State Atheism

[BowieMan]

I read it fine.  That you dont like my responses is not evidence that Im just not reading you well enough.   The examples given certainly were not worse places than theistic states.  When you are in spurious relationship land and religion is your agenda, there is just no stopping you.

I think it is interesting that discussions about religion always de-rail and result in heated discussions. I guess there's something about religion that gets people going... They feel personally insulted, I guess.

[zolace]

zolace,you can only think of one or two "aetheistic" governments and you come up with N Korea and China.....and the only reason NK is aetheistic is because they are a total dictatorship.  A dictator can only have one god, himself.   So your point isnt even about aetheistic government versus nonaetheistic. It is dictatorship versus theistic.   If you want a fair representative of a nondictatorship where the country is areligious.....look at Norway, denmark, sweden....you know, the happiest places on earth with the highest quality of living.   I think we must conclude that aetheism is the best given these data...no??     They have the lowest percentage of people on earth who believe in god and are routinely among the highest quality of living on the planet.

Admittedly, it is harder to discuss this with someone who (intentionally or not) does not read the OP well.

Several atheistic governments were mentioned in the OP article.  And, there is a difference between secular government and atheistic government.  At least per the link.

[BADecker]

All states are states of mind. Go to the boundary between any two States in the United States. If there doesn't happen to be any natural divide, like a canyon, or a river, that mark the border between the two States, and if there doesn't happen to be a fence erected by the States, how will anyone know with certainty where the border between the two States lies?

Sometime in the past, a bunch of people got themselves all in a "tizziful" mental state, and decided where the border between the two States was going to exist. Then they measured it out with transits, and wrote the whole thing down in books, so that they would have the record when their memories began to become hazy... when senility or Alzheimer's set in. So, we have the record of their mental state and we call it the border between two States. As time goes by, meanings of words change, so that the clear written records don't quite have the same meanings when we of the present age re-read those written STATEments.

State atheism is simply some writings about what some people believe. Because they believe it, and can't prove it any more than other people might be able to prove some other things that these other people believe, State atheism is a religion, just like State Theocracy is a religion. In a way, anything that people believe, especially if they cannot prove it, is a religious state in the minds of the people who so believe. When the beliefs are written down, and the whole nation adheres to them, they become a State religion. It's all a state of mind.

[zolace]

Like you don't have an agenda, LOL.

So, the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?
the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

[Rigon]

Like you don't have an agenda, LOL.

So, the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?
the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

My agenda is to look at people who are athieists fairly. My agenda is to be objective, unlike you. 

 Saying a dictatorship is based in atheism is dishonest.  Its based in power and not religion.  There are plenty of places with little or no religious belief (probably less than N. Korea) such as Norway, Denmark, etc.  These are countries that are full of nonbelievers and routinely the places on earth with the highest quality of life.

The conclusion you seek is not supported by the data.  Dictatorships prefer state atheism not because the people don't believe in God, but because the dictator needs to be god and he cant have the competition.   Google "spurious relationship" and you will see what you are about.

[Rigon]

People that don't believe in God are often quite happy, healthy and gentle people.  Look anywhere in Scandanavia, the place with the lowest belief in God on earth. Look for the best places to live, highest quality of life, most satisfaction with life etc. and you will find those nations leading the polls. This does not support any premise that atheism leads to despotism. Dictatorships lead to despotism...the stance on religion of the state is a spurious relationship.

[zolace]

Well, all that seems a bit weak, but, regardless, did not address at all this question (that I asked to address something you had posted earlier):

the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

[Rigon]

Well, all that seems a bit weak, but, regardless, did not address at all this question (that I asked to address something you had posted earlier):

the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

That's it...all that seems a bit weak?  That's all you've got?

North Korea didn't become North Korea because they decided to be atheists.  North Korea (the dictatorship) decided that they should worship the dictator more than god.  So the state atheism has no bearing on who they are as a country, its part of the symptom of who they are under a dictator not the cause.  Spurious relationship.  Not weak.  painfully obvious to most idiots but yourself.  Its even more obvious when you consider other data such as nations that are made up of atheist people (hard data exists....not weak) are generally happy and have a higher quality of life than even us. You can lamely call it weak without any rationale, or you can do some research on the rate of belief in god in scandanavia and their quality of life.  Clearly, state atheism isn't what causes a north Korean situation....it is a result.  A god-like dictator existed first....then religion had to go because it was in conflict with dictator-worship.  Atheism itself has nothing to do with Korea's status.

[zolace]

Well, all that seems a bit weak, but, regardless, did not address at all this question (that I asked to address something you had posted earlier):

the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

That's it...all that seems a bit weak?  That's all you've got?

North Korea didn't become North Korea because they decided to be atheists.  North Korea (the dictatorship) decided that they should worship the dictator more than god.  So the state atheism has no bearing on who they are as a country, its part of the symptom of who they are under a dictator not the cause.  Spurious relationship.  Not weak.  painfully obvious to most idiots but yourself.  Its even more obvious when you consider other data such as nations that are made up of atheist people (hard data exists....not weak) are generally happy and have a higher quality of life than even us. You can lamely call it weak without any rationale, or you can do some research on the rate of belief in god in scandanavia and their quality of life.  Clearly, state atheism isn't what causes a north Korean situation....it is a result.  A god-like dictator existed first....then religion had to go because it was in conflict with dictator-worship.  Atheism itself has nothing to do with Korea's status.

That's nice.  Of course, does not answer or address this simple question:the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

[Rigon]

Well, all that seems a bit weak, but, regardless, did not address at all this question (that I asked to address something you had posted earlier):

the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

That's it...all that seems a bit weak?  That's all you've got?

North Korea didn't become North Korea because they decided to be atheists.  North Korea (the dictatorship) decided that they should worship the dictator more than god.  So the state atheism has no bearing on who they are as a country, its part of the symptom of who they are under a dictator not the cause.  Spurious relationship.  Not weak.  painfully obvious to most idiots but yourself.  Its even more obvious when you consider other data such as nations that are made up of atheist people (hard data exists....not weak) are generally happy and have a higher quality of life than even us. You can lamely call it weak without any rationale, or you can do some research on the rate of belief in god in scandanavia and their quality of life.  Clearly, state atheism isn't what causes a north Korean situation....it is a result.  A god-like dictator existed first....then religion had to go because it was in conflict with dictator-worship.  Atheism itself has nothing to do with Korea's status.

That's nice.  Of course, does not answer or address this simple question:the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

zolace......why do you keep asking that question?  I assume you think it has relevance, but all it tells me is that you completely missed the point.  Do you think that by defining "state atheism" this means it cannot be a spurious relationship with poor behavior as I have described    You can define state atheism all you want.  In fact the definition in the OP is accurate.  A state that promotes atheism.  So the fuck what?  I know where you think you are going.  When you have atheism then you have bad stuff.  That is total bullshit.  I have proven that to you.   It is not because all the people don't believe in god, its because the dictator doesn't want them to worship anyone but himself.  Hence, it is not a state full of atheists that results in poor behaviors, it is the dictator. I have also shown that the regions on earth with the lowest belief in god have the highest quality of life, proving the spurious relationship N. Korea.

Google "spurious" zolace.

[noviapriani]

zolace believes that EVERYONE must have mindless devotion/"faith" in whatever is presented to him, or he will go to Hell, or be killed by a dictator.   Similar to the people of NORTH Korea....

zolace exists in the "North Korea" in his mind.

[zolace]

Well, all that seems a bit weak, but, regardless, did not address at all this question (that I asked to address something you had posted earlier):

the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

That's it...all that seems a bit weak?  That's all you've got?

North Korea didn't become North Korea because they decided to be atheists.  North Korea (the dictatorship) decided that they should worship the dictator more than god.  So the state atheism has no bearing on who they are as a country, its part of the symptom of who they are under a dictator not the cause.  Spurious relationship.  Not weak.  painfully obvious to most idiots but yourself.  Its even more obvious when you consider other data such as nations that are made up of atheist people (hard data exists....not weak) are generally happy and have a higher quality of life than even us. You can lamely call it weak without any rationale, or you can do some research on the rate of belief in god in scandanavia and their quality of life.  Clearly, state atheism isn't what causes a north Korean situation....it is a result.  A god-like dictator existed first....then religion had to go because it was in conflict with dictator-worship.  Atheism itself has nothing to do with Korea's status.

That's nice.  Of course, does not answer or address this simple question:the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

zolace......why do you keep asking that question?  I assume you think it has relevance, but all it tells me is that you completely missed the point.  Do you think that by defining "state atheism" this means it cannot be a spurious relationship with poor behavior as I have described    You can define state atheism all you want.  In fact the definition in the OP is accurate.  A state that promotes atheism.  So the fuck what?  I know where you think you are going.  When you have atheism then you have bad stuff.  That is total bullshit.  I have proven that to you.   It is not because all the people don't believe in god, its because the dictator doesn't want them to worship anyone but himself.  Hence, it is not a state full of atheists that results in poor behaviors, it is the dictator. I have also shown that the regions on earth with the lowest belief in god have the highest quality of life, proving the spurious relationship N. Korea.

Google "spurious" zolace.

Actually,you have proved nothing.  The states noted in the OP link were atheistic states.

Now, do you have a link describing the nations you refer to as atheistic?  Not secular, but atheistic?  Having alot of atheists in a secular state is not the same as having an atheistic state.

[noviapriani]

Well, all that seems a bit weak, but, regardless, did not address at all this question (that I asked to address something you had posted earlier):

the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

That's it...all that seems a bit weak?  That's all you've got?

North Korea didn't become North Korea because they decided to be atheists.  North Korea (the dictatorship) decided that they should worship the dictator more than god.  So the state atheism has no bearing on who they are as a country, its part of the symptom of who they are under a dictator not the cause.  Spurious relationship.  Not weak.  painfully obvious to most idiots but yourself.  Its even more obvious when you consider other data such as nations that are made up of atheist people (hard data exists....not weak) are generally happy and have a higher quality of life than even us. You can lamely call it weak without any rationale, or you can do some research on the rate of belief in god in scandanavia and their quality of life.  Clearly, state atheism isn't what causes a north Korean situation....it is a result.  A god-like dictator existed first....then religion had to go because it was in conflict with dictator-worship.  Atheism itself has nothing to do with Korea's status.

That's nice.  Of course, does not answer or address this simple question:the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

zolace......why do you keep asking that question?  I assume you think it has relevance, but all it tells me is that you completely missed the point.  Do you think that by defining "state atheism" this means it cannot be a spurious relationship with poor behavior as I have described    You can define state atheism all you want.  In fact the definition in the OP is accurate.  A state that promotes atheism.  So the fuck what?  I know where you think you are going.  When you have atheism then you have bad stuff.  That is total bullshit.  I have proven that to you.   It is not because all the people don't believe in god, its because the dictator doesn't want them to worship anyone but himself.  Hence, it is not a state full of atheists that results in poor behaviors, it is the dictator. I have also shown that the regions on earth with the lowest belief in god have the highest quality of life, proving the spurious relationship N. Korea.

Google "spurious" zolace.

Actually,you have proved nothing.  The states noted in the OP link were atheistic states.

Now, do you have a link describing the nations you refer to as atheistic?  Not secular, but atheistic?  Having alot of atheists in a secular state is not the same as having an atheistic state.

Do you have any links to any nation-state claiming to be "atheist"?There are no nations/states on the planet Earth claiming "atheism" in any way shape or form !

[noviapriani]

zolace has yet again fallen under his own sword.....

zolace has confused "Anti-Religion" as "atheism"..

zolace doesn't know his ass from his elbow about "religion"; ergo, zolace wouldn't know his right nut from his left about "Atheism".

Float zolace in a deep pond with a rock zolace would not let go of the rock that is dragging him down.

[zolace]

Odd request, given the link in the OP.  Feel free to read it.

[noviapriani]

Odd request, given the link in the OP.  Feel free to read it.

The OP link is the issue.

If I wanted to debate the person who posted the wiki link, I have no problem with it.

The more local problem is with the idiot who posted the wiki link in this forum.

  You post the words/beliefs of others and somehow believe YOU are intellectually sound.

You are not capable of original though. You are a brainwashed fool who believes repeating the beliefs of other people somehow makes you likable.

Can you honestly say that you are any different from someone living in North Korea who MUST ON PAIN OF DEATH, declare Kim Jong Un is "God"?

You spend a lot of bandwidth posting the words of other people,  but are you actually capable of HEARING what you are saying?

[zolace]

Odd request, given the link in the OP.  Feel free to read it.

The OP link is the issue.

If I wanted to debate the person who posted the wiki link, I have no problem with it.

The more local problem is with the idiot who posted the wiki link in this forum.

  You post the words/beliefs of others and somehow believe YOU are intellectually sound.

You are not capable of original though. You are a brainwashed fool who believes repeating the beliefs of other people somehow makes you likable.

Can you honestly say that you are any different from someone living in North Korea who MUST ON PAIN OF DEATH, declare Kim Jong Un is "God"?

You spend a lot of bandwidth posting the words of other people,  but are you actually capable of HEARING what you are saying?

Wow - that was quite a dishonest response. Try that on the main board, and see how far you get with that.

[zolace]

You do realize that you descend to this type of behavior when you cannot defend your position.  That is your MO.

Would you like me to assist you?  Take up both sides of the Argument here?

[Rigon]

Well, all that seems a bit weak, but, regardless, did not address at all this question (that I asked to address something you had posted earlier):

the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

That's it...all that seems a bit weak?  That's all you've got?

North Korea didn't become North Korea because they decided to be atheists.  North Korea (the dictatorship) decided that they should worship the dictator more than god.  So the state atheism has no bearing on who they are as a country, its part of the symptom of who they are under a dictator not the cause.  Spurious relationship.  Not weak.  painfully obvious to most idiots but yourself.  Its even more obvious when you consider other data such as nations that are made up of atheist people (hard data exists....not weak) are generally happy and have a higher quality of life than even us. You can lamely call it weak without any rationale, or you can do some research on the rate of belief in god in scandanavia and their quality of life.  Clearly, state atheism isn't what causes a north Korean situation....it is a result.  A god-like dictator existed first....then religion had to go because it was in conflict with dictator-worship.  Atheism itself has nothing to do with Korea's status.

That's nice.  Of course, does not answer or address this simple question:the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

zolace......why do you keep asking that question?  I assume you think it has relevance, but all it tells me is that you completely missed the point.  Do you think that by defining "state atheism" this means it cannot be a spurious relationship with poor behavior as I have described    You can define state atheism all you want.  In fact the definition in the OP is accurate.  A state that promotes atheism.  So the fuck what?  I know where you think you are going.  When you have atheism then you have bad stuff.  That is total bullshit.  I have proven that to you.   It is not because all the people don't believe in god, its because the dictator doesn't want them to worship anyone but himself.  Hence, it is not a state full of atheists that results in poor behaviors, it is the dictator. I have also shown that the regions on earth with the lowest belief in god have the highest quality of life, proving the spurious relationship N. Korea.

Google "spurious" zolace.

Actually,you have proved nothing.  The states noted in the OP link were atheistic states.

Now, do you have a link describing the nations you refer to as atheistic?  Not secular, but atheistic?  Having alot of atheists in a secular state is not the same as having an atheistic state.

Having alot of atheists in a secular state is not the same as having an atheistic state.  This is true because an atheist state has nothing to do with atheism.  Having a lot of atheists in a secular state speaks to the allegation that atheism leads to badness as is no doubt your point.  In these nations full of atheists hey must have no morals, high crime, etc etc.  Right ??   Isn't that your point here?  People that promote atheism are bad???

Your logic is flawed from the onset.  I have been trying to tell you this and yet you persist in trying to make a point that does not exist.

[noviapriani]

zolace is on a "mission" to somehow convince others that people who are not brainwashed supistitious belivers in his version of a "creator", are bad people.