State Atheism

[zolace]

I realize this is a sensitive area for you two, but do try reading the article itself, and to address the points there, rather than just assume as you both are doing.

[1714707184]

1714707184

[1714707184]

1714707184

[1714707184]

1714707184

[Rigon]

Do you have a point to make about atheism? Youre 40 posts into this thing and you have yet to allude to your point.

[zolace]

Do you have a point to make about atheism? Youre 40 posts into this thing and you have yet to allude to your point.

Do keep in mind that Wiki (for whatever flaws) has a better track record than you.

Now, if you would like to provide a link, and an excerpt from that link, that supports your position, please do so.  In fact, I am sure it is doable - but, given your track record, we need more than you simply objecting to the article.

Or (heaven forbid) - you actually read the article linked to in the OP.

[Rigon]

Do you have a point to make about atheism? Youre 40 posts into this thing and you have yet to allude to your point.

Do keep in mind that Wiki (for whatever flaws) has a better track record than you.

Now, if you would like to provide a link, and an excerpt from that link, that supports your position, please do so.  In fact, I am sure it is doable - but, given your track record, we need more than you simply objecting to the article.

Or (heaven forbid) - you actually read the article linked to in the OP.

Do you have a point to make about atheism? You're 45 posts into this thing and no closer to alluding to any salient point. What is it that you believe you are getting at?

[sana8410]

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government

There are no countries that activlty/OFFICIALLY promote atheism in leiu of any recognized religion.

The USA allows people to practice atheism. Is that an example of, "state atheism"?

[zolace]

Interesting revelation that begets some questions - but, putting that aside, in all seriousness, I would like to see you posting more on the main board.

[Rigon]

Dictatorships have a bad track record, not atheism.  That there are only several among the many bad dictatorships that are atheist, clearly the reason dictatorships are bad is not because of the atheism.  The atheism is a sidebar to the dictator who only wants people to worship him.  The people still believe in their religion just as much as other places......except scandanavia where few people believe in god and they have wonderful quality of life.  So atheism is unrelated to the "track record" of human abuses or the quality of life in a nation.

[dank]

If god is love (all, positivity, infinity, consciousness), and you don't believe in god, what do you believe in?

[zolace]

 Again, simply calling it spurious does not make it so.  Maybe it is - maybe calling a government a theocracy is done spuriously also (as is often the case with the left on the main board).

But, the link in the OP for now carries more authority than you making some proclamation.    Read again the definition in the OP.

Which is not the same as having a secular government that happens to have a higher than average atheist population.

[BADecker]

Atheism is a religion. Why? The atheist doesn't know for a fact that there is not God. He has to believe it, just like the religious person has to believe that there is a God.

When you put the info of science all together, you can see that this universe is way too complicated to even think about coming together by something called random chance ("random" is something that scientists have to postulate all kinds of theories about just to imagine that it might exist). Somebody Who is an extremely complicated and powerful God must have made it.

Science has shown us - even though many scientists won't admit it - that there must be a God. The reason that the scientists don't express it out in the open is because of political science - a science where you keep saying something over and over until people start believing it. The politicians behind the scientists keep on spouting atheistic garbage, because it helps them to make money. Say that there is no God enough, and some people will start to believe it.

Look at the evidence around you for the truth.

[Errror]

Atheism is a religion. Why? The atheist doesn't know for a fact that there is not God. He has to believe it, just like the religious person has to believe that there is a God.

When you put the info of science all together, you can see that this universe is way too complicated to even think about coming together by something called random chance ("random" is something that scientists have to postulate all kinds of theories about just to imagine that it might exist). Somebody Who is an extremely complicated and powerful God must have made it.

Science has shown us - even though many scientists won't admit it - that there must be a God. The reason that the scientists don't express it out in the open is because of political science - a science where you keep saying something over and over until people start believing it. The politicians behind the scientists keep on spouting atheistic garbage, because it helps them to make money. Say that there is no God enough, and some people will start to believe it.

Look at the evidence around you for the truth.

you have no clue what you are talking about. There is flaws in every idea you proposed. Atheist dont have to believe shit. Do you believe in Batman? If not, than that is your Religion, because you have to believe there is no Bruce wayne, right? You are Abatmanist.

God had to be more complicated than universe in first place. Everything around us contradicts concept of GOD. Literally. You have no clue about science and its methods. You just  blindly believe in fairytale, if you were born in IRAN you would be muslim. You are afraid to look in the eyes of truth, man.

our brains are not able to grasp concepts that regards period before existence of matter, or time or space. It is useless to made up stories to have answers for what we answers cant really have. It is stupid like primitive tribe believeng in mother nature and god of thunder.

[dank]

You do have to believe in something, Im afraid.  Belief formulates your existence.  Believe you see something, you see it.  Believe in a thought, you have it.  Believe in a feeling, you feel it.  Believe in negativity, you manifest limitations.

You have freewill to believe in positivity, infinity and intelligence just as you have freewill to believe in negativity, fear and reaction.  Which ever you believe in, it's still a belief.

If you dont want to be bound to a religion, find spirituality.  Religion is the belief of other people's experiences and spirituality is having your own.  A wise man said that.

[Rigon]

Again, simply calling it spurious does not make it so.  Maybe it is - maybe calling a government a theocracy is done spuriously also (as is often the case with the left on the main board).

But, the link in the OP for now carries more authority than you making some proclamation.    Read again the definition in the OP.

Which is not the same as having a secular government that happens to have a higher than average atheist population.

I have not "simply called it spurious" you fucking retarded asswipe, I have provided evidence that it is in fact spurious.
 

The evidence is clear:

1)  Most dictatorships with poor human rights records are not state sanctioned athiest governments.  Most throughout history are theistic monarchies....dictatorships with religion.
2)  Most nations with the highest number of athiests are peaceful places with the lowest crime and highest quality of life indices on the planet....see anywhere in Scandanavia.

I am not "saying so" you , I am presenting the factual data that makes it so.  Atheism does not lead to abuse....dictatorships lead to abuse. There is no evidence that athiesm leads to poor behavior. If you have any we are happy to look at it.....wait, let me guess, you will reference the OP. 

And around we go.........

[zolace]

Again, simply calling it spurious does not make it so.  Maybe it is - maybe calling a government a theocracy is done spuriously also (as is often the case with the left on the main board).

But, the link in the OP for now carries more authority than you making some proclamation.    Read again the definition in the OP.

Which is not the same as having a secular government that happens to have a higher than average atheist population.

I have not "simply called it spurious" you fucking retarded asswipe, I have provided evidence that it is in fact spurious.
 

The evidence is clear:

1)  Most dictatorships with poor human rights records are not state sanctioned athiest governments.  Most throughout history are theistic monarchies....dictatorships with religion.
2)  Most nations with the highest number of athiests are peaceful places with the lowest crime and highest quality of life indices on the planet....see anywhere in Scandanavia.

I am not "saying so" you , I am presenting the factual data that makes it so.  Atheism does not lead to abuse....dictatorships lead to abuse. There is no evidence that athiesm leads to poor behavior. If you have any we are happy to look at it.....wait, let me guess, you will reference the OP. 

And around we go.........

Apparently a reading issue. Let me repost from the article (that which only wishful thinking has refuted).  Your #2 falls under the secular state.

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.

In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[DjPxH]

In my opinion everyone should just believe what they want to, as long as they're not hurting anyone or impeding anyone else. A state should therefore never dictate what (religion) to believe. Atheism in this case is quite similar to a religion!

[Rigon]

Again, simply calling it spurious does not make it so.  Maybe it is - maybe calling a government a theocracy is done spuriously also (as is often the case with the left on the main board).

But, the link in the OP for now carries more authority than you making some proclamation.    Read again the definition in the OP.

Which is not the same as having a secular government that happens to have a higher than average atheist population.

I have not "simply called it spurious" you fucking retarded asswipe, I have provided evidence that it is in fact spurious.
 

The evidence is clear:

1)  Most dictatorships with poor human rights records are not state sanctioned athiest governments.  Most throughout history are theistic monarchies....dictatorships with religion.
2)  Most nations with the highest number of athiests are peaceful places with the lowest crime and highest quality of life indices on the planet....see anywhere in Scandanavia.

I am not "saying so" you , I am presenting the factual data that makes it so.  Atheism does not lead to abuse....dictatorships lead to abuse. There is no evidence that athiesm leads to poor behavior. If you have any we are happy to look at it.....wait, let me guess, you will reference the OP. 

And around we go.........

Apparently a reading issue. Let me repost from the article (that which only wishful thinking has refuted).  Your #2 falls under the secular state.

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.

In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

That's fine.....Scandinavian countries are secular and not atheist, they are just full of atheist people.  Which is evidence that your entire premise of atheism = bad is incorrect .

[Rigon]

From everything that has been presented all anyone can conclude is that N. Korea is bad, but not because of atheism.  The fact that most dictatorships have not historically been atheist and still they are ALL BAD ought to have clued you in to your failed premise from the get-go.....but of course you are single-minded moron who  cannot see anything but your own version of religious insanity.

[zolace]

From everything that has been presented all anyone can conclude is that N. Korea is bad, but not because of atheism.  The fact that most dictatorships have not historically been atheist and still they are ALL BAD ought to have clued you in to your failed premise from the get-go.....but of course you are single-minded moron who  cannot see anything but your own version of religious insanity.

Well, of course, atheism is bad theology.  If Jesus is who He is, that would logically follow for those who take Him at this word.

But, premise in this thread?  No, simply that, there are no examples of the below (from the article) that anyone would want to emulate.  Not referring to secular societies and what mix and match they have (and what comes of that, in the short haul or long haul).

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.

[Rigon]

From everything that has been presented all anyone can conclude is that N. Korea is bad, but not because of atheism.  The fact that most dictatorships have not historically been atheist and still they are ALL BAD ought to have clued you in to your failed premise from the get-go.....but of course you are single-minded moron who  cannot see anything but your own version of religious insanity.

Well, of course, atheism is bad theology.  If Jesus is who He is, that would logically follow for those who take Him at this word.

But, premise in this thread?  No, simply that, there are no examples of the below (from the article) that anyone would want to emulate.  Not referring to secular societies and what mix and match they have (and what comes of that, in the short haul or long haul).

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.

..you said atheism it has a bad track record.   What has a bad track record is dictatorships and not atheism.  Your alleged relationship is spurious.

 Dictatorships have a bad track record, not just dictatorships that are athiest states, but ALL dictatorships.   It is not atheism that makes N. Korea bad....it is the dictator.  As I said many times and your pea-sized brain cannot comprehend...most dictatorships throughout history have NOT been atheist....and they were ALL bad.  So if one dictatorship promotes atheism, you concludes it must be the atheism that made them bad, and not the fact that all dictatorships throughout history have been bad, even when they ere fine with religion and full of religious people.    As further evidence you are a moron, nations full of atheists are routinely the best safest cleanest places to live on earth.

I have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are wrong.  As usual.

[zolace]

From everything that has been presented all anyone can conclude is that N. Korea is bad, but not because of atheism.  The fact that most dictatorships have not historically been atheist and still they are ALL BAD ought to have clued you in to your failed premise from the get-go.....but of course you are single-minded moron who  cannot see anything but your own version of religious insanity.

Well, of course, atheism is bad theology.  If Jesus is who He is, that would logically follow for those who take Him at this word.

But, premise in this thread?  No, simply that, there are no examples of the below (from the article) that anyone would want to emulate.  Not referring to secular societies and what mix and match they have (and what comes of that, in the short haul or long haul).

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.

..you said atheism it has a bad track record.   What has a bad track record is dictatorships and not atheism.  Your alleged relationship is spurious.

 Dictatorships have a bad track record, not just dictatorships that are athiest states, but ALL dictatorships.   It is not atheism that makes N. Korea bad....it is the dictator.  As I said many times and your pea-sized brain cannot comprehend...most dictatorships throughout history have NOT been atheist....and they were ALL bad.  So if one dictatorship promotes atheism, you concludes it must be the atheism that made them bad, and not the fact that all dictatorships throughout history have been bad, even when they ere fine with religion and full of religious people.    As further evidence you are a moron, nations full of atheists are routinely the best safest cleanest places to live on earth.

I have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are wrong.  As usual.

You can try and redefine things if it makes you feel better.

But, the premise is based on the article - in the context of this thread, atheism has a bad track record when promoted by governments.  But frankly, outside of government, not sure one can argue it has a good track record anyway.  But I was replying in light of the OP.