I am putting this question forward to the Free-thinking community/ Atheists community. If in the near future a particular country that has declared itself as a purely Circular State is being threatened militarily by Religious or Religion aligned countries, would you take up arms in defence of such a state. If you would do that what would be your motivating reasons and if you would not what would be the reasons?
Think of Jews young men all over the globe who would have dual citizenship so that they would go and fight in Israel. Would a time come when Atheists and Free thinkers align themselves with such a country that they would rather fosake their respective countries of birth, in order to militarily defend the "homeland"?
will do, hey.
I have taken up 'words' more than once. If some 'over-the-top' nuttyness were to start, where scientists, free thinkers, atheists, etc, were arrested for 'crimes against god', I might be willing to reconsider my pacifist ethical model.
Yes Jame Cox, I think that's my stance , and the reason behind the question. I have a very strong military background, most of my adult training is in defending the course of the masses. Therefore I surely would not hesitate to storm the jails and free the "scientists, freethinkers and atheists who would be arrested for crimes against gd". Sorry James I do not think I am that much of a pacifist....
I guess after reading 'On Walden Pond' and additional writings, and then placing myself at the moment of Emerson's question, I would have to choose...
I think part of adopting atheism/shedding theism is not sinking to the same level as those who fight for some imaginary ideals. I'd imagine that many wars throughout history essentially began with some version of the following statement: "My god has a bigger d*#k than your god. Let's fight it out."
Atheism isn't a set of ideals that must be defended. It's the absence of dangerous ideals that inhibit human progress as a whole. That's how I see it, at least.
Now, that being said, if someone were to march on my home and start rearranging the furniture and killing/torturing/subjugating people in the name of some god, I'd kill them something fierce. But only in defense of my person, loved ones and innocents that cannot fight for themselves. I can't imagine attacking anyone in the name of atheism. That strikes me as hippocritical on some level.
From what Matthew X is saying, Freethinkers may (at some point) when the backs are against the walls have to resort to killing even if it is" in defense of my person, loved ones and innocents that cannot fight for themselves"? This is not defending Atheism, as a stance of choice, but defending defenseless humans who are forced not to think freely.
I don't feel that atheism needs defending because it's not a finite, concrete philosophy or belief system. It's the absence of one. The way I see it, I can't defend an absence of something.
Now, if someone were to begin forcing people to adhere to a specific belief system that I feel is hurtful overall, I will fight tooth and nail against it.
There's a difference.
No, I wouldn't violently defend anything as narrow as atheism. I would defend myself against the threat of physical harm regardless of the motivation behind it, and I would defend my current home against any state imposition on beliefs one way or the other. That means I would fight for the right to be an atheist (amongst other things), but I wouldn't fight for atheism itself or for any atheism-branded ideologues or homelands. Atheism is not my heritage and it is, ultimately, not a critical aspect of my identity. It is an unrealistic scenario in which Canada would attack such a state and I would be forced to choose on the basis of religious philosophy or affiliation.
Point taken. And jugding from the differing stance by free-thinkers on this site, I feel humanity is evolving towards breaking free from mob psychology that has been perpetuated by bronze age philosophies and myths.
I wouldn't take up arms in defense of atheism because atheism isn't a belief system or a religion. However, I would take up arms to fight against theocracy. Only if all other options were exhausted.
If perchance you mean "secular state," the answer would be no. I won't kill people for atheism.
@Unseen, but would you defend your right not to embrace the gods myths?