My Own Atheist State

[guilo]

Social norms in modern day countries are still influenced by religious values and freedom inhibiting laws such as:
1) Laws against public nudity
2) Laws against polygamy
3) Laws against marijuana (no reason to differentiate it among other stimulants such as alcohol and tobacco)
4) Laws against euthanasia.
5) Laws against homosexuality
6) Laws against choice of pregnancy termination

There are many more such laws, especially in Shariah governed countries such as Pakistan, where blasphemy is an offense punishable by death.

I want to start this thread as a kind of dream of a state governed by reason alone. Let's discuss the merits of laws currently enforced and laws we would like to enforce, and how we would regulate laws which allow euthanasia and abortion.

What would be our short term goals, our long term goals, our contribution to the world at large and our political system?

The reason I bring this up is because I find that atheists and agnostics tend to agree much easier with one another and if sufficient reasonable support can be given for anything, it tends to be accepted unilaterally within the community.

Maybe we can convince the UN to set apart our own little promised land somewhere some time in the future! :yes:

 

[dallas1125]

1) Laws against public nudity

Im surprised, but why do you support this?

 

[SLAMH]

Laws against polygamy

I don't think that Religions are against polygamy. I think it is the moderns norms and values that inhibit this.

 

[Reptillian]

The founders of the United States dreamt of a government based on the lessons of the enlightenment, where decisions were made using reason. Ideally you want an environment where citizens are free to rely on their own reason and not coerced into choices by authority. Unfortunately, when you forget to properly educate citizens they are easily manipulated into giving their freedom of decision to others with their own agenda. In a democracy education is vital. People need to be taught critical thinking and how to reason, not just factual information and skills.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

1)
Laws against public nudity

I personally believe one should only were clothes for health reasons such as protection from the cold or for people with fair skin to be protected from UV sunlight.

 

[Reptillian]

I personally believe one should only were clothes for health reasons such as protection from the cold or for people with fair skin to be protected from UV sunlight.

I'd like to add fat people and old people to that list.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even in a purely heathen state, we'll still be affected by our cultural backgrounds, & we'll disagree about what to ban or allow.
Of course, the exception to this is Revoltistan. I am sole ruler, & my word is law.

 

[gnomon]

It's always funny when threads like this wind up in the "Same Faiths" forum.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's always funny when threads like this wind up in the "Same Faiths" forum.

Maybe we need a "same un-faith" forum, eh?

 

[fantome profane]

Social norms in modern day countries are still influenced by religious values and freedom inhibiting laws such as:
1) Laws against public nudity
2) Laws against polygamy
3) Laws against marijuana (no reason to differentiate it among other stimulants such as alcohol and tobacco)
4) Laws against euthanasia.
5) Laws against homosexuality
6) Laws against choice of pregnancy termination

There are many more such laws, especially in Shariah governed countries such as Pakistan, where blasphemy is an offense punishable by death.

I want to start this thread as a kind of dream of a state governed by reason alone. Let's discuss the merits of laws currently enforced and laws we would like to enforce, and how we would regulate laws which allow euthanasia and abortion.

What would be our short term goals, our long term goals, our contribution to the world at large and our political system?

The reason I bring this up is because I find that atheists and agnostics tend to agree much easier with one another and if sufficient reasonable support can be given for anything, it tends to be accepted unilaterally within the community.

Maybe we can convince the UN to set apart our own little promised land somewhere some time in the future! :yes:

An interesting list of libertarian values, but what does it have to do with atheism? Do you assume that all atheists are libertarians? Do you assume that all atheists will agree with you on all these points? Some of these issues are much more complicated than you imply. If we are to take a reasoned position then it has to be based on more than “religion bad, do the opposite”.

 

[guilo]

OK, first of all, let me explain why I'm willing to debate some of the laws I mentioned. (This is where non-believers have an advantage, because there is nothing like faith which allows us to justify something we are used to if reason shows that it is not the best option.)

The law which prohibits nudity seems obvious, but it really isn't. Sexual attraction is obviously the key thing it tries to prohibit, but there really is no harm done until somebody sexually harasses that person. If there is no laws prohibiting people from dressing provocatively, I can't see why the person in the nude would be the one in the wrong. Of course those who find it provocative would have to exercise even more restraint, but then if the restraint they can show against when somebody is dressed provocatively and when somebody is nude is so little that nudity just tips the balance, they aren't really trustworthy with provocative dressers either. I think it is reasonable to say that if the line is so arbitrary that it is somewhere between provocative and nudity, it shouldn't be there at all.

Furthermore, if you look at custom 150 years ago, dressing provocatively was showing anything above your ankles for women. Now you're basically allowed to show as much boob as you want without showing the nipple and as much bu without showing crack. Why is that arbitrary line drawn? I think it does more to distort our view of the body if we have to cover some parts because it is more special than others. It's reasonable to say that if all parts are viewable, then all parts would be considered equally, and we might have more people focusing on the previously bland body parts, such as the eyes, the neck, the navel, the feet. It may sound a little perverse to want a nude society, but the function it will perform would probably have the opposite effect: less perversity.

I have a similar argument for polygamy. How come adultery is considered within the law when polygamy is outside it in the US? As many people know, South Africa permits polygamy, and its frowned upon by religious and non-religious alike. Think about it. Adultery is the extra-marital relationship with somebody without the knowledge or consent of the spouse. Polygamy, if done in accordance with human rights, is the intra-marital relationship with someone WITH the knowledge AND consent of the first spouse. How is this worse than adultery?

If we can't let cultural background determine that we follow a religion because reason overrules it, how can we justify that cultural background overrules reason when it comes to making laws? To avoid being hypocritical, reason has to hold sway and since reason leads to specific answers, opinions should converge to let at least 90% of people agree on a subject. With the large number of inputs we would have from different people, there should be enough perspective brought to the table to make one good reasonable decision, which is influenced by nothing but pure reason.

I urge you to take me on about the things I've just discussed in accordance with the scientific method! Viva la Reason!

 

[guilo]

. If we are to take a reasoned position then it has to be based on more than “religion bad, do the opposite”.

I fully agree and merely want to put those laws that have the possibility of being there because of an influence by religion and culture to be disputed, not just removed without deliberation. It is a fact that atheists have to acknowledge that many if not most of religious values are rooted within a lot of sense, so it would be a fool's errand to just do away with them willy-nilly.:yes:

 

[dallas1125]

The law which prohibits nudity seems obvious, but it really isn't. Sexual attraction is obviously the key thing it tries to prohibit, but there really is no harm done until somebody sexually harasses that person. If there is no laws prohibiting people from dressing provocatively, I can't see why the person in the nude would be the one in the wrong. Of course those who find it provocative would have to exercise even more restraint, but then if the restraint they can show against when somebody is dressed provocatively and when somebody is nude is so little that nudity just tips the balance, they aren't really trustworthy with provocative dressers either. I think it is reasonable to say that if the line is so arbitrary that it is somewhere between provocative and nudity, it shouldn't be there at all.

The person in the nude isn't doing nothing wrong at all but the are other rights people have. For example, I dont want nude people walking around me. I have a right to not see that, but they have a right to be nude. I think that it should be treated in a somewhat similar manner as smoking is sometimes. Have places where it is allowed. Another issue could be distraction, the provocative feelings it will bring up could possibly deteriorate society.

Furthermore, if you look at custom 150 years ago, dressing provocatively was showing anything above your ankles for women. Now you're basically allowed to show as much boob as you want without showing the nipple and as much bu without showing crack. Why is that arbitrary line drawn? I think it does more to distort our view of the body if we have to cover some parts because it is more special than others. It's reasonable to say that if all parts are viewable, then all parts would be considered equally, and we might have more people focusing on the previously bland body parts, such as the eyes, the neck, the navel, the feet. It may sound a little perverse to want a nude society, but the function it will perform would probably have the opposite effect: less perversity.

I doubt it, I still think that boobs and the rest will still stay as provocative and could even cause more sexual harrasment. I do agree the line is arbitrary though.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I posted a life drawing hosted by Image Shack which is just a pencil drawing of a nude and we thought nothing of them at art school and believe or not it was removed. Life drawings are just simply exercises in drawing skills and drawing them in proper proportions and getting the human anatomy correct. They have absolutely nothing to do with sex at all

 

[dallas1125]

I posted a life drawing hosted by Image Shack which is just a pencil drawing of a nude and we thought nothing of them at art school and believe or not it was removed. Life drawings are just simply exercises in drawing skills and drawing them in proper proportions and getting the human anatomy correct. They have absolutely nothing to do with sex at all

Im sorry but that probably has to do with keeping porn away from children than anything else

 

[SLAMH]

It's reasonable to say that if all parts are viewable, then all parts would be considered equally, and we might have more people focusing on the previously bland body parts, such as the eyes, the neck, the navel, the feet. It may sound a little perverse to want a nude society, but the function it will perform would probably have the opposite effect: less perversity.

Well, your argument goes against you. You know that even though women are allowed to show breast (boobs). We (Men) still don't treat or look at breast (boobs) the same way we do with other bland body parts such as eyes or whatever.

AND Yes, I agree that the line between provocative and nudity is arbitrary, so I think there must be a law that prohibit both (provocative and nudity).

 

[guilo]

The person in the nude isn't doing nothing wrong at all but the are other rights people have. For example, I dont want nude people walking around me. I have a right to not see that, but they have a right to be nude. I think that it should be treated in a somewhat similar manner as smoking is sometimes. Have places where it is allowed. Another issue could be distraction, the provocative feelings it will bring up could possibly deteriorate society.

I doubt it, I still think that boobs and the rest will still stay as provocative and could even cause more sexual harassment. I do agree the line is arbitrary though.

The way I see it, if you were living in the 18th century and suddenly had to live in the 21st century now, you would also feel shame when looking at all the bodies on display by people's clothing. I can maybe understand why something like the sexual organs might be provocative, especially to begin with, but why breasts? Especially since it's okay for woman's clothing to show breasts, but not the nipple? What's the difference between a man's nipple and a woman's nipple? Nothing! The fact that some primitive societies such as the Khoi-San in Namibia think nothing of the exposed breasts of women is a good example, since they don't have problems with sexual exploitation in any way that it is in many modern societies.

Think this way. If you grew up in a society where everybody was allowed to be nude when they preferred, even fat people, would you be so grossed out by it as you are now (now is definitely influenced by cultural norms).

Then again, you are a LDS, not an atheist, so I doubt whether I will be able to make you agree with me on this. Still, I appreciate the input, since it gives us a wider perspective to make decisions from.:yes:

 

[dallas1125]

The way I see it, if you were living in the 18th century and suddenly had to live in the 21st century now, you would also feel shame when looking at all the bodies on display by people's clothing. I can maybe understand why something like the sexual organs might be provocative, especially to begin with, but why breasts? Especially since it's okay for woman's clothing to show breasts, but not the nipple? What's the difference between a man's nipple and a woman's nipple? Nothing! The fact that some primitive societies such as the Khoi-San in Namibia think nothing of the exposed breasts of women is a good example, since they don't have problems with sexual exploitation in any way that it is in many modern societies.

I agree that there is no difference but ya know, guys are attracted to breasts. Whether it is a cultural or natural influence, I dont know.

Think this way. If you grew up in a society where everybody was allowed to be nude when they preferred, even fat people, would you be so grossed out by it as you are now (now is definitely influenced by cultural norms).

Possibly but there is no way to know. But the fact still remains that I grew up with these cultural influences and I dont want to see public displays of nudity.

Then again, you are a LDS, not an atheist, so I doubt whether I will be able to make you agree with me on this. Still, I appreciate the input, since it gives us a wider perspective to make decisions from.:yes:

Will we ever agree? Probably not, but it still makes for a good intellectual discussion!

 

[Sunstone]

Im sorry but that probably has to do with keeping porn away from children than anything else

Any child that is traumatized by mere nudity -- mere nudity! -- is one sick child to begin with.

 

[guilo]

Well, your argument goes against you. You know that even though women are allowed to show breast (boobs). We (Men) still don't treat or look at breast (boobs) the same way we do with other bland body parts such as eyes or whatever.

AND Yes, I agree that the line between provocative and nudity is arbitrary, so I think there must be a law that prohibit both (provocative and nudity).

No, I think women aren't allowed to show their entire breast. Somehow the line has been drawn at the nipple. The effect this has on society is this. 'Ah, look, that woman is showing breasts! But I still can't see the nipple, she's hidden it! I wonder what it would have looked like if it wasn't hidden?' The place where imagination has to take over from the senses is dangerous, because you can fathom extremely sensual things with your imagination, that in reality aren't nearly as sensual.

I think atheists don't have a problem with provocative clothing in general, so that statement was aimed at them (since this is supposed to be a same 'faith' debate). Just because the nipple is an erogenous zone, should not disqualify it from being shown by law, as the back of the neck, the earlobes etc are also erogenous zones and they are within full view and have been for quite some time.

In general, I can testify that eyes attract me more than the amount of cleavage women show these days. Sure, I appreciate breasts, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate beautiful eyes or flowing hair even more.