotheisms the one God) governs an earthly human state, either in person (e.g. as incarnation in a human) or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s) (e.g. church, temple, mosque), either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s).

I fail to see how it is possible that an atheist theocracy could exist!


Anyways, I think that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want privately. I do think, though, that religious considerations should have no bearing whatsoever on issues of public policy and (of course) science.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

no one tells me how to think, especially not the state...so....no.

 

[Norton II]

I would never support any type of theocracy, whether atheistic or otherwise (I'm an atheist, BTW). Any government that attempts to outlaw or supress any beliefs or opinions on any subject whatsoever is by defenition tyrannical.
It should also be noted that religion and science are not inherently at odds. Many of the greatest scientists and philosophers in history have been theists of one type or another. Sir Isaac Newton, for example, was a staunch Puritan.

I suspect in the absense of religion, people would worship the government, an that does not lead anywhere pleasant....

No, it certainly doesn't.

 

[s.c.dude]

atheist theocracy=communism

 

[Mr. Dictator]

atheist theocracy=communism

if you threw in the economic system too

a government that bans religion is just an atheist theocracy, the fact that the best known example was also communist doesnt mean they all have to be.

 

[Trajan12]

I would not, as a matter of fact I would fight it to the death. Or I could always move .

 

[Mise]

No I would not support it.

I would however like an athiest government which lets religions exist, but not get any privaleges/influence.

Ditto ^^

 

[GenMarshall]

No I will not like an Fascist Atheistic Theocracy telling me that I cannot be a Shintoist Roman Catholic and practace my faith .

 

[warpus]

I would not support such a government.

I value freedom of expression. People should be allowed to follow whatever misguided religious beliefs they want, as long as it does not harm others and does not interfere with the state.

 

[Pyrite]

I'm too irreverant towards everything for me to support an institution that declares absolute knowledge.

Not even that they're wrong, it's just kind of boring.

 

[Israelite9191]

I fail to see how it is possible that an atheist theocracy could exist!

A theocracy means that all must abide by the beliefs of the state. If a state is Atheist, then that means the beliefs of the state are that religion is wrong and science right. If subjects of that state disagree with this and believe that religion is correct and/or science is wrong (and, of course, these do not necessarily go together) then they are breaking the laws of that state. Thus, an Atheist theocracy is not only plausible, but potentially extraordinarily dangerous.

To answer the original questin of the thread, no, I would not. I am a devout Jew, however even ignoring that I would not support a theocracy of any sort.

 

[mdwh]

I think atheistic theocracy is an oxymoron, and a society which outlaws religion would be better described as antitheistic, but I get what you mean.

Note, a theocracy often doesn't mean that all citizens must be that religion, but rather that laws are based on that religion. Laws can't be based on atheism as such, since "atheism" on its own isn't a religion or moral code, but I do believe that laws should be based on evidence and reason, not "religion/God says so".

Similarly, teaching subjects from an "Atheistic point of view" doesn't make sense, unless you mean keeping God out of school, in which case I agree (although it's okay to teach *about* religions in an appropriate class). In particular, science lessons should teach the scientific point of view - which is nontheistic, in that it doesn't invoke unfalsifiable hypotheses such as "God".

 

[GenMarshall]

I am supprised that CurtSibling is not lurking, since I know that he would support an Atheistic Theocracy that opresses the religious.