Topic: State Atheism - page 14. (Read 6801 times)

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 !

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.

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......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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

We have examples of bad theocracies - maybe they all were, but that was not shown.  And of course, not all theocracies are the same - they vary different in their theologies.  Or maybe for several, they have their bad times, and their good times.
Can't say any of the atheistic states, or the theocracies you listed, would be a good place to live   What about you?

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.

By the way - bad as they are, not sure one can say they are much worse than some of the examples given for atheistic states.  And, not all Moslem theocracies have been as bad (maybe none today). 
Now, the Vatican - their history is at times nothing to write home to mother about and brag - but lets face it - they are certainly not currently as bad as any of the examples of the atheistic states.   But their power has been reduced a lot, politically.   Interestingly, a lot of their abuse comes from an interpretation of Matt 16 that is a bit off base (to say the least). 

I think State Atheism as as bad as an idea as a State Religion. It's always about forcing people into believing something, or actively not believing something - in the case of Atheism. But what remains is that the state dictates what has to be believed. And I think that is a wrong thing to do!

And if youre looking for a bad example of a chrisitan theocracy....they abounded in the past.  Luckily we got rid of them because they involved way too much lopping off of heads and torture in the name of God.  The Vatican is the last christian theocracy standing....and we dont allow them to have knights any more.

It is really a shame you don't read what all goes on before posting.  Particularly with a short thread like this.  Do you really think I am questioning whether there are/were any theocracies as bad as the examples of state atheistic states?