State Atheism: Why is it Immoral?

[Shadow]

According to Wikipedia State Atheism "is the name given to the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes, particularly associated with Soviet systems."

I have been attracted to State Atheism in the past based on the assumption that an Atheist society would be more rational, scientific and therefore "better" in a sense. This is probably wrong, or else more complicated than it first appears. I can certainly sympathise with the goal of such a society, but the methods used by Communists in the past are horrific to put it mildly. Personally, for all the superficial appeal, I genuinely wouldn't want to hurt people for simply believing different than me but it does raise a practical problem as to how atheism- assuming it were true- would become the dominant belief based on tolerance and without violence.

It is much easier to agree to the persecution of a group or restriction on its activities when you talk about it in the abstract, so that it has an unreal quality that obscures the nature of people's experience. Euphamism's like "the final solution of the Jewish Question" and "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" help people stop thinking about what they are really saying. (Amongst themselves the Nazis called the holocaust the "evacuation" of the Jews rather than spell it out as extermination). Historically, the elimination of religious beliefs in communist countries has meant the elimination of religious people because beliefs and people cannot be so easily separated.

In less extreme examples, using Public Education to make classes in "Scientific Atheism" (as happened in the USSR) doesn't sound so bad on paper at least, but in practice this meant systematically misinforming people by giving them a very distorted and prejudiced view of religious beliefs, communities and their history, (when the information they received was correct at all). In much the same way making the teaching of evolution mandatory in schools raises a host of issues about whether schools should be used to indoctrinate children with a specific set of beliefs (which are politically unsettling even if you concede evolution is true).

It is certainly true that religion has been used in the past to support the rule of various systems of government. Whether it is the Egyptian Pharoahs, the Roman emperors or Medieval Monarchs and Islamic Caliphates, religion has been used to support a particular system of government as expressing "god's will" or some divine quality in nature, man and the universe. Most Secular countries today continue to have a majority of religious believers and amongst those groups who do not have any religious affiliation only a tiny minority are explicitly "atheist".

In 2012, there were estimated to be 1.2 billion people without a religious affiliation (16% of the world's population) and a majority of those would fit in the category of "spiritual but not religious". Perhaps somewhere between 4% to 13% were "convinced atheists" but its unclear what they really means. So for Atheism to become a mainstream and global belief systems, it would mean either taking a very long time, or else the use of force as the same methods by which Christianity and Islam became the world's dominant religions in the past and which Communist countries attempted to do for Atheism in the 20th century. Some countries have become non-religious such as Japan (64-88%) and Sweden (46-82%) but I think these will probably be exceptions and Atheism will not become prevalent without major upheavals

So my question is:

1. In general, what arguments would you use to defend the rights of Christians and religious groups to freedom of religion in countries that practice state atheism today, (e.g. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba).

2. Do you believe that Secular countries, such as France, the UK, the United States, etc should actively promote the Christian Religion and have Christianity as an established religion.

3. And would you draw a distinction between Christians using the power of the state to impose restrictions on or otherwise persecute unbelievers and heretics, and Atheists using the power of the state to persecute Christians and impose limits on their religious freedom? (i.e. if you think one is right and the other is wrong, why is that the case?)

4. And as a bonus question, do you think societies that would be predominantly atheist in belief (say 75-90% of the population are atheists) would be necessarily better or worse because of it?

I appreciate this is going to be an offensive view and does rely on an ignorant and bigoted view of Christians and religious people, and is something I'd ideally like to put behind me. Talking about it online and reasoning it out offline is obviously going to force me to reconsider many aspects of these views so I'm welcome to discussing them and hearing people's thoughts. Thanks for reading and I look forward to your answers.

 

[Dave G.]

As an atheist what you can not realize is that a society void of God waxes worse and worse. It doesn't get better because you will it to get better as human beings. Human morals will always get undermined and rooted out in due time without the influence of the true and living God to keep you in check from the inside out..

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

1: An atheistic state by necessity, denies intrinsic or inherent rights. For we are but products of blind forces then. All rights are only ascribed or by statute therefore, in their eyes.
So no argument for why any religious right should exist could be made, that fits within their thought paradigm, if they would deny them. Essentially if they thought it useful or supportive of something they would be seeking, they would anyway affirm it. If not, or opposed to their ideology, no argument would make a difference.

2. No. Give unto God that which is God's, but render unto Caesar otherwise. State Churches end up merely as arms of the state. There should be no suppression of the Church, but active state support is neither necessary, nor a good idea. Such things are rife for abuse, historically, often for secular aims.

3. The State determines its laws. Those laws should be based on the Common Weal. What is good for the citizenry. The religious might not agree what 'good' means, with the non-religious. Ideally, no limits should be made on the freedom of the citizenry, but if the vast majority are in agreement on acts against the common good, some limitation is inevitable to transgressors thereof. So a moral distinction only exists if you affirm an external source of morality - something that really is Right or Wrong. If morality is conceived by convention, there is no qualitative difference. If there is an Absolute Moral order, then whatever mostly closely aligns with it, is right. To Christians the latter exists, so there would be a big difference, but this is dependant on what assumptions we bring to the table.

4. Religious people have less morbidity and mortality than their Atheist peers of the same class or culture. This has been shown in multiple medical studies. This might not be religion itself, but ancillary factors like social support or health-promoting religious beliefs (helping your neighbour, no promiscuous sex, etc.), we aren't completely sure.
However, Religious societies are healthier.
Further than that, societies that are less religious are also more prone to nihilistic thinking as to tradition or usages. They are thus less stable in a sense too, I'd think. Even the idea of 'human rights' or legal responsibilities, are underwritten by assumed self-evident truths, which an atheist has good reason to doubt in and of themselves.
This is a very ambigious thing though, because how are we determing a 'better' vs a 'worse' society? Purely economically? By life expectancy? Subjective determinations of happiness? How we posit value, depends how we determine it.
Health and stability are strong predictors of worth though in my estimation, as would adherence to family and social value. These are all more religiously inclined ideas, as State Atheism tends to be reductionist to individuals - cogs in the machine, as it were.
So I'd argue that religious societies are better off - but highly qualified what we mean and with significant caveats.

 

[jayem]

Here's my 2¢:

1) It's impossible to eliminate beliefs with laws. It's senselessly authoritarian. And sooner or later, authoritarian societies fail.

2) Never. Government should neither promote nor prohibit any lawful religious belief. Nor should it show preference or favoritism to any law-abiding religion or type of worship--or the lack thereof.

3) To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, if it doesn't break your leg or pick your pocket, then why do you care? Mind your own business.

4) Society would be fine if everyone treated others as they would want to be treated in the same situation. You don't need religion to be humane, empathetic, and compassionate.

 

[cloudyday2]

1. In general, what arguments would you use to defend the rights of Christians and religious groups to freedom of religion in countries that practice state atheism today, (e.g. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba).

As member of the UN, I think those nations are required to give their people freedom of religion. I think the communist nations have feared that religions could become subversive. Islamic nations are probably the worst on religious freedom, but even these seem to allow people to worship as they please in private (for the most part).

2. Do you believe that Secular countries, such as France, the UK, the United States, etc should actively promote the Christian Religion and have Christianity as an established religion.

No, in the US I think we need to deify our presidents and worship them after they die. This might be a way to strengthen American culture awareness while giving a harmless outlet for the spiritual needs of society.

3. And would you draw a distinction between Christians using the power of the state to impose restrictions on or otherwise persecute unbelievers and heretics, and Atheists using the power of the state to persecute Christians and impose limits on their religious freedom? (i.e. if you think one is right and the other is wrong, why is that the case?)

Personally I think the Soviet efforts to promote atheism were laudable. Atheism is not a religion - it is simply a blank slate. Children have a right to begin life as a blank slate rather than brainwashed by their religious parents and religious culture. Teaching atheism in schools is essential for providing religious freedom, because childhood brainwashing robs children of that freedom.

4. And as a bonus question, do you think societies that would be predominantly atheist in belief (say 75-90% of the population are atheists) would be necessarily better or worse because of it?

Much, much better. The world will get there soon I hope. (It might be uncomfortable for people like me who were raised to be religious, but the next generation will be better off.)

 

[Starcomet]

A state should ideally be secular and tips its hat to certain religious or moral values but is inherently removed from theology or the question of God.

 

[ananda]

According to Wikipedia State Atheism "is the name given to the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes, particularly associated with Soviet systems."

I have been attracted to State Atheism in the past based on the assumption that an Atheist society would be more rational, scientific and therefore "better" in a sense. This is probably wrong, or else more complicated than it first appears. I can certainly sympathise with the goal of such a society, but the methods used by Communists in the past are horrific to put it mildly. Personally, for all the superficial appeal, I genuinely wouldn't want to hurt people for simply believing different than me but it does raise a practical problem as to how atheism- assuming it were true- would become the dominant belief based on tolerance and without violence.

It is much easier to agree to the persecution of a group or restriction on its activities when you talk about it in the abstract, so that it has an unreal quality that obscures the nature of people's experience. Euphamism's like "the final solution of the Jewish Question" and "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" help people stop thinking about what they are really saying. (Amongst themselves the Nazis called the holocaust the "evacuation" of the Jews rather than spell it out as extermination). Historically, the elimination of religious beliefs in communist countries has meant the elimination of religious people because beliefs and people cannot be so easily separated.

In less extreme examples, using Public Education to make classes in "Scientific Atheism" (as happened in the USSR) doesn't sound so bad on paper at least, but in practice this meant systematically misinforming people by giving them a very distorted and prejudiced view of religious beliefs, communities and their history, (when the information they received was correct at all). In much the same way making the teaching of evolution mandatory in schools raises a host of issues about whether schools should be used to indoctrinate children with a specific set of beliefs (which are politically unsettling even if you concede evolution is true).

It is certainly true that religion has been used in the past to support the rule of various systems of government. Whether it is the Egyptian Pharoahs, the Roman emperors or Medieval Monarchs and Islamic Caliphates, religion has been used to support a particular system of government as expressing "god's will" or some divine quality in nature, man and the universe. Most Secular countries today continue to have a majority of religious believers and amongst those groups who do not have any religious affiliation only a tiny minority are explicitly "atheist".

In 2012, there were estimated to be 1.2 billion people without a religious affiliation (16% of the world's population) and a majority of those would fit in the category of "spiritual but not religious". Perhaps somewhere between 4% to 13% were "convinced atheists" but its unclear what they really means. So for Atheism to become a mainstream and global belief systems, it would mean either taking a very long time, or else the use of force as the same methods by which Christianity and Islam became the world's dominant religions in the past and which Communist countries attempted to do for Atheism in the 20th century. Some countries have become non-religious such as Japan (64-88%) and Sweden (46-82%) but I think these will probably be exceptions and Atheism will not become prevalent without major upheavals

So my question is:

1. In general, what arguments would you use to defend the rights of Christians and religious groups to freedom of religion in countries that practice state atheism today, (e.g. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba).

2. Do you believe that Secular countries, such as France, the UK, the United States, etc should actively promote the Christian Religion and have Christianity as an established religion.

3. And would you draw a distinction between Christians using the power of the state to impose restrictions on or otherwise persecute unbelievers and heretics, and Atheists using the power of the state to persecute Christians and impose limits on their religious freedom? (i.e. if you think one is right and the other is wrong, why is that the case?)

4. And as a bonus question, do you think societies that would be predominantly atheist in belief (say 75-90% of the population are atheists) would be necessarily better or worse because of it?

I appreciate this is going to be an offensive view and does rely on an ignorant and bigoted view of Christians and religious people, and is something I'd ideally like to put behind me. Talking about it online and reasoning it out offline is obviously going to force me to reconsider many aspects of these views so I'm welcome to discussing them and hearing people's thoughts. Thanks for reading and I look forward to your answers.

"Positive atheism", "is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist". IMO this is not rational, but is instead a belief system based on blind faith as in other religions; unless one possesses omniscience, one cannot positively say "no deities exist".

If you referenced negative atheism or agnosticism, then I believe you could have a more rational argument.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So for Atheism to become a mainstream and global belief systems, it would mean either taking a very long time, or else the use of force

I'm content to wait.

1. In general, what arguments would you use to defend the rights of Christians and religious groups to freedom of religion in countries that practice state atheism today, (e.g. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba).

You can't actually compel belief with legal force. And it's a mistake to try. So totalitarian steps to quash harmless practices and freedom of association is never going to succeed in convincing people of anything. So give it up already.

2. Do you believe that Secular countries, such as France, the UK, the United States, etc should actively promote the Christian Religion and have Christianity as an established religion.

Well, if they did so, they would cease to be secular. So no, they shouldn't.

3. And would you draw a distinction between Christians using the power of the state to impose restrictions on or otherwise persecute unbelievers and heretics, and Atheists using the power of the state to persecute Christians and impose limits on their religious freedom?

No, there's no difference. Both are wrong.

4. And as a bonus question, do you think societies that would be predominantly atheist in belief (say 75-90% of the population are atheists) would be necessarily better or worse because of it?

Hard to say. You use Japan and Sweden as examples, and they both seem like great places. I am hopeful that predominantly atheist societies would at least be able to jettison some irrational ideas that are lodged in religion and tradition. So they might be a little better. But it is not going to usher in some sort of rational utopia.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No, in the US I think we need to deify our presidents and worship them after they die. This might be a way to strengthen American culture awareness while giving a harmless outlet for the spiritual needs of society.

Americans are well on their way to that. I mean they built Mount Rushmore, for instance.

Washington and Lincoln's lives are already treated as potent myths, akin to the birth of the Elder gods and setting up the cosmos; and the 'restoration myths' after facing chaos, respectively. To wit, Washington is an Osiris to Lincoln's Horus, in the grand American narrative.
Kennedy is already a deified demigod, with a magnificent narrative of Camelot plastered mythopoeically onto the grime of politics.

The Dualism of the parties transform every President into one party's messiah and the other's devil. Think of Reagan. So maybe a strongly dualist religion, or two separate ones, is more feasible. I wonder what will be said of Trump in 50 years?

Personally I think the Soviet efforts to promote atheism were laudable. Atheism is not a religion - it is simply a blank slate. Children have a right to begin life as a blank slate rather than brainwashed by their religious parents and religious culture. Teaching atheism in schools is essential for providing religious freedom, because childhood brainwashing robs children of that freedom.

They didn't promote freedom of thought though, but indoctrination into Marxist-Leninism. They just 'brain-washed' their own underlying narrative from which the world should be perceived.

Children though aren't Tabula Rasa. To teach Atheism is not cleaning the slate, but rubbing out what is naturally there, and replacing it with a specific methodology of interpretation. It is clear from studies that children aren't empiricists, nor free from applying agenticity to the world. There is a reason all human societies historically had some form of religion. Such thinking comes natural to man, it is our baseline state. It has been argued that if we raised children in complete isolation from known religions, nor denigrated it or taught a form of empiric reasoning, that children would probably spontaneously invent a religion. Children have a sense of the numinous, of forces at play, almost innately. Even if someone is an Atheist, you have to account from whence religion therefore arose in the first place, and why it held and holds such a grip on man.

 

[GUANO]

According to Wikipedia State Atheism "is the name given to the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes, particularly associated with Soviet systems."

I have been attracted to State Atheism in the past based on the assumption that an Atheist society would be more rational, scientific and therefore "better" in a sense. This is probably wrong, or else more complicated than it first appears. I can certainly sympathise with the goal of such a society, but the methods used by Communists in the past are horrific to put it mildly. Personally, for all the superficial appeal, I genuinely wouldn't want to hurt people for simply believing different than me but it does raise a practical problem as to how atheism- assuming it were true- would become the dominant belief based on tolerance and without violence.

It is much easier to agree to the persecution of a group or restriction on its activities when you talk about it in the abstract, so that it has an unreal quality that obscures the nature of people's experience. Euphamism's like "the final solution of the Jewish Question" and "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" help people stop thinking about what they are really saying. (Amongst themselves the Nazis called the holocaust the "evacuation" of the Jews rather than spell it out as extermination). Historically, the elimination of religious beliefs in communist countries has meant the elimination of religious people because beliefs and people cannot be so easily separated.

In less extreme examples, using Public Education to make classes in "Scientific Atheism" (as happened in the USSR) doesn't sound so bad on paper at least, but in practice this meant systematically misinforming people by giving them a very distorted and prejudiced view of religious beliefs, communities and their history, (when the information they received was correct at all). In much the same way making the teaching of evolution mandatory in schools raises a host of issues about whether schools should be used to indoctrinate children with a specific set of beliefs (which are politically unsettling even if you concede evolution is true).

It is certainly true that religion has been used in the past to support the rule of various systems of government. Whether it is the Egyptian Pharoahs, the Roman emperors or Medieval Monarchs and Islamic Caliphates, religion has been used to support a particular system of government as expressing "god's will" or some divine quality in nature, man and the universe. Most Secular countries today continue to have a majority of religious believers and amongst those groups who do not have any religious affiliation only a tiny minority are explicitly "atheist".

In 2012, there were estimated to be 1.2 billion people without a religious affiliation (16% of the world's population) and a majority of those would fit in the category of "spiritual but not religious". Perhaps somewhere between 4% to 13% were "convinced atheists" but its unclear what they really means. So for Atheism to become a mainstream and global belief systems, it would mean either taking a very long time, or else the use of force as the same methods by which Christianity and Islam became the world's dominant religions in the past and which Communist countries attempted to do for Atheism in the 20th century. Some countries have become non-religious such as Japan (64-88%) and Sweden (46-82%) but I think these will probably be exceptions and Atheism will not become prevalent without major upheavals

From a strictly analytical standpoint I fail to see the difference between an 'atheist' and a 'religious' state.

- Both require belief in conceptual and 'metaphysical' principles to legitimize the existence of the state itself (this concept in itself should prove that atheism doesn't actually exist in the real world).
- Both require indoctrination of the masses for the purpose of legitimizing the state itself as well as the authority of it's "ministers"...
- Both have historically led to tyrannical leaders having their way regardless of how morally superior the people thought they were

1. In general, what arguments would you use to defend the rights of Christians and religious groups to freedom of religion in countries that practice state atheism today, (e.g. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba).

None. When you think deeply enough on the subject you see that rights do not exist and they are an invention of the human mind--another deified principle worshiped by the secular culture. Those who have the ability to enforce their own will and morality will do so and there is nothing anyone can do about it... Those with enough power to enforce their will can indoctrinate the next generation to keep the 'spirit' alive.

2. Do you believe that Secular countries, such as France, the UK, the United States, etc should actively promote the Christian Religion and have Christianity as an established religion.

No they should not promote Christianity.

"Secularism" is another word that has no inherent meaning or value. "Secular" culture is a fantasy. The current 'configuration' of western society is based on that of the Pagan Roman Republic who's patron deity is the goddess "Libertas"... Gods are deific principles, they are not "invisible creatures" and anyone who defines them as such is being naive.

With that being said, it is in a 'nations' best interest to promote whatever religious ideology reinforces the legitimacy of it's own incorporeal (fictitious) existence. If the religion is a threat to the patron-spirit of the nation then they must do battle in the minds of the masses

3. And would you draw a distinction between Christians using the power of the state to impose restrictions on or otherwise persecute unbelievers and heretics, and Atheists using the power of the state to persecute Christians and impose limits on their religious freedom? (i.e. if you think one is right and the other is wrong, why is that the case?)

Christians using the 'power of the state' to accomplish anything, including recognize their little 'churches', is akin to worshiping a 'false god' based on the religious texts themselves... In regards to the state using it's power to stifle ideologies that inhibit it's movement, well, of course it's going to do that. My judgement on whether it's "right" or "wrong" is inconsequential as it's akin to nature.

4. And as a bonus question, do you think societies that would be predominantly atheist in belief (say 75-90% of the population are atheists) would be necessarily better or worse because of it?

They would be worse off. The most dangerous form of religion is the one that you convince people isn't a religion. The inherent danger in 'popular atheism' lies in the nihilistic undertones prevalent in most forms of atheism and this has already been strictly demonstrated in Germany, Russia, and China. Human depravity knows no bounds when humans believe there is nothing 'sacred' (containing metaphysical meaning) about each other.

 

[DogmaHunter]

According to Wikipedia State Atheism "is the name given to the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes, particularly associated with Soviet systems."

I have been attracted to State Atheism in the past based on the assumption that an Atheist society would be more rational, scientific and therefore "better" in a sense. This is probably wrong, or else more complicated than it first appears. I can certainly sympathise with the goal of such a society, but the methods used by Communists in the past are horrific to put it mildly. Personally, for all the superficial appeal, I genuinely wouldn't want to hurt people for simply believing different than me but it does raise a practical problem as to how atheism- assuming it were true- would become the dominant belief based on tolerance and without violence.

It is much easier to agree to the persecution of a group or restriction on its activities when you talk about it in the abstract, so that it has an unreal quality that obscures the nature of people's experience. Euphamism's like "the final solution of the Jewish Question" and "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" help people stop thinking about what they are really saying. (Amongst themselves the Nazis called the holocaust the "evacuation" of the Jews rather than spell it out as extermination). Historically, the elimination of religious beliefs in communist countries has meant the elimination of religious people because beliefs and people cannot be so easily separated.

In less extreme examples, using Public Education to make classes in "Scientific Atheism" (as happened in the USSR) doesn't sound so bad on paper at least, but in practice this meant systematically misinforming people by giving them a very distorted and prejudiced view of religious beliefs, communities and their history, (when the information they received was correct at all). In much the same way making the teaching of evolution mandatory in schools raises a host of issues about whether schools should be used to indoctrinate children with a specific set of beliefs (which are politically unsettling even if you concede evolution is true).

It is certainly true that religion has been used in the past to support the rule of various systems of government. Whether it is the Egyptian Pharoahs, the Roman emperors or Medieval Monarchs and Islamic Caliphates, religion has been used to support a particular system of government as expressing "god's will" or some divine quality in nature, man and the universe. Most Secular countries today continue to have a majority of religious believers and amongst those groups who do not have any religious affiliation only a tiny minority are explicitly "atheist".

In 2012, there were estimated to be 1.2 billion people without a religious affiliation (16% of the world's population) and a majority of those would fit in the category of "spiritual but not religious". Perhaps somewhere between 4% to 13% were "convinced atheists" but its unclear what they really means. So for Atheism to become a mainstream and global belief systems, it would mean either taking a very long time, or else the use of force as the same methods by which Christianity and Islam became the world's dominant religions in the past and which Communist countries attempted to do for Atheism in the 20th century. Some countries have become non-religious such as Japan (64-88%) and Sweden (46-82%) but I think these will probably be exceptions and Atheism will not become prevalent without major upheavals

So my question is:

1. In general, what arguments would you use to defend the rights of Christians and religious groups to freedom of religion in countries that practice state atheism today, (e.g. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba).

2. Do you believe that Secular countries, such as France, the UK, the United States, etc should actively promote the Christian Religion and have Christianity as an established religion.

3. And would you draw a distinction between Christians using the power of the state to impose restrictions on or otherwise persecute unbelievers and heretics, and Atheists using the power of the state to persecute Christians and impose limits on their religious freedom? (i.e. if you think one is right and the other is wrong, why is that the case?)

4. And as a bonus question, do you think societies that would be predominantly atheist in belief (say 75-90% of the population are atheists) would be necessarily better or worse because of it?

I appreciate this is going to be an offensive view and does rely on an ignorant and bigoted view of Christians and religious people, and is something I'd ideally like to put behind me. Talking about it online and reasoning it out offline is obviously going to force me to reconsider many aspects of these views so I'm welcome to discussing them and hearing people's thoughts. Thanks for reading and I look forward to your answers.

State atheism is bad, because it's always a bad idea to try and "force" people into certain beliefs or disbeliefs.

In a free society, you can believe whatever you want.
And yes, as a society, you want citizens to believe as much rational things as possible.
The way to accomplish that, however, is by investing in education, not goulags.

Trying to impose on people what they can and cannot believe, never ends well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. In general, what arguments would you use to defend the rights of Christians and religious groups to freedom of religion in countries that practice state atheism today, (e.g. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba).

Same as my previous, more general, post: being able to believe what you want, is an important part of the concept of freedom.

It's "the free market place of ideas", as Michael Shermer likes to call it.

2. Do you believe that Secular countries, such as France, the UK, the United States, etc should actively promote the Christian Religion and have Christianity as an established religion.

No.

3. And would you draw a distinction between Christians using the power of the state to impose restrictions on or otherwise persecute unbelievers and heretics, and Atheists using the power of the state to persecute Christians and impose limits on their religious freedom? (i.e. if you think one is right and the other is wrong, why is that the case?)

I would say both are wrong. However, I wouldn't be surprised that certain theists wouldn't agree with me on what the borders of "religious freedom" are.

The first and most obvious border would obviously have to be the political one: strict separation of church and state. And this isn't only for the benefit of the state, btw. It's also for the benefit of the church. It's a two way street…

It means that governments can't go into churches demanding them to do this or that, as well as vice versa: that churches aren't allow to go and demand of politicians that they do this or that, for the benefit of the church or because it is in line with what they believe religiously.

The border thus, for me, is public life. My fellow citizens can believe whatever the heck they want and they can experience their religion among themselves as much as they want in any fashion they choose (within legal borders, off course). But I myself should experience ANY kind of impact from that practice.

Freedom of religion, after all, also includes freedom FROM religion.

4. And as a bonus question, do you think societies that would be predominantly atheist in belief (say 75-90% of the population are atheists) would be necessarily better or worse because of it?

In western secular democracies, that is actually the case in a multitude of ways.
And I think it's very logical that it is so…

A society that isn't entrenched in superstition, will always fare better and make more rational choices then those that are.

I don't mean to be insulting by calling it "superstition"... That's just my honest opinion of what the belief in the supernatural is: superstition.

To put it bluntly………….
If someone with a medical condition seeks actual medical help, they'll get better results then those with the same condition who go and seek the help of some hindu guru or a crystal healer, or who have their church community just pray for them instead.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As an atheist what you can not realize is that a society void of God waxes worse and worse. It doesn't get better because you will it to get better as human beings. Human morals will always get undermined and rooted out in due time without the influence of the true and living God to keep you in check from the inside out..

Western secular democracies with low levels of religiosity, don't agree at all.
They are consistently among the top countries to live in in terms of health care, education, literacy, infant mortality rates, low crime rates, longevity, etc.

The facts are what they are.
I don't think there is a causal link here, but there is definatly a correlation that is clear enough to be mentioned.

 

[Chesterton]

According to Wikipedia State Atheism "is the name given to the incorporation of positive atheism or non-theism into political regimes, particularly associated with Soviet systems."

I have been attracted to State Atheism in the past based on the assumption that an Atheist society would be more rational, scientific and therefore "better" in a sense. This is probably wrong, or else more complicated than it first appears. I can certainly sympathise with the goal of such a society, but the methods used by Communists in the past are horrific to put it mildly. Personally, for all the superficial appeal, I genuinely wouldn't want to hurt people for simply believing different than me but it does raise a practical problem as to how atheism- assuming it were true- would become the dominant belief based on tolerance and without violence.

It is much easier to agree to the persecution of a group or restriction on its activities when you talk about it in the abstract, so that it has an unreal quality that obscures the nature of people's experience. Euphamism's like "the final solution of the Jewish Question" and "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" help people stop thinking about what they are really saying. (Amongst themselves the Nazis called the holocaust the "evacuation" of the Jews rather than spell it out as extermination). Historically, the elimination of religious beliefs in communist countries has meant the elimination of religious people because beliefs and people cannot be so easily separated.

In less extreme examples, using Public Education to make classes in "Scientific Atheism" (as happened in the USSR) doesn't sound so bad on paper at least, but in practice this meant systematically misinforming people by giving them a very distorted and prejudiced view of religious beliefs, communities and their history, (when the information they received was correct at all). In much the same way making the teaching of evolution mandatory in schools raises a host of issues about whether schools should be used to indoctrinate children with a specific set of beliefs (which are politically unsettling even if you concede evolution is true).

It is certainly true that religion has been used in the past to support the rule of various systems of government. Whether it is the Egyptian Pharoahs, the Roman emperors or Medieval Monarchs and Islamic Caliphates, religion has been used to support a particular system of government as expressing "god's will" or some divine quality in nature, man and the universe. Most Secular countries today continue to have a majority of religious believers and amongst those groups who do not have any religious affiliation only a tiny minority are explicitly "atheist".

In 2012, there were estimated to be 1.2 billion people without a religious affiliation (16% of the world's population) and a majority of those would fit in the category of "spiritual but not religious". Perhaps somewhere between 4% to 13% were "convinced atheists" but its unclear what they really means. So for Atheism to become a mainstream and global belief systems, it would mean either taking a very long time, or else the use of force as the same methods by which Christianity and Islam became the world's dominant religions in the past and which Communist countries attempted to do for Atheism in the 20th century. Some countries have become non-religious such as Japan (64-88%) and Sweden (46-82%) but I think these will probably be exceptions and Atheism will not become prevalent without major upheavals

So my question is:

1. In general, what arguments would you use to defend the rights of Christians and religious groups to freedom of religion in countries that practice state atheism today, (e.g. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba).

2. Do you believe that Secular countries, such as France, the UK, the United States, etc should actively promote the Christian Religion and have Christianity as an established religion.

3. And would you draw a distinction between Christians using the power of the state to impose restrictions on or otherwise persecute unbelievers and heretics, and Atheists using the power of the state to persecute Christians and impose limits on their religious freedom? (i.e. if you think one is right and the other is wrong, why is that the case?)

4. And as a bonus question, do you think societies that would be predominantly atheist in belief (say 75-90% of the population are atheists) would be necessarily better or worse because of it?

I appreciate this is going to be an offensive view and does rely on an ignorant and bigoted view of Christians and religious people, and is something I'd ideally like to put behind me. Talking about it online and reasoning it out offline is obviously going to force me to reconsider many aspects of these views so I'm welcome to discussing them and hearing people's thoughts. Thanks for reading and I look forward to your answers.

Much of your post reminded me of this, written by Dave Sims after he'd read through the Bible:

Reason, it seems to me, makes things like fascism and communism possible - Something that Wisdom wouldn't allow. Reason works well on paper. The foundation of communism - 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' - is very reasonable. It just isn't very wise. Wisdom would ask, 'What about human greed? What about the power which manifests itself wherever there is the greatest concentration of wealth and resources? What power are you going to have to counterbalance and check the power of whoever controls the concentration of wealth and resources?' Because Reason has no reasonable answer for those questions, the system is doomed to failure. The Constitution of the United States of America is wise. Das Kapital is reasonable. Reason degenerates too easily into pragmatism. 'You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.' 'We like what works,' which leaves aside questions of right and wrong.​

And:

“Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied, nor passed over, nor surpressed. How, then, do we dare insist that evildoers do not exist? And what was it that destroyed these millions? Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago.

There was a rumor going the rounds between 1918 and 1920 that the Petrograd Cheka, headed by Uritsky, and the Odessa Cheka, headed by Deich, did not shoot all those condemned to death but fed some of them alive to the animals in the city zoos. I do not know whether this is truth or calumny, or, if there were any such cases, how many were there. But I wouldn't set out to look for proof, either. Following the practice of the bluecaps, I would propose that they prove to us that this was impossible. How else could they get food for the zoos in those famine years? Take it away from the working class? Those enemies were going to die anyway, so why couldn't their deaths support the zoo economy of the Republic and thereby assist our march into the future? Wasn't it expedient?

That is the precise line the Shakespearean evildoer could not cross. But the evildoer with ideology does cross it, and his eyes remain dry and clear.”​

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

 

[Uber Genius]

We don’t need any more data about state sponsored religion to make a rational determination that it is redicilous and despotic!

“In order to live here you must hold these beliefs,”

If atheism is rational then make the positive case for it.

Atheism hasn’t taken hold because it is not at all obviously true.

And we see suggestions of indoctrinating children on atheism because again it is not obviously the case that it is true.

Propaganda seems always set against rationality otherwise we would just present the obviousness of the claim and let people’s rationality do the heavy lifting.

As to being more scientific, that claim is false prima facie. Science is limited to a physical account of the world! It can’t account for philosophical propositions, mathematical truths, moral truths.

Further scientific truths support premises for the Kalam cosmological and fine-tuning (teleological) arguments for the existence of God! How exactly would science support the claim that there is no God exactly?

I suggest we allow people to think and they will find the truth eventually based on reasons to believe a proposition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We don’t need any more data about state sponsored religion to make a rational determination that it is redicilous and despotic!

“In order to live here you must hold these beliefs,”

If atheism is rational then make the positive case for it.

"state atheism" would turn your statement into:

In order to live here, you are NOT ALLOWED to hold these and these beliefs.

Which is just as despicable and despotic.

Yes, I'ld say that atheism is rational for the sheer fact that it is a label used for people who don't hold faith-based beliefs. I'ld say that faith-based beliefs are irrational. So not holding such beliefs, would by default be rational.

State atheism however, usually comes with some extra baggage. The examples we have seen in this world, consisted of hardcore communism. In a very real sense, you could call that a state religion. These nations typically demand god-like worship of the state and/or the dictator.

State atheism and secularism, are two very different things.

Atheism hasn’t taken hold because it is not at all obviously true.

Atheism isn't something that can be "true" or "false".
Atheism isn't a claim. It's a response to a claim.

And we see suggestions of indoctrinating children on atheism because again it is not obviously the case that it is true.

There's no such thing as "indoctrination on atheism" either. There is no doctrine there.
You can only indoctrinate children into positive beliefs, like theism.

So when you say "indoctrinate them in atheism", what you really mean is "not indoctrinating them into theism".

Atheism, is not a doctrine. Theism is the doctrine.
Atheism is merely the absence of theist doctrine.

Propaganda seems always set against rationality otherwise we would just present the obviousness of the claim and let people’s rationality do the heavy lifting.

Sure. But atheism, isn't a claim. Theism is the claim. Atheism is merely the rejection / unbelief of the claim of theism.

As to being more scientific, that claim is false prima facie. Science is limited to a physical account of the world! It can’t account for philosophical propositions, mathematical truths, moral truths.

What claim are you talking about?

Further scientific truths support premises for the Kalam cosmological and fine-tuning (teleological) arguments for the existence of God!

No they don't.
Science doesn't support logical fallacies.

How exactly would science support the claim that their is no God exactly?

Claims of the non-existance of anything can't be supported by default as that would require proving a negative.

It's the positive claim that has the burden of proof. In this case, that positive claim would be that God(s) exist.

For example, how would science support the claim that pink unicorns do NOT exist?
Do you believe they exist? I'm guessing you don't.

I suggest we allow people to think and they will find the truth eventually based on reasons to believe a proposition.

Indeed. And when no such reasons are forthcoming, then you default to NOT accepting the claim as true.

And once more, the claims here are the claims of theism. The positive claims that actually have a burden of proof.

 

[Uber Genius]

"state atheism" would turn your statement into:

In order to live here, you are NOT ALLOWED to hold these and these beliefs.

Which is just as despicable and despotic.

You haven't said anything here.

In less you claim that free countries tell their populace what not to believe. You would need to provide evidence for that claim.

Yes, I'ld say that atheism is rational for the sheer fact that it is a label used for people who don't hold faith-based beliefs.

It may be rational, but is not obviously so or most would hold that view without propaganda. Atheist represent a very small percentage of the populace. So while it may be true and one is welcome to defend that position with reasons, arguments and supporting premises, it is not obviously true.

Atheism isn't something that can be "true" or "false".
Atheism isn't a claim. It's a response to a claim.

New Atheist propaganda. See link for details.
Tricks New Atheist Play (Part 1)

There's no such thing as "indoctrination on atheism" either. There is no doctrine there.
You can only indoctrinate children into positive beliefs, like theism.

"Oh children, sorry to tell you there is no such thing as God."

Now that wasn't so hard to demonstrate your statement was false. The point you are missing is that all good parents indoctrinate their children. They teach them math, how to read, how to understand the world and operate in it, and yes they help them to understand where we came from, where we go when we die, how we should live our lives morally, and how we get meaning, and even how to relate to a transcendent, eternal creator, who is personal and loving if they exist.

A parent who believe the positive claim, "There is no God," will teach their child answers to those last questions that are very different then a theist would. And they have a responsibility to do so. So I don't fault them. I'm just suggesting that if you had children you would most likely find them assuming a cause for the universe and a personal being watching over them, then they are an accident of nature, utterly without purpose, without any standard for living a good life that was objective.

This is also why there are no atheists in foxholes.

Now I am not making an argument here just stating things that are historically obviously true. But we have counter-examples such as dark energy and quantum mechanical theory that are in no sense "obvious" and yet nevertheless are true. So Atheism could be true but it is not obviously true.

Science doesn't support logical fallacies.

incoherent.

You appear unfamiliar with how premises from science such as:

The universe began to exist
The universe appears to be fine-tuned for life

are agreed to by almost every scientist in cosmology for the last 40+ years.

Further you don't seem to understand how logical fallacy works.

Here is a great video that will help (it is limited to incoherent objections by atheist to the Kalam as the number give the other arguments would soar into the hundreds)
Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up | Reasonable Faith

 

[Hawkins]

1. In general, what arguments would you use to defend the rights of Christians and religious groups to freedom of religion in countries that practice state atheism today, (e.g. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba).

Christianity is about an advocate of what could possibly lying ahead of humans as forewarned by a super being.

Humans themselves lack the ability to confirm a future. It is thus immoral to suppress such an advocate as it is a possible truth. You have to let people make their own choice about their own future (we are talking about an eternity here).

 

[Sanoy]

I'd be interested in hearing what sort of society would form in a purely atheistic state. That is that only Atheists are allowed in the state. I'm wondering how the dynamics between Nihilists, atheist that take on non objective meanings, and Atheist that are not strict naturalists ( believe in spirits). Will they ground their societal values in pure scientific evidence, or will there be constraints of the conclusions of science wherin it infringes with societal cohesion. It would be very interesting to virtually see what system it forms.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You haven't said anything here.

In less you claim that free countries tell their populace what not to believe. You would need to provide evidence for that claim.

I'm not making such a claim?

It may be rational, but is not obviously so or most would hold that view without propaganda.

Why? Is there some rule that states that the majority of humans must always be rational about everything?

That's funny, because I'ld consider the very opposite more likely. The human mind is very prone to irrational thought concerning various subjects / contexts. Some more then others.

Atheist represent a very small percentage of the populace

And rationality / accuracy is determined by how many people believe a certain proposition?

So while it may be true and one is welcome to defend that position with reasons, arguments and supporting premises, it is not obviously true.

Atheism is not a thing to be "true" or "false", since there are no claims there that can be true or false. Theism is the claim. Theism can be true or false.
An atheist is just someone who doesn't positively believe that theism is true, mostly on the basis that the atheist is of the opinion that theists can't live upto their burden of proof.

New Atheist propaganda. See link for details.
Tricks New Atheist Play (Part 1)

There's nothing propaganda about it.
If I tell you that Jessica Alba appeared in my living room out of nothing, made love to me and then vanished again - you'll state that you don't believe that claim to be true, on the ground that you don't have any valid reason to believe it. You lack convincing evidence. My word is not enough.

You're not making a claim at that point. You're simply stating that you have insufficient reason to believe the claim. You can't be "wrong" in that. If you're unconvinced due to lack of evidence, then that is what it is. At that point, it's upto me to live upto my burden of proof.

"Oh children, sorry to tell you there is no such thing as God."

False.

Instead, atheist parents simply do NOT tell them that there IS such a thing as god.
I had a non-religious upbringing. Gods were non-issues.

I've been an atheist all my life, I never was religious.
Not because I was thought that "god doesn't exist". Rather beause I was never indoctrinated into god beliefs. I was never taught to believe in god.

Now that wasn't so hard to demonstrate your statement was false.

Unfortunatly, the real world doesn't work like that.

The point you are missing is that all good parents indoctrinate their children. They teach them math, how to read, how to understand the world and operate in it

That's education. Not indoctrination.
To indoctrinate means to instruct into a doctrine or ideology.
Math, reading, writing, biology, physics, ... none of these are doctrines or ideologies.

, and yes they help them to understand where we came from, where we go when we die, how we should live our lives morally, and how we get meaning, and even how to relate to a transcendent, eternal creator, who is personal and loving if they exist.

That would be indoctrination of a religious beliefs, yes.
I don't do that. I don't pretend to know that which I don't know.
And I don't consider it good parenting, by the way.

In some extreme cases, I actually even consider it child abuse.

[qutoe]
A parent who believe the positive claim, "There is no God," will teach their child answers to those last questions that are very different then a theist would.[/quote]

1. I don't know anyone who believes that claim
2. many of those answers would be "I don't know" or even "I'm not even sure it's a valid question, since it's kinda loaded".

I also prefer teaching my children how to think, instead of instructing them what to think.

I'm just suggesting that if you had children

I do.
Too young for this conversation though.

you would most likely find them assuming a cause for the universe and a personal being watching over them, then they are an accident of nature, utterly without purpose, without any standard for living a good life that was objective.

No. Exactly what I'm saying, this is something that you need be taught.
I was never instructed in such religious thinking. So I never assumed such.
I was also never told that I should be afraid of saying "i don't know", when I don't know.

Now I am not making an argument here just stating things that are historically obviously true. But we have counter-examples such as dark energy and quantum mechanical theory that are in no sense "obvious" and yet nevertheless are true. So Atheism could be true but it is not obviously true.

Again, these things are not comparable.
Atheism is a position of skepticism in context of a specific claim, not a position of making claims.

You appear unfamiliar with how premises from science such as:

The universe began to exist
The universe appears to be fine-tuned for life

are agreed to by almost every scientist in cosmology for the last 40+ years.

With emphasis on the word appears.

Further you don't seem to understand how logical fallacy works.

Here is a great video that will help (it is limited to incoherent objections by atheist to the Kalam as the number give the other arguments would soar into the hundreds)
Objections So Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up | Reasonable Faith

Sorry, but you're not going to convince me that the kalam isn't a cesspool of logical failures.
It's been torn apart enough times already, regardless of the apologetics.