3 ms·
Because of the prisoner's dilemma. It is more often than not beneficial to a given belief system, for that belief system to suppress alternative beliefs. Variou
by antibasilisk 4y ago
Because of the prisoner's dilemma. It is more often than not beneficial to a given belief system, for that belief system to suppress alternative beliefs. Various expressions of atheism are subject to this too.
We see this more explicitly in China and France, but we are also beginning to see it in other areas of the western world primarily using soft power, such as by funding subversive institutions and figures.
As with the prisoner's dilemma, there is no good reason for religious people to play the game with their hands tied behind their backs.
- wkat4242 4y agoI don't really see this as a "game". As an atheist I'm perfectly fine with people having beliefs. What I do have a problem with, is them imposing their values and morals on me, or judging me by them. They should keep that within their own communities. Also note that many religions disagree on many things, and they all believe they are the one true right one, yet this is literally impossible. But I would not wish to suppress other beliefs as long as they don't impose their values upon atheists or followers of other belief systems. And if they do try to do so my problem is with that imposition alone. One of the things I never really grasp is how much hate is coming from religious groups regarding what people do in the bedroom. Something that does not affect or hurt them at all. I never understand the reason for this.
- antibasilisk 4y ago>As an atheist I'm perfectly fine with people having beliefs. This rings hollow, because as soon as we want to police our own communities according to our laws suddenly it becomes 'you are sexist, you are homophobic, you are anti-democratic, now hand over your children, your wealth and your guns'. >What I do have a problem with, is them imposing their values and morals on me, or judging me by them. They should keep that within their own communities. So that we can instead have your morals and values imposed on us? >But I would not wish to suppress other beliefs as long as they don't impose their values upon atheists or followers of other belief systems. And if they do try to do so my problem is with that imposition alone. So you would have no problem with Christians fining other Christians for premarital sex, or imprisoning women for having abortions, or Muslims flogging other Muslims for engaging in sodomy? Hell, what if we just don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple? >Something that does not affect or hurt them at all. I never understand the reason for this. Our morals are based on our religious texts. It has nothing to do with whether we feel 'affected' in the short term.
- hydrok9 4y agoWhy does this make it beneficial to outlaw athiesm?
- antibasilisk 4y agoReligious people generally necessarily believe that religiosity is good and atheism is bad. So suppressing atheism is clearly in our interest.
- skissane 4y agoMany religious people believe that voluntary religiosity is good and forced religiosity is bad.
- antibasilisk 4y agoOnly because they haven't understood the situation.
- hydrok9 4y agoI highly doubt you understand the situation as well as you'd like to think. You're calling for a theocracy, and I assume forced re-education and/or mass murder of non-religious people. This, in your mind, is the best way to have a stable society? And you came to this conclusion because of the influence of some shitty, middle-brow Youtubers and their click-bait? Bizarre.
- antibasilisk 4y agoIt's not as bizarre as perhaps you might hope, you would be surprised at the number of people coming to similar conclusions and who trod a similar path to get there. People like Daniel Haqiqatjou and Nick Fuentes didn't pop up out of nowhere, and they're just the tip of the iceberg.
- 4y ago