Athiest state

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its not about religion v the irreligious, its about whether a purely secular society would be an improvement.

You have changed your argument 3 times so far in this thread to the point that your original examples are no longer relevant.
You started with the assertion that an atheist ruler does not guarantee peace.
Then you claimed that the point was whether or not an atheist state in general would be an improvement (already the examples can now only be used as statistical indicators and do not prove anything), now you are asking about secular society - which to my knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.
So now your examples are totally worthless. Lets have some examples of secular societies instead.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have changed your argument 3 times so far in this thread to the point that your original examples are no longer relevant.
You started with the assertion that an atheist ruler does not guarantee peace.
Then you claimed that the point was whether or not an atheist state in general would be an improvement (already the examples can now only be used as s ...[text shortened]... o now your examples are totally worthless. Lets have some examples of secular societies instead.

your point is worthless for i am not arguing against anything, but trying to explore the idea,

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its really quite interesting Nook me ol son, you reckon there would be no improvement.

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.

Why do you continuingly misquote people - when have l said the former Soviet Union was a good state? or in any way praised it?

l said, a state that allows people the freedom to worship or not is to be encouraged.

Try and stick to referencing peoples own comments and not those that suit your own agenda.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your point is worthless for i am not arguing against anything, but trying to explore the idea,

Well then explore it honestly instead of giving examples that are not relevant to your exploration.
Are you exploring whether or not states ruled by atheists always ensure peace and security, or are you exploring the benefits of secular society vs societies based on a religion?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its 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!

There is a difference between an atheist state and a secular state. The former actively tries to discourage or suppress religion, while the latter is strictly neutral on the issue of religion. Secularism and atheism are not at all synonymous.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

Using the same argument, Christianity is as bad as in your examples. He who ordered the slaughter of 80 thousands japanese people in Horishima and Nagasaki 1945 was a true man Christian.

What does that say about Christians? Nothing. Either.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is a difference between an atheist state and a secular state. The former actively tries to discourage or suppress religion, while the latter is strictly neutral on the issue of religion. Secularism and atheism are not at all synonymous.

And a state run by atheists could be neither.

By athiest state, I take it you mean one in which:

- the mass population has awoken from the self-righteous, grandiose illusion that their particular and arbitrary relic of history ('holy book'😉, penned and edited by countless unknown authors for various anthropological, cultural and historically political reasons contains the one and only 'truth' about the state of affairs for our existence?

If so, and if the state is not run under the auspices of a dictator in the cases you cited, then we could probably look forward to:

1. Reasoned debate on social issues without deference to the supposed will of imaginary beings
2. Less war - as conflicts will not be spurred by contrasting belief systems which cannot countenance divergent frameworks for proper moral conduct
3. People might get laid more often outside the confines of the sanctity of marriage and actually enjoy themselves
4. People will lose foolish notions of guilt, sin and the like associated with the religious texts
5. People might use their brainpower towards constructive activities instead of prostrating themselves several times a day/week in prayer, church/mosque going, and other associated random rituals
6. Scientific progress will not be hampered by questionable religious barriers
7. People may use their personal skills, abilities and knowledge to overcome difficulties instead of wasting energy on their particular deity to give them strength, courage etc to overcome their particular problem in life
8. Politics at large may become much more sensible without right wing zealots imposing their brand of morality on the masses
9. The subjugation of women encouraged by various sexist texts may be addressed, empowering females to truly take full and equal rights in society at large
10. Lives will not be put at risk by refusal to engage in various medical treatments based on obscure references to arcane literature
11. Persuasive arguments will be based on facts and informed by evidence and research and historical precedents, as opposed to religious absolutes
12. People will generally chill, realize they have been carrying a large weight around on their shoulders for no particular reason, and look forward to understanding life, the universe, and our place in it through a new lens which will actually give us real understanding - instead of being confused by falsehoods peddled by 'flat earthers' who frankly didn't know diddly squat

I could go on, but I think you get the idea...

If everyone within a state were to naturally adopt a particular belief system, you wouldn't get any conflicts as everyone would be agreeing with each other. Whether they are all atheists, Catholic, JW etc.

It will be "better" in the sense that everyone will agree that it is better, because they will all believe the same thing. 😛

Originally posted by obsesschess
By athiest state, I take it you mean one in which:

- the mass population has awoken from the self-righteous, grandiose illusion that their particular and arbitrary relic of history ('holy book'😉, penned and edited by countless unknown authors for various anthropological, cultural and historically political reasons contains the one and only 'truth' abo s' who frankly didn't know diddly squat

I could go on, but I think you get the idea...

no that's not what i meant, but thanks anyway for providing a sterling example of the type of new atheist (atheistic crusader) my article refers to. Look out agnostics, they are coming for you too!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

And both regimes you mentioned fell like stones. We have lived in a world for 1000's of years where religion and religionists murder, maim and anything else their "god" sanctions. Stalin and Pol Pot look like fuzzy kittens compared to the murders your "gods" have told you to do. It has become a tired and oft repeated claim that that was in the past, but it should be noted that it still goes on and on. A person who is moral because of some religious reasons is an inherently immoral person. A person who is moral without being told to be that way by some god is inherently moral.

Originally posted by caissad4
And both regimes you mentioned fell like stones. We have lived in a world for 1000's of years where religion and religionists murder, maim and anything else their "god" sanctions. Stalin and Pol Pot look like fuzzy kittens compared to the murders your "gods" have told you to do. It has become a tired and oft repeated claim that that was in the past, but it ...[text shortened]... n. A person who is moral without being told to be that way by some god is inherently moral.

ummm i am a Jehovahs witness, we are conscientious objectors for life is sacred to us, , ummm what that means is, we do not engage in war of any kind. How my God has told me to murder anyone on any basis you shall now explain. It also seems to negate your rather ill conceived assertion of immorality on the basis of religious belief, indeed, i can state that i have a higher morality because of my religious beliefs than someone who is prepared to kill, for whatever reason.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is a difference between an atheist state and a secular state. The former actively tries to discourage or suppress religion, while the latter is strictly neutral on the issue of religion. Secularism and atheism are not at all synonymous.

ok, i did not know, although they share some common elements?

Originally posted by caissad4
And both regimes you mentioned fell like stones. We have lived in a world for 1000's of years where religion and religionists murder, maim and anything else their "god" sanctions. Stalin and Pol Pot look like fuzzy kittens compared to the murders your "gods" have told you to do. It has become a tired and oft repeated claim that that was in the past, but it ...[text shortened]... n. A person who is moral without being told to be that way by some god is inherently moral.

A person who is moral because of some religious reasons is an inherently immoral person. A person who is moral without being told to be that way by some god is inherently moral.

Though it seems unlikely, I hope others recognize that this is the main point of your post. From my experience and that of others I have polled (including many Christians), Christians are no more moral than the general public. In fact, it can be argued that they tend to be less so. Their sense of "morality" tends to be a superficial one. Your point speaks to this.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm i am a Jehovahs witness, we are conscientious objectors for life is sacred to us, , ummm what that means is, we do not engage in war of any kind. How my God has told me to murder anyone on any basis you shall now explain. It also seems to negate your rather ill conceived assertion of immorality on the basis of religious belief, indeed, i can s ...[text shortened]... ality because of my religious beliefs than someone who is prepared to kill, for whatever reason.

I guess your religion disavows your "Old Testament" where one of the heroes (Sampson) murders dozens of innocent people because he was angry. Oh, that's right, your religion takes part of its' name from that testament. That appears hypocritical. Or perhaps, your god sanctioned those murders ? Claiming to be "different now" but still clinging to select parts of that doctrine sounds silly.