04 Oct 10
4 edits
after reading our new Awake article (monthly magazine published by Jehovahs witnesses, peace be upon them for a thousand quadrillion generations) it was brought to my attention that there have been two notable attempts to establish atheist states, perhaps more. The first was Stalinist Russia, officially an atheistic state in which some tens of millions of persons died, and the second was the reign of the Khmer rouge in which 1.5 million Cambodians died in an effort to establish a godless Marxist state. Granted those deaths cannot be attributed directly to Atheism, however they do show that the rule of Atheism does not ensure peace and harmony, indeed we may be warranted in asking, a world without religion, is it an improvement? i invite my atheist friends to comment.
04 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieVery poor argument you raise.
after reading our new Awake article (monthly magazine published by Jehovahs witnesses, peace be upon them for a thousand quadrillion generations) it was brought to my attention that there have been two notable attempts to establish atheist states, perhaps more. The first was Stalinist Russia, officially an atheistic state in which some tens of millio ...[text shortened]... t the rule of Atheism does not ensure peace and harmony, i invite my atheist friends to comment.
Neither Stalinist Russia nor the Khmer Rouge had Athiesim as a core part of the reason for establishing a state.
There are no states at all that ensure peace & harmony - this is beyond their ability.
The kingdom of Bhutan may be one state that does a good job of promoting harmony. Certainly none of the western states does a good job of outwardly displaying the pre-dominant religions based there.
Organised Religion has caused more death than anything else "man-made" on earth so back in your box. And before you answer - l know your new little religion of JW's has not been involved in wars etc.....
04 Oct 10
3 edits
Originally posted by nook7no i don't think so, clearly there were efforts in Russia and Cambodia to establish a godless society, i quite forget now just how many churches Stalin levelled to the ground, never the less, that is not the point, nor is it the point of the discussion that both the irreligious and the religious have committed atrocities, the point is and its worth reiterating, an atheist state, would it be an improvement. I therefore reject you assertion of a very poor argument, now address the question if you please, and no slipping an sliding this time! Yes we have not been involved in wars, what that has got to do with an atheist state, i really have no idea.
Very poor argument you raise.
Neither Stalinist Russia nor the Khmer Rouge had Athiesim as a core part of the reason for establishing a state.
There are no states at all that ensure peace & harmony - this is beyond their ability.
The kingdom of Bhutan may be one state that does a good job of promoting harmony. Certainly none of the western states does a e you answer - l know your new little religion of JW's has not been involved in wars etc.....
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI wouldn't agree with *enforcing* an atheist state. You can only have an atheist state if everyone within it naturally becomes atheist.
no i don't think so, clearly there were efforts in Russia and Cambodia to establish a godless society, i quite forget now just how many churches Stalin levelled to the ground, never the less, that is not the point, nor is it the point of the discussion that both the irreligious and the religious have committed atrocities, the point is and its worth r ...[text shortened]... ry poor argument, now address the question if you please, and no slipping an sliding this time!
You can't force people to become atheists.
Attempting to enforce it would only cause bloodshed.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by lauseyi agree with Lausey & to answer you; l see very little difference.
I wouldn't agree with *enforcing* an atheist state. You can only have an atheist state if everyone within it naturally becomes atheist.
You can't force people to become atheists.
Attempting to enforce it would only cause bloodshed.
The issue is on the motiviations of the leaders. If they (Religious or not) want to force others then we will have more of what we have seen throughout history.
If a society was establihed that allowed freedom to worship a god/s or not then that would be an improvement on what l have seen.
04 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyok, i understand, do you envisage a time when atheism may be enforced? after all there have been tremendous movement towards secularisation. Please note what Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg stated, 'Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold on religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilisation', is it not a view shared by many?
I wouldn't agree with *enforcing* an atheist state. You can only have an atheist state if everyone within it naturally becomes atheist.
You can't force people to become atheists.
Attempting to enforce it would only cause bloodshed.
04 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by nook7its really quite interesting Nook me ol son, you reckon there would be no improvement.
i agree with Lausey & to answer you; l see very little difference.
The issue is on the motiviations of the leaders. If they (Religious or not) want to force others then we will have more of what we have seen throughout history.
If a society was establihed that allowed freedom to worship a god/s or not then that would be an improvement on what l have seen.
Just by way of interest, i found this little quote,
The Soviet Union and other communist states promoted state atheism and opposed religion, often by violent means. - Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I. (2002). The Gulag Archipelago.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieUnless you compare with a state which enforces a religion you have no argument.
after reading our new Awake article (monthly magazine published by Jehovahs witnesses, peace be upon them for a thousand quadrillion generations) it was brought to my attention that there have been two notable attempts to establish atheist states, perhaps more. The first was Stalinist Russia, officially an atheistic state in which some tens of millio ...[text shortened]... asking, a world without religion, is it an improvement? i invite my atheist friends to comment.
Lets say 16th Century Spain.
04 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59so you would like to compare sixteenth century Spain with a modern Atheist state simply because the former imposed state religion? Its not about religion v the irreligious, its about whether a purely secular society would be an improvement. I don't think we really need to argue that in the case of sixteenth century Spain, almost anything would have been an improvement. Actually i am not arguing in favour of either, i simply would like to try to ascertain if there are any benefits to adopting a purely secular state. All you have ascertained is that in the case of sixteenth century Spain, yes indeed, it would be an improvement, but so would almost anything.
Unless you compare with a state which enforces a religion you have no argument.
Lets say 16th Century Spain.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow many thriving secular states exist?
after reading our new Awake article (monthly magazine published by Jehovahs witnesses, peace be upon them for a thousand quadrillion generations) it was brought to my attention that there have been two notable attempts to establish atheist states, perhaps more. The first was Stalinist Russia, officially an atheistic state in which some tens of millio ...[text shortened]... asking, a world without religion, is it an improvement? i invite my atheist friends to comment.
The problem with those states were that they brutal dictatorships. That means that the state's ideology was forced upon the people and that is never a peaceful affair. Similar things happened with forced conversion in historical religious states.
So I don't think it's the lack of religion that missed, but simply tolerance (in many aspects, including religion).
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would generally agree. A counter example is sufficient proof that a rule is not absolute. So we know that rule by Atheists (not 'the rule of atheism' as you incorrectly put it) does not ensure peace and harmony. What else is new?
.... however they do show that the rule of Atheism does not ensure peace and harmony.
...indeed we may be warranted in asking, a world without religion, is it an improvement?
Sure you may be ask that. However, I doubt the two example states in question will shed any light on the matter.
Atheists generally have nothing in common as a group other than their lack of belief in a god or gods. So using one example of an atheist to make a general claim is invalid unless the claim is specifically tied to that lack of belief in a god or gods. Making claims about Christians in general is much more valid, but equally likely to lead to wrong conclusions.
But what we all should be asking here is what would we do if a world without religion was not an improvement? Is mass delusion an acceptable compromise for the sake of peace? Would you for example support the deliberate promotion of Hinduism for the sake of world peace even though you yourself do not believe in its claims?
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe quote is clearly not about forceful conversion, but about convincing people through scientific knowledge. You can argue that scientific knowledge would not do that, but I don't think it's fair to relate that to persecution of all religious belief.
ok, i understand, do you envisage a time when atheism may be enforced? after all there have been tremendous movement towards secularisation. Please note what Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg stated, 'Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold on religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilisation', is it not a view shared by many?
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by Palynkaits a great question, but i do not know how many thriving secular states exist, any idea? however consider Albania, i think was the first to declare itself atheist, but like you say, it was held together by a dictatorship, after it was deposed, the religious and ethnic strife enveloped the entire region. was it a case of atheist state holding religious and ethnic intolerance in check? vewy vewy intwesting Mr Bond!
How many thriving secular states exist?
The problem with those states were that they brutal dictatorships. That means that the state's ideology was forced upon the people and that is never a peaceful affair. Similar things happened with forced conversion in historical religious states.
So I don't think it's the lack of religion that missed, but simply tolerance (in many aspects, including religion).
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by Palynkayes ok, buy we must have recourse to at least a little sensationalising 🙂
The quote is clearly not about forceful conversion, but about convincing people through scientific knowledge. You can argue that scientific knowledge would not do that, but I don't think it's fair to relate that to persecution of all religious belief.
04 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA purely secular state? Try France amongst others.
so you would like to compare sixteenth century Spain with a modern Atheist state simply because the former imposed state religion? Its not about religion v the irreligious, its about whether a purely secular society would be an improvement. I don't think we really need to argue that in the case of sixteenth century Spain, almost anything would have ...[text shortened]... sixteenth century Spain, yes indeed, it would be an improvement, but so would almost anything.
But you started off talking about imposing atheism. All I am saying is that imposing atheism is just as bad as imposing a religion.
How would a state which imposed JW doctrine do?