Governments Using Atheism by Force

[Grim]

Somehow I had always looked at atheism on the basis of an individuals rejection of the church. In a way I have actually assumed church and state to be but separate heads of the same beast. It is an interesting perspective that a state would use atheism as a means of concentrating ideological reliance and removing the last very creative vestiges of alternative thought. Of course this alternative creativity is to assume that the religion is non-radical, rooted in tradition, and holds genuine moral authority over its believers and is not a definable cult of some-Scientology or the other.

Atheism may be a more logical and realistic view of the world; however, it apparently can also be used as a way of control by a ruling class. Would it be better to have a society where religion has been forcibly removed, even through the most benevolently moral rational, than to live in one were religion is still significant?

http://atheists.org/blog/index.php/2009 ... ed-atheism

http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/atheisms/soviet.html

[Interbane]

Society will be healthier once religion is gone. Nothing should be forced upon people, but the truth should be made easily accessible. It's such a sad tale that parasitic religions have come to exist. They usurp critical thinking and are tough to root out.

Grim: "[Atheism] apparently can also be used as a way of control by a ruling class"

Explain.

[DWill]

Atheism may be a more logical and realistic view of the world; however, it apparently can also be used as a way of control by a ruling class. Would it be better to have a society where religion has been forcibly removed, even through the most benevolently moral rational, than to live in one were religion is still significant?

A few totalitarian societies have suppressed religion and persecuted those who continue to cling to it. However, I wouldn't say (without studying the matter deeply), that atheism was a tool of suppression, only that in the view of the ruling oligarchy, religion was in competition with and was incompatible with the state's aim at absolute control. The difference may seem subtle, but I'm thinking that first there is an ideology, say Marxist communism, that is believed to represent the ultimate ends of life. Other views of ultimate ends are then of course attacked by the regime.

No doubt, though, in my mind (and I would guess in the minds of most atheists, too) that a society in which relgion has been forcibly removed would be a horrible one in which to live.

[Trish]

I agree. I would prefer persuasion out of religion through discourse, never by force. That would be completely anti-free thought. I believe that atheism in the Soviet Union was not so much to liberate people from religion, but simply to make room for no other authority than the state, the new god and religion. The sedation of the masses in the Soviet Union was accomplished in a much simpler and pervasive way by making alcohol as cheap as water.

[Penelope]

Quote Trish

The sedation of the masses in the Soviet Union was accomplished in a much simpler and pervasive way by making alcohol as cheap as water.

The Soviet Union don't have the monopoly on this sort of behaviour. In Georgian and Victorian England, when there was a majority of people living in poverty and squallor, the Government allowed the import of cheap gin (Geneva) which was 'reputedly' allowed into the country, to keep the masses quiet.

Karl Marx might have called religion the opiate of the people, but I think perhaps at that time it may have been far preferable to the misuse of alcohol. John Wesley was instrumental in bringing revival of religion to Wales....and to this part of England, by the formation of the Methodist Church, who abstained from alcohol completely and Also brought into play, what was known as 'the Protestant Work Ethic'. Reading personal accounts of this phenomenon.....of which there are many..... It seems to have fired men and women to stand up with dignity and given them a sense of purpose and direction.

That was then, and this is now. There is a need to 'persuade' people away from superstition and towards nobility of spirit.

I am absolutely sure that you will never 'force' people to become atheist. Religion will just go underground and unite and become stronger, if you attack it. Because something that gives ordinary, powerless people a sense of dignity is going to be clung to and, unfortunately, fought for tooth and nail.

[Trish]

I think human beings will eventually for the most part abandon religion, though it may take another century. Not by attacks or force, but by sheer time and reason. Much like flat earths and geocentric universes eventually fell by the wayside.

[Penelope]

Trish said:

I think human beings will eventually for the most part abandon religion, though it may take another century. Not by attacks or force, but by sheer time and reason. Much like flat earths and geocentric universes eventually fell by the wayside.

I think it will take much longer than 100 years for human beings to even reach some kind of concensus of opinion on religion. Flat earths and geocentric universes are scientifically provable but As Richard Dawkins points out, God/religion is such an ethereal subject that the existence of diety cannot be proved scientifically either way.

In the meantime, mankind continues to squabble about the equivalent of 'whether God rides a bike'. However, they can squabble away as far as I am concerned.......BUT.....when they continue to massacre and blow one another to bits in the name of religion.....then, imo, it is time to side with the atheists.

I'm not an atheist......I can't be......but I am heartsore and sick of religiousity.

[Lawrence]

Hi Ms. P,
I'm finally back to BookTalk. It is my opinion my essay, which is now available from Amazon, answers the questions you pose because it shows how religion can be removed from participating in the political process but still allow those who wish to corporately worship do so. At least I think it does. If you want the computer version let me know with a pm with your email and I'll send it to you. Readers' comments can be found at acryfromtheheart.com. So far they are very positive. L

[Penelope]

Dear, Dear Lawrence....

I am posting my reply to you on here, because I want it to be read by anyone who feels inclined to read it.

I don't do 'Worship'.......I don't have that kind of relationship with God.

What would he want with that kind of relationship?

I can't be an atheist...because I can feel my soul. There is something in me that is not to do with this earth and its many delights and tragedies. And Because it is in me.....it must be in everyone else. I don't believe that my personality - ego - will go on after my body has died.....but....I have 'experienced' the eternal part.

So, I fall out with God (on a regular basis) often I'm not on speaking terms.....I mean....I can't settle down and tune in to the Force......

I feel just as devastated and bereft......(yes, bereft...is an excellent word to use).....when I lose someone close to me because they have died (and there are more and more funerals at our time of life, aren't there?). But, unlike Mr. Dawkins, whose courage and truth I admire enormously, I just know there is that part of us....which will always be.....and 'always' is a long time.......so I am concerned about its going in the right direction. Well, it does go it the right direction...because I don't believe 'that' part of us can do otherwise if we are trying to 'cherish and treasure' one another.

So, I do get angry......but...hey.....I don't want to get even!!

I apologise for my clumsy words.......but we can't all be Richard Dawkins, now can we?

[Grim]

However, I wouldn't say (without studying the matter deeply), that atheism was a tool of suppression, only that in the view of the ruling oligarchy, religion was in competition with and was incompatible with the state's aim at absolute control.

The world is but a Google search away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... Christians

How do you feel about the Chinese example? Where religion has not traditionally played a major role in the society and now it never legally can. Is this logic acceptable? That religion is wrong and should never be allowed to exist even though it has not been particularly influential in the past.