Countries which Murder Atheists: And My 7 Indicators of Civilized Society


The Washington Post recently did an article on which countries you can be imprisoned and even killed with a state ordered execution for simply being an atheist.

 Now I ask you, what kind of sense does it make for killing people for what they DON'T rightly believe in?

 I have seven basic rules about what I consider a true civilized society.

1) You have to be for equality across the board (gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). 2) You have to have healthcare for your people.  3) Blasphemy laws must be non-existent. 4) There has to be freedom of speech. 5) The must be freedom of religion and conversely freedom from religion. 6) Porn must not be illegal. And finally, 7) you have to be able to make and enjoy soft ice-cream.

 Only if these prerequisites are met would I consider a civilization a "true" civilization  Now I have many reasons for why these factors are important and why they contribute, and thereby constitute, civilized living and thinking, but there can be numerous other factors as well. These are just the seven that I've narrowed down which seem to distinguish a civilized society from most uncivilized societies.

 At any rate, I won't be traveling to any of the (above) countries listed as anti-atheist anytime in the near future. For they prove themselves truly uncivilized and barbaric nations where the hate, narrow mindedness, and intolerance is so great that you couldn't even enjoy a nice cold creamy ice-cream cone while watching your favorite porn all the while not having a thought about a God which you don't believe in the existence of.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more