I am curious what you all think about a city that is only only for science. No religious institutions are allowed to be built in the city. Science and free thinkers only.
The best example I could give would be a island similar to the show "LOST" Or perhaps even the video game Bio Shock (with out the crazy stuff) Yes I have a 360! Or hell, even SeaLab 2021 they implode in every episode!
Would a city of this stature ultimately implode just like Lost and Bio Shock/SeaLab 2021? Yes I know those shows are sci-fi. But really!
I would love to hear your ideas and thoughts oh this science/atheist city!
The coolest part for me about a city like this is that there would be a true community. Where everyone you meet is atheist! How cool would that be!?
Why are you afraid so much of discrimination based on bad thinking? It is like saying that the medical university discriminates against stupid and undereducated people when they select from the applicants. Yes, it does, and it is normal and necessary. If the applicant improves, he or she can get accepted.
A working, happy and sustainable (!) community of atheists would provide a great example for theists. Or it wouldn't, if space travel failed to do that.
There are plenty of people who have a bigger IQ than you and who are experts in certain fields, even science, and who also believe in a deity. But even if that wasn't the case, I want people, no matter how intelligent, to have equal rights.
Plus, read again the part where it would be a dogma, an attack to free thought, to tell people that they HAVE to believe something in order to be citizens of that state. And what if evidence surfaced that made the existence of a deity probable? Free thought means just that... free. It would be a blackmail to ask people to stick to their beliefs, or non-beliefs, if they want to be a part of your society.
Anyway, I wouldn't want to be a part of a close-minded community.
Freethought is not composed only from free... that 'thought' in the end should be your clue. That's the whole point: the majority of the religious people haven't become religious by thinking and by reading how much they can, with an open mind, about their religion. They either inherited their religion or they found religion when they were at the bottom and saw it as the top of the hill.
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason. If you research every religion, you don't get to the conclusion that the god you worship exists, and that there is any reason whatsoever to still be a part of that religion. You can be a freethinker and still think that there is a god, but, so far, there is no logical reason for someone to be a part of any religion and/or live your life based on that particular god you believe exists, while all the evidence points to the contrary.
And how is it freethought when you have been brainwashed even since before you were able to speak? Is that freethought? I don't think so. Like I've said, freethought means to form your opinions based on logic, on reason... After you do that, and still think or believe there is a god, fine. But, until then, you're just a zombie to me, that has no idea what's going on around you and the only thing you want is meat.
A close-minded community? What's more close-minded than living your life based on what other people tell you? Unless you take open-minded and close-minded literally, it's exactly the opposite.
And what religious person would want to live in a religious-free area? I keep reading about atheists complaining there are so many religious people in their area, and that they live in bible belts and all sort of things like this, why would it be different for a religious person? It doesn't make any sense.
Sure, I understand the need to protect everyone's rights, but I don't think it will come to violating someone's right. If you are one of the only religious people in an area, you leave before anyone can notice that you're one of the only religious people in that area. Religious people are confident because they know there are more delusional people like them that will always back each other up. It's the same with any type of person. If you have similar people to support you, you feel like you're Superman. Why do people that are different are so miserable? Because they don't have anyone to relate to, they have no one to understand and support them.
The problem is how you make it a religious-free area. Do you ban religious buildings, religious art, or what? How do you do it without discriminating against religious people?
If it's only by having secular laws, I'm afraid you will still have religious people living in the area. There are many places with completely secular laws where all kinds of religions are being practiced. I just can't see how you could get a religious-free area without stomping on the rights of people.
And one final thought: are theists or religious people that you want to get rid of? There are atheists that are religious in their convictions, and I'm not talking only about Buddhists here.
Well, if the laws aren't being broken, I don't have any problem with anybody, regardless of their preferences, but I would have to know those laws to be a little more specific.
I'm sorry if I haven't made myself understood... I may have said it in this discussion too, but I have said it many times that if everybody that wants to belong to a religion, that wants to believe in a god, would get to that religion and to that god by knowing where the line is drawn between facts and fiction, and not being influenced by others in making such a decision, and in return not influencing themselves other people, and they would not affect others at all based on their beliefs, I would not even think about religion, unless it would be mentioned by another person. If someone knows that so far all the evidence does not support the existence of a god, but still wants to believe there is a god, and there is an afterlife for them, that's fine. I don't care at all. I would care if it would be someone close to me, and I would try to understand that person's reasons, but, otherwise, I wouldn't even think about it. That's what I really have in mind when I think of what the most ideal environment to live in would be.
I haven't broken any rights so far, and I don't plan to ever do it, unless an extreme situation will arise - you never know.
I would want to get rid of those that cause damage to this planet and to others based on their religion and/or because their god asks them to. When I say 'get rid of' I don't think about killing them, I'm thinking about rehabilitation, because they would break the law(s), and because I do care about all people. Theists, religious people... these are just labels. What would you call the people I have described? I don't want to generalize, so I just described them.
And how can an atheist be religious? I only know two meanings of the word 'religious' and the only one that makes sense is that an atheist is extremely scrupulous. Is that what you meant? If not, please let me know what you really meant by that, because the other meaning of the word doesn't fit well next to the word 'atheist'. Unless you're trying to fool people for your own advantage, you can't have belief in a god or teach religion and be an atheist. For me, that doesn't make any sense, unless we're talking about a really specific situation.
Intellectual honesty does not necessarily correlate with IQ. (What is IQ anyway? Even the Intelligent Design community can't tell you that.)
Yes, people must have equal rights to acquire information, to express opinions, etc. But I must stress (even if this is an atheist forum) that no belief holds any kind of value. If we were to be contacted by a being of powers in the scale of the supernatural, well, then I would retreat or die from a terminal world view collapse. (Since just occurrence wouldn't allow for experimentation, yet it would be obvious for everyone.)
So, it's not about free thought or close mindedness. It's sticking to a method of gaining information which has served us well so far (and this method even allows for the critique of itself, fyi). Because what's relevant is what's true.
I understand and I would love such a place, but I also mentioned under what conditions. A place without theism could exist because of various reasons, some of which I don't agree with. This is why I can't generalize on how I would feel about it.
Also, beyond the thought experience, there is the aspect of practicality which could also be discussed, wouldn't you agree? My problem here is that there is no practical way to get a theist-free zone without denying certain human rights.
This is an interesting idea, I've been thinking about it a lot myself.
First, I think it would be nice to create a city of some kind of territory which is based on the most modern and rational approach we can come up with. The main point of this wouldn't be just people being atheist and happy about it (everyone with a bit of intellectual honesty is an atheist), but trying out unorthodox, but scientifically supported ideas about the design of a city or society. Like, should it be egalitarian or stratified? Should it's economy utilize money, or some other form of resource distribution? (I think making money off of money is an idiotic concept, so that should be avoided at all costs.) How would aberrant behaviour, and thus the need for law and law enforcement be minimalized? What is the level of control needed, if you got the principles right?
I think every inhabitant of such a city must use the scientific method of deciding what's right or correct, and be perfectly aware of it.
I guess such a city would be better, but I can't really support it with evidence right now. Maybe it would be too rigid, clean and free of environmental stimulus, so it might not be ideal for humans, I don't know, but it certainly is an interesting thought experiment.
Oh, and you might like the concepts of the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project, if I may advertise them :)
Ah, and one more thing: in the secular (yet) country I live in, theist people are not as much a pain in the ass as they seem to be in the US, they are not really explicit about their stupidity here.