Can we talk about an atheist regime?

For the background of this thread, see:

In albania it used to be illegal to own a bible, can't think of a more atheist regime than that.

Edited by Toltec - 29-May-2011 at 11:13

here we have more about it:
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html
a theism,this means you are guiding your life!?!No destiny,probabilities or God!Technically speaking, keyboard&mouse&power ON/Off button are in your own hands!Even Armageddon you could prevent?Help is needed here: Am I The God All Mighty?


Edited by medenaywe - 30-May-2011 at 02:28

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by Toltec   Alternatively you could have a secular regime. A regime that makes non-religious governmental decisions but allows the populace freedom to be religious. The problem with this is what happens if a religious person gets elected and starts to make decisions based on religion.  Does the country need a thought police for politicians? I think you would need a respected and obeyed judicial system and a de centeralized authority structure that would allow for local variation.    For example, Malaysia is a secular country with an Islamic cultural base. How much influence that Islamic cultural base has on the secular executive, judicial and legistalive system can vary considerably depending on the state.

 

I don't think in Malaysia you can seperate ethnicity and religion, because the country doesn't allow religious conversions, so they are one and the same thing.

The problem with this idea is that one can't be compelled to do something due to a lack of belief. It takes them to believe something else. Maybe a lack of belief allows for a belief that wouldn't be there without it, but atheism is merely a lack of belief. Maybe you should restate is as humanitarians or liberals since many of them seem to be atheists?

I lived in one - in communist Bulgaria. I fact, what I saw was quasi-religion, communism is the role of religion, Communist revolution worldwide as the Final Judgement, the advent of the classless society in the role of Millenium, or Paradise, Marx, Lenin and Stalin as prophets. So, communism has all the features of a religion, and is subconsciously modeled on Christianity. The political cleansings were the Spanish inquisition, the Communist Party the Church, even weekly meetings on which members would read speeches on, say, that god doesn't exist, and rock music is poison of the Baal.

 The US was the satan, the capitalist world - the hell; and there were 4 communist organizations to enroll kids as preparation for being communist members /3 grade - Chavdarcheta - one wears blue scarf; high school - Pioneri - one wears red scarf. gigh school - Comsomolci - one gets to go to weekly meeting and hold speeches written on the Marx's and Lenin's works - the bible. There wre root-grass organization - like churches - based on the population of every city and town, where the meeting and the speeches were done - like Sunday church goings. To refuse to become a communist was a heresy, and stuff like sanitary napkins, lingerie and rock music - idols one have to avoid in order to save one's soul/life, in a very literal way. All books were censured, and only socialist-oriented, or politically critisizing-capitalism writers were translated.

My point is - many people like religion, and even if they get an atheist society, they'll turn an political doctrine into religion. My family are firm believers. I'm a heretic, which name I earned also on religious subforums in a different history forum I'm still active in - because I wanted to discuss Mary Magdalene and Gnosticism on a secular level, and refused to accept than discussing and accepting evolution damns one soul to hell.

For all practical purpuses I don't see a difference between a firm beliver in communism or a believer in certain quite traditional Christian churches. In the both cases I find myself in hell, muahahahaha...

Originally posted by Don Quixote Originally posted by ttdub The problem with this idea is that one can't be compelled to do something due to a lack of belief. It takes them to believe something else. Maybe a lack of belief allows for a belief that wouldn't be there without it, but atheism is merely a lack of belief. Maybe you should restate is as humanitarians or liberals since many of them seem to be atheists? One doesn't need to be religious to be a moral being; (true and fair enough) and in fact there is much immorality among religious people, (as the secularist, atheist or agnostic, hence it's a weak analogy all it remains is subjective) who think that they are going to be forgiven because the believe.  (That's the rejectionist in ya and ya entitled but it wont change the other's perception and or acceptance of their position) This is even more dangerous way of thinking that not believing in anything - at least then one doesn't feel himself/herself above the human law and allowed to kill and torture with the feeling that this earns one paradise. (Nope don't buy it. As a matter of fact, it is the secularist, in his self sought relief, that allows his comfort zone to be filled with a concept of 'universal human law standards' that has only the species as a creator... as the more moral...nonsense. Hence a misunderstanding misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the dogma of others..are. those of faith... doesn't let ya off the hook here. For the idea is repentance and forgiveness for evil rendered or done by an individual of faith by all concerned...I'll subjectively speculate it is easier for that to be done by a person of conviction or faith who individually holds themselves to a higher authorities standard of conduct vs. the secularist only his own. Because individual standards of morality hence human law are flawed in the variance.) I advocate secular ethics - and I advocate it to be taught in schools, so children have some secular basis to step on - now they are squished between frequently too conservative parents who expect them to be angels, and hence provoke master-teen-rebellion, and the mass media that advertises violence and turned the clever criminal into a social role many kids want to step in. No wonder the poor kids are confused - the Christian ethic is frequently too obsolete to be followed /like also dangerous, like all the Christian/Catholic/etc. noise against family planning, this is a disaster-waiting-to-happen if one is to follow that/; and without a sane secular alternative the kids have no choice but to rebel, do something stupid like running from home, get pregnant, and or get set for an abortion /that is the failure of the family planning/ or have kids when they themselves are kids. and hove no idea what responsibility means. Those are the results of the Christian morality today, this is what I see around me. (I, otoh, advocate separation of Church and state not the elimination of one at the expense of the other. Merely to serve a socio-political ideologICAL agenda of either the atheist-secularist or the conservative religious fervor ist. And unlike the secularist, I advocate an increase in moral faith based recognition of the concept of individual responsibility in the execution of their faith. Instead of the secularist who is willing to allow individual lapses or lapses in toto, of personal responsibility as a convenience. And as a result then supports infanticide and eugenics thru the back door.) Anyway, my bottom line is that morality doesn't need religion to exist, and religion does not necessarily bring morality around; so there is no correlation between both. Neither religion, nor atheism should be pushed on anyone - this is a very personal choice that have to be realized in a secular society based on legal principles.   (Almost concurable.... but alas the logic fails when one understands the agenda of the secularist-atheist is to eliminate faith as a counter or challenge to it's desire as a pre-eminence as an ideaology....iow.to perserve it's own....not to allow it as a personal choice. That is generally not found the other way around. A great danger to personal liberty that I can't support.)

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 16-Feb-2012 at 10:00

IMO basing morality on the will of God or the will of the government are just two sides of the same coin.

Originally posted by Don Quixote When I was young, I saw religion as freedom, because it was forbidden, and one couldn't find a bible  to buy and read; so when I obtained one century-old  edition of the NT I felt than I held piece of freedom in my hands

Here I had the inverse situation growing up and being forced to take mandatory Islamic lessons. Then I discovered Hitchens, Dawkins, Russel, and I felt liberated


Edited by Arab - 16-Feb-2012 at 14:54

Atheist regimes = PR China, Soviet Union, North Korea, and many other stalinist states.