Forum Thread

What Changes would Atheists make?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 11 Posts
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Its a fact that the belief in God, gods, or goddesses permeate almost every aspect of our culture. From the names of the days, to many of the months names, to the very names of the planets. So I was wondering what changes Atheists would make to these aspects? The obvious is removing "In God We Trust" from money and such, what I'm referring to is the more subtle ones that most people don't even think about. This thread is not meant to debate religion, just to see what, if any, changes Atheists would make.

    To start it off, I'll post the origin of the names of the days of the week.

    Sunday is obvious, it refers to the Sun and reflects the worship of the Sun.
    Monday is almost as obvious, it refers to the Moon and the worship of the Moon.
    Tuesday is named after the Norse god Tiw or Tyr (Same god, different spellings depending on whether using Old English or Proto-Germanic), the god of single combat, victory, and heroic glory.
    Wednesday is named after Woden, more commonly referred to as Odin, the Allfather of the Norse gods
    Thursday (as you can imagine) is named after Thor, Norse god of lightning.
    Friday is named after the Norse goddess Frigg, mother of the Norse goddesses and one of her aspects is love (Thought my many scholars to be the same goddess as Freja in old Germanic mythology)
    Saturday is named after the Roman god Saturn, god of the underworld
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I never really gave much thought to the origins to the names of the week, that is interesting, I would imagine ,me being a Christian, that one of the first moves would to eliminate the tax status for religious organizations.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I can see where you are coming from with removing the tax free status, the only thing I would change about what you said is that I would make it so they don't automatically get tax free status because they are religious and instead have to be able to prove a certain percentage of what they get in is going to charity/do charitable works, and I don't count paying those doing the charitable works towards that percentage, to qualify for tax free status.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I can understand the land on which the individual church sits on being tax exempt but when that exemption stretches to include all church property something is little off with that reasoning.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Agreed, then how about the Church building itself plus the standard 3 feet surrounding it are exempt from property tax, but any other buildings (such as houses or schools) are not? To me that sounds like a fair rule. (The 3 feet thing comes from my understanding of how it works when you buy a house. I don't own one myself, but from what I understand you are taxed for the property you actually buy, plus the 3 feet in front, assuming the property on the other sides is owned by someone else)
  • Independent
    Plymouth, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: I can understand the land on which the individual church sits on being tax exempt but when that exemption stretches to include all church property something is little off with that reasoning.
    I agree, if a church is using its money to help the poor, don't tax them, but when a church uses its contributions to become the richest private entity in the world, such as the Catholic church, it is very clear, this church is a for profit business that has NO right to be tax exempted.
    Hmm, how come the atheist don't put up a big bitch about the rich Catholics like they bitch about us believing in God?

    At the present, Atheist are not a political power of any sort, they are more like a subculture such as the gays searching for acceptance from main stream culture. An up hill fight that is getting easier, since more and more people are falling to the dark side, or at least forgetting about doing good and dismissing God as being real knowing if God is real they are doomed. Because of evil growing faster than good on earth, atheism is growing fast. No, of course atheist in general are not evil in the sense, but because of evil they are growing. Who knows, one day atheist may run this country and I know one think for sure, even if the atheist tried they couldn't do the evil the money system running this country has done to the world, since they are the Christians at present and do evil using God's name, if one does evil in God's name then it is not evil in the blinded by God majority's eyes. From what I can see, atheist really wouldn't change our history or our world for the worse, they could only do better than the Christians have done.
  • Other Party
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Granted that names, titles etc are historic from an era when religions were supreme. To change these things is revisionist and besides what might be fashionable today mightn't suit next century. As to the actual day names, it depends what language you use. Eg Wednesday in German is Mittwoch which means mid-week. Saturday in Italian (well essentially Latin) means the sabath, sabato. I would guess in Japanese (where Christianity arrived late) their name days are based on their religion, presumably Shinto or god based.

    It is however interesting to ask what Atheists would change, because as quoted elsewhere "Organising atheists is a bit like herding cats". They are all so individual and don't work on group thought ie., they are not organised and by core belief they are (religiously) free thinkers.

    If change is the prompt from the opposite, meaning religion, then I would implement a social policy that children under the age of consent (wherever you live, 18 years here) cannot be taught religion. All children would be told that to not believe is okay for which there would be no punishment or ostracising.

    I'd also implement a task force to remove all reference and bias in legislation which favoured religion. I'd concurrently have the task force consider all new legislation to be tested against the "no religion component" test.

    Maybe for TV programs and advertising of religions I'd have a leadin and leadout statement very similar to the USA drug commercials which lists all the known side effects and while the faith element may appear pure, the religion element certainly is not.

    I'd implement legislation that made the head of each local religion absolutely responsible for wrong doings of abuse by staff under their control very similar to chain of command responsibilities in the military. Similarly there would be no exception to notifying the police of any suspicion or accusation of abuse by staff.

    I'd increase the level of service delivery as in charity/social security supports for the disadvantaged by having reputable religious organisations administer and deliver those services. The example would be the Salvation Army in predominantly Christian nations. Yes I acknowledge that the Salvation Army in Australia is currently before a Royal Commission into institutionalised abuse of children in the recent past.

    That's enough musing for the moment.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It's all qiut simple; churches are a bussiness; they sell something and get income from it; so tax them as any bussiness, which also can have deductions for giving to charity. Of course they should pay property tax; they occupy in most cases prime land, which land should have been available to anyone or any bussiness.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    According to Wikipedia (O M G they just have information, who fact checked it...they're no encyclopedia Britannica) worldwide, there's 1.1 billion secular, nonreligious, agnostic, atheist. That's a pretty large section of the overall pie.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Wikipedia is usually accurate. What source is 100% accurate 100% of the time?

    None, we all know that.

    Anyone who takes ANY source as being right with every story, every time is crazy. But some just find the story they WANT to believe, and that's good enough for them, regardless of the source.
  • Independent
    Plymouth, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: It's all qiut simple; churches are a bussiness; they sell something and get income from it; so tax them as any bussiness, which also can have deductions for giving to charity. Of course they should pay property tax; they occupy in most cases prime land, which land should have been available to anyone or any bussiness.
    I think religion is a monopoly to not pay taxes and should be stopped. But the system has no problem with monopolies now a days, just ask big pharma who buys out generic makers of their pills to keep the prices outrageous, and then tries to tell the majority they can not get their pills from Canada. So far they haven't gotten away with this part of their monopoly but they will, watch.