Randman's call for nonSecular education...

I'm pretty sure theirs was the belief that the world itself was eternal, but I could be wrong.Nonetheless, the specifics of their state theology are not relevant. Different religions ascribe different properties to their deities. What does that prove?

Yes, I have while in the Soviet Union, and the Soviets believed religion was unscientific, irrational, and unhealthy. They were atheists. Show one piece of evidence that were not atheists.You are spouting nonsense.

Crash, they were atheists. Their stance that the State should be "deified" as you put it does not change that in the slightest because they weren't trying to tell people that the State was a god. That's total BS on your part. They were saying that there is no God, and that the devotion to God should be replaced by devotion to the party or the atheist state.Why do you think one of Lenin's first acts was to declare the state officially an atheist state? He wasn't trying to tell people that the state was a god.I proved this with links, with personal testimony, and common sense. The Soviets thought they were building a more rational, scientic society.This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 06:45 PM

No, they did not. They killed people in the name of political repression. The fact that they were atheists is immaterial. Their opposition to religion was based on the idea that nothing should come before loyalty to the state.The fact that the brutal, totalitarian regimes happened to be atheists is irrelevant and is in any case in no way an indictment of atheism in general.This applies equally to the many politically motivated atrocities down through the years that have used religion as a cover.This does not apply to the myriad tragedies caused purely for religion's sake. Those can be laid solely at the feet of religion and the mindset it engenders.

You are almost right for a change. The Soviet regime was dedicated to both those ideas in so far as they enhanced the political power and control exerted by the government.

Granted, but disdain for other religions is a common feature of religious belief, so what's your point? The deification of the state. Do you deny that took place? That people saluted images of the leader as though they were the leader himself? I seem to recall things like parades and demonstrations taking place in front of icons of the leader, as though he could observe them through the painting.I mean, does it make sense to you that atheism would be responsible for all those murders? When all of the countries of northern Europe are secular, atheist states and they haven't killed anyone? If state atheism meant mass murder, the Scandinavian states would be bloodbaths, not the states with the greatest standard of living in the world.Religions have always been a force for mass murder. Atheism never has. The mass murders of the Soviet empire were due to their religious conviction to their state, their state's leaders, and their total devotion to ideology; none of these things are features associated with secularism and atheism.

Wrong. Often the primary motive was atheism. They attacked and persecuted religious people for the purpose of oppressing religion and promoting atheism. That's a fact which you can discount until you are blue in the face, but regardless, their atheism was central to their politics and to their repression.

If you are claiming mere fervent devotion is a religion all of it's own, I agree with you, and tend to think evolutionism is a false religion.But that doesn't mean they were not atheist. It just means that atheism, holding to the belief there is no Creator God, can be a form of religion all on it's own. In fact, atheism is religious in nature if you ask me. First off, none of those states are atheist states. Prove they are atheist states if you want to try. Sweden - Wikipedia Church of Sweden - WikipediaThis message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 07:04 PM

"God is the state; the state is God."Do you just have a problem reading plain English, or what? I mean, if Trotsky, one of the architects of the Soviet state, isn't an authority on the subject, then who is? Wikipedia? The website where anybody can write any wrong article?Please. I've proven that the Soviet state is not atheist. The best you can seem to do is prove that they oppressed other religions; an almost universal feature of a religious state.

You are incapable, apparently, of seeing what motivates a totalitarian regime. If you think that the Soviet government was interested in anything beyond gaining and holding power, you are simply misled. If you think that their atheistic position was anything more then a tool to use in pursuit of that goal, you are unrealistic.As always when I engage you, I think we are done on this subject. You simply do not understand what you are talking about and don't want to learn.

If you're referring to positivist atheism, I'd say that you're right. Agnostic atheism is not a religion, however; it's the absence of any religious belief. You're right; I shouldn't have implied that they were. They are, however, highly secular states, and about the closest there has ever been to an atheist state. But there has never been a true atheist state; probably because religion is such a potent tool for control.

Sweden had an official church until the year 2000, and over 70% of the population are members, and though attendance is weak, the vast majority believe God exists.Finland still has an official church. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland - WikipediaWhat atheist states are you referring to in Scandanavia, and can you name any officially atheist state that is not repressive towards religion?

So in your definitions, a government can have an official state church and yet be officially secular?Gimme a break, dude. You can't just make up facts. Scandanavia is not "secular" in the sense of atheist. If you mean they allow freedom of religion while having an official religion, fine but that means a state or nation can be religious and secular at the same time. So your argument breaks down since you asked why would such states not kill religious people of they were secular or atheist.Well, maybe because by allowing and encouraging religion, they are as religious and as they are secular.This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 07:16 PM

Uh, actually Norway and Finland have state churches, you know, the government and the state joined together. Sweden used to until 2000.So in no sense are they highly secular governments. I mean, heck, they have official Christian churches by law as part of the government.

Yes. Just as a government with specific prohibitions against state churches can be highly religious, like ours is.Regardless, the Scandanavian states are almost universally considered to be secular states, such as in a recent study peer-reviewed in the Journal of Religion and Society:

quote:

---

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

​

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

​

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

---

The Times & The Sunday TimesSadly, it's probably the case that no nation can successfully eliminate religion, and honestly the attempt usually causes more problems than religion itself. Nonetheless, in regards to secular states, the Scandanavian nations and other areas of Europe represent the best practical examples. "Secular" does not mean "atheist."