Why political systems based on atheism kill several times more citizens

[plumjam]

Well, I'm not going to claim full responsibility for this one.

Several years ago I read an article by Aldous Huxley (sorry, I don't remember its title, I have googled without result, I vaguely remember that it had a connection to his interest in Vedanta (form of hinduism))

Huxley's central point in the article went a bit like this:

Social systems based on atheism cause a great deal more damage and suffering than do social systems based on theism.

His explanation for this went pretty much like this:

Every human political or religious theory has its own version of paradise/heaven/the perfect state (whatever you want to call it)

Most societies in human history happen to have placed this paradise/heaven/perfect state OUTSIDE of space and time... i.e. in a future perfect state like heaven/the afterlife/moksha/buddhist nirvana etc..

In some modern states, like that of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Communist China for example, the possibility of a perfect state outside of space and time was denied and ridiculed, which meant that the perfect state had to be created within space and time, thus here on Earth.
This meant that those in power in these states felt a responsibility, and did their utmost, to create the perfect state in their societies.

Then comes the dangerous part which has caused so much suffering in these atheist states (yes, the Nazis were atheists in practice too)

If anyone is going to create a perfect (utopian) state, then this perfect state has to be defined.
So the Nazis define their perfect state, and the Communists define their perfect state.

And as history shows this very definition of the perfect state within space and time is the source of all the genocide, persecution, repression, torture, imprisonment, witch-hunts etc.. that naturally ensue.

Because whenever you define a perfect state there will necessarily be people, ideas, institutions, organisations, political parties, philosophies, forms of behaviour, ways of thinking, perhaps races etc.. that don't fit into that idea of perfection.

In the minds of the Nazis and the Communists.. they genuinely believed that they were creating Heaven On Earth, (after all, if God and Heaven don't exist, we must try to create perfection down here on Earth) and this belief encouraged the view that the Ends justify the Means... so if a bit of suffering has to happen.. then hey, it was suffering, but 'in the long run' it will be worth it, because it will have created a perfect society.

Basically, this is what starts to happen when poltical atheism takes hold. Which is why I'm posting this, because although I'm sure most atheists on here have benevolent and sincere intentions and are good people, when political atheism is given free rein so far history shows us that mass murder, abuse and repression are actually what happen in real life.

And my experience of this forum so far is that the vast majority believe that atheism is a good thing, without any negative effects. Would that it were so, but history shows the opposite.

Sorry for this post being so long, and thanks for getting to the end.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Hilarity. While you were posting your little OP on how atheism is horrible, I was happily and unsuspectingly writing my own little post explaining how this is a myth. Then I do a search for threads with the communism tag and find this. So, er, you don't mind if I dump it here, then, do you? Thanks.

- Post Begins -
I'm growing increasingly frustrated by the two-part statement from religious fundamentalists and even moderates that atheism and communism are somehow intertwined, and that every secular country out there has turned into a horrific, poverty-stricken dictatorship and terrified its neighbors until its downfall. While the misconception is in part spread deliberately to create an aversion to atheism, I also see moderates who adhere to it simply because they do not know better. And so, rather than discuss this in every single thread it comes up in, I figured I'd make a thread for the sole purpose of venting my steam, for lack of a more polite and less honest term. I planned to make a YouTube movie out of this, and probably still will, but I've decided to make this thread regardlessly. I know there are threads already on whether or not atheists can be moral, but this one is for a discussion on what effect atheism has, or more importantly doesn't have, on a whole society.

Before I begin, though, let me say that I am not making this thread to state that atheism is better for a country than religious beliefs. I am not writing this to state that religion causes problems in the world. This post is a defense of adherence to atheism - an attempt to stomp out the annoying and disrespectful myth that atheism is a sort of doomsday device that hurls a country into third-world poverty and makes it lash out at as many neighbors as possible before eventually succumbing to its own wicked godlessness.

Firstly, atheism does not lead to communism. It's true that secularism and removal of religion from society happened to be two of the traits of the communist system, but it does not in any way follow that they were its cause*. Although the exact meaning of the term is debated, I simply consider atheism to be the disbelief in gods and life before and after your life here on Earth. If religions inherently promoted freedom, pacifism and a free market economy, it may indeed have posed a risk to remove it from society. However, few religions in the world promote a package of free market economies, peace and democracy. Nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that commands Christians to hold free elections. The Q'uran does not say that property has to remain in private hands. And while many religions promote peace, many likewise do not: to say that the removal of Christianity from society will somehow make it less peaceful goes against the fact that the Bible advocates genocide and war more than it advocates turning the other cheek and presenting your case to the United Nations. There simply is no reason to state that freedom, peace and happiness is dependent on religious beliefs.

Secondly, the statement that atheism inevitably leads to war, dictatorship and poverty are simply not grounded in reality. In fact, looking at the top-ranking countries in the Human Development Index, one could hardly be blamed for jumping to the conclusion that it's simply the other way around:

First of all, 64% of the Norwegian population consider themselves agnostic or atheist, and only a meager three percent of its people regularly attend church. In fact, a 2005 Gallup International poll declared the country the least religious in the Western world. Yet in the HDI, Norway ranks first, and has done so every year since 2001. It is also the most peaceful nation in the world, as ranked by the Global Peace Index**. It is the nation in the world that gives the most of its annual budget, 1%, to foreign aid.

Likewise, in 300 000-people Iceland, which comes in second in the HDI, religion is considered an irrelevance in politics and daily life, and decisions are made without invoking Christianity or the pagan Ásatrú. The little nation does not have a military beyond its coast guard and a small peacekeeping unit for use in conflict areas abroad. While Gallup International declared Norway the country with the fewest religious people, I instantly think of Iceland when the topic of secular, atheist societies is raised, as religion apparently has such a small foothold here.

Sweden, following suit, is a secular nation where 99% of the population fails to attend church regularly, fought its last war in 1814 and has been at peace ever since, peacefully overcoming such issues as Norway's recession from Swedish rule as well as two World Wars and the Cold War. The nation ranks fifth on the HDI, and seventh on the Global Peace Index.

And finally, while Canada has a large number of religious people and its share of religious blue laws, it does not have a state religion and politics are carried out without religion interfering to a much larger degree than those of its neighbor the USA. Canadians vote by politics, not by religion. Canada has dominated the HDI for eight of the last 17 years. It is also the country in the world that provides safe haven to the most refugees. Canada ranks eight on the Global Peace Index.

And these are just a few examples. While several countries high on the HDI ladder, including the US and Ireland, are religious, the majority have some sort of combination of low church attendance, a large number of atheists, and a secular government without a state religion. The statement that only a few countries, such as the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, have strayed into secularism, and that all which have tried have collapsed, is, to say it politely, incorrect.

Atheism is not a destroyer of worlds. It is not a virus that doom its host countries to horrific suffering. It is incredibly destructive to view it as such, as it generates fear and distrust towards a phenomenon that does not do nearly the damage it is perceived capable of, and I urge people who fear it to find some other enemy more worthy of your worries. Thank you.

Notes:
*See also Correlation vs. Causation.
**Just to rub it in - the USA with its fundies accusing atheists of so much wrongdoing, is on 96th place. On a list of 128 countries.

The following sources have been used in the writing of this essay: Wikipedia, the Church of Norway, and the US Dept. of State.

-Post ends-

Social systems based on atheism cause a great deal more damage and suffering than do social systems based on theism.

How do you base a society on atheism? Is he simply referring to secular societies here?

In some modern states, like that of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Communist China for example, the possibility of a perfect state outside of space and time was denied and ridiculed, which meant that the perfect state had to be created within space and time, thus here on Earth. This meant that those in power in these states felt a responsibility, and did their utmost, to create the perfect state in their societies.

But don't nearly all people on Earth try to make their nations as good as possible? Isn't that why we have politics and debates on taxes, immigration, war, military, education, health care, and so on?

Every single adult on Earth, I believe, has an idea of how their country should be, and many actively take part in making their vision come true. For some it is a communist society where everyone's equal, for some a theocracy where the Good Book instructs life, for some it's a social democracy where everyone receives health coverage. Nothing new there.

Sorry for this post being so long

Er.. yeah.. [looks at own post] uhm...

 

[Par]

With respect, it seems like rather fuzzy speculation. Personally, I would imagine that the horrors of Nazi Germany generally stemmed from the Nazism and that those of the Soviet Union and China, from the communism.

On the whole, secular and democratic states seem to have appreciably better track records than do theocracies.

 

[Graham Jackman]

Well said! I would have thought that atheists and agnostics, having no god to whisper in their ear or to be blamed, when things go wrong, are more likely to consider themselves responsible for their actions.

 

[plumjam]

Hilarity. While you were posting your little OP on how atheism is horrible, I was happily and unsuspectingly writing my own little post explaining how this is a myth. Then I do a search for threads with the communism tag and find this. So, er, you don't mind if I dump it here, then, do you? Thanks.

- Post Begins -
I'm growing increasingly frustrated by the two-part statement from religious fundamentalists and even moderates that atheism and communism are somehow intertwined, and that every secular country out there has turned into a horrific, poverty-stricken dictatorship and terrified its neighbors until its downfall. While the misconception is in part spread deliberately to create an aversion to atheism, I also see moderates who adhere to it simply because they do not know better. And so, rather than discuss this in every single thread it comes up in, I figured I'd make a thread for the sole purpose of venting my steam, for lack of a more polite and less honest term. I planned to make a YouTube movie out of this, and probably still will, but I've decided to make this thread regardlessly. I know there are threads already on whether or not atheists can be moral, but this one is for a discussion on what effect atheism has, or more importantly doesn't have, on a whole society.

Before I begin, though, let me say that I am not making this thread to state that atheism is better for a country than religious beliefs. I am not writing this to state that religion causes problems in the world. This post is a defense of adherence to atheism - an attempt to stomp out the annoying and disrespectful myth that atheism is a sort of doomsday device that hurls a country into third-world poverty and makes it lash out at as many neighbors as possible before eventually succumbing to its own wicked godlessness.

Firstly, atheism does not lead to communism. It's true that secularism and removal of religion from society happened to be two of the traits of the communist system, but it does not in any way follow that they were its cause*. Although the exact meaning of the term is debated, I simply consider atheism to be the disbelief in gods and life before and after your life here on Earth. If religions inherently promoted freedom, pacifism and a free market economy, it may indeed have posed a risk to remove it from society. However, few religions in the world promote a package of free market economies, peace and democracy. Nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that commands Christians to hold free elections. The Q'uran does not say that property has to remain in private hands. And while many religions promote peace, many likewise do not: to say that the removal of Christianity from society will somehow make it less peaceful goes against the fact that the Bible advocates genocide and war more than it advocates turning the other cheek and presenting your case to the United Nations. There simply is no reason to state that freedom, peace and happiness is dependent on religious beliefs.

Secondly, the statement that atheism inevitably leads to war, dictatorship and poverty are simply not grounded in reality. In fact, looking at the top-ranking countries in the Human Development Index, one could hardly be blamed for jumping to the conclusion that it's simply the other way around:

First of all, 64% of the Norwegian population consider themselves agnostic or atheist, and only a meager three percent of its people regularly attend church. In fact, a 2005 Gallup International poll declared the country the least religious in the Western world. Yet in the HDI, Norway ranks first, and has done so every year since 2001. It is also the most peaceful nation in the world, as ranked by the Global Peace Index**. It is the nation in the world that gives the most of its annual budget, 1%, to foreign aid.

Likewise, in 300 000-people Iceland, which comes in second in the HDI, religion is considered an irrelevance in politics and daily life, and decisions are made without invoking Christianity or the pagan Ásatrú. The little nation does not have a military beyond its coast guard and a small peacekeeping unit for use in conflict areas abroad. While Gallup International declared Norway the country with the fewest religious people, I instantly think of Iceland when the topic of secular, atheist societies is raised, as religion apparently has such a small foothold here.

Sweden, following suit, is a secular nation where 99% of the population fails to attend church regularly, fought its last war in 1814 and has been at peace ever since, peacefully overcoming such issues as Norway's recession from Swedish rule as well as two World Wars and the Cold War. The nation ranks fifth on the HDI, and seventh on the Global Peace Index.

And finally, while Canada has a large number of religious people and its share of religious blue laws, it does not have a state religion and politics are carried out without religion interfering to a much larger degree than those of its neighbor the USA. Canadians vote by politics, not by religion. Canada has dominated the HDI for eight of the last 17 years. It is also the country in the world that provides safe haven to the most refugees. Canada ranks eight on the Global Peace Index.

And these are just a few examples. While several countries high on the HDI ladder, including the US and Ireland, are religious, the majority have some sort of combination of low church attendance, a large number of atheists, and a secular government without a state religion. The statement that only a few countries, such as the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, have strayed into secularism, and that all which have tried have collapsed, is, to say it politely, incorrect.

Atheism is not a destroyer of worlds. It is not a virus that doom its host countries to horrific suffering. It is incredibly destructive to view it as such, as it generates fear and distrust towards a phenomenon that does not do nearly the damage it is perceived capable of, and I urge people who fear it to find some other enemy more worthy of your worries. Thank you.

Notes:
*See also Correlation vs. Causation.
**Just to rub it in - the USA with its fundies accusing atheists of so much wrongdoing, is on 96th place. On a list of 128 countries.

The following sources have been used in the writing of this essay: Wikipedia, the Church of Norway, and the US Dept. of State.

-Post ends-

How do you base a society on atheism? Is he simply referring to secular societies here?

But don't nearly all people on Earth try to make their nations as good as possible? Isn't that why we have politics and debates on taxes, immigration, war, military, education, health care, and so on?

Every single adult on Earth, I believe, has an idea of how their country should be, and many actively take part in making their vision come true. For some it is a communist society where everyone's equal, for some a theocracy where the Good Book instructs life, for some it's a social democracy where everyone receives health coverage. Nothing new there.

Er.. yeah.. [looks at own post] uhm...

Cheers for that bit and the interesting post
As regards the examples you propose, of Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Canada.. this might seem a bit dismissive and smug... but honestly, the cultures of all those countries are classically stoic, and never likely to translate their non-theism into some kind of fiery revolutionary new utopian system. If you've ever had an hour-long conversation with a Norwegian you'll understand what I'm saying.
Experience of any tv interview with Bjorn Borg will also convince you of this
They just aren't the kind of people to force political change, there has never been any kind of revolution in their countries.

The examples i chose were when, in history, nations have enthusiastically taken to their hearts some materialist atheistic theory, and without exception they have turned out disastrously.

I don't automatically believe that materialists or atheists are evil horrible people at all. I'm sure most are well intentioned and good people. It's just that I find that they are either ignorant of the contrary fact, or they prefer to believe that societys based on atheism have been better, when in fact they have been several times worse

 

[plumjam]

Well said! I would have thought that atheists and agnostics, having no god to whisper in their ear or to be blamed, when things go wrong, are more likely to consider themselves responsible for their actions.

it's just a shame history doesn't bear this lovely idea out

 

[thaiboxerken]

How does one base a society on atheism?! You do realize that atheism is simply a state of belief and nothing more, don't you?

 

[I less than three logic]

Seems to be simple cherry picking to me. How about we just look at countries that killed many people and were secular, and ignore theistic countries that did the same or secular countries that didn't kill a lot of people.

 

[Tricky]

it's just a shame history doesn't bear this lovely idea out

Really? Could you give us an example of a political system that is based on atheism? No, don't mention communism. It is in no sense based on atheism. It is secular.

I'm curious as to how much you know of history.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why do we let him get away with calling Nazi Germany an atheistic society? This was clearly not the case.

 

[plumjam]

How does one base a society on atheism?! You do realize that atheism is simply a state of belief and nothing more, don't you?

ok, so if it's impossible to base a society on atheism it should be equally impossible to base a society on theism, would you agree?

 

[I less than three logic]

ok, so if it's impossible to base a society on atheism it should be equally impossible to base a society on theism, would you agree?

Doubtful. Most theisms come complete with a rule book that could be used to adapt a political system out of. Atheism on the other hand, doesn't.

 

[thaiboxerken]

ok, so if it's impossible to base a society on atheism it should be equally impossible to base a society on theism, would you agree?

Not at all. Theism is usually a belief system, it not only involves believing a god exists but obeying what that god says is right and so on and so forth. Atheism is just a lack of such a belief and a belief system. Try again.

 

[Tricky]

ok, so if it's impossible to base a society on atheism it should be equally impossible to base a society on theism, would you agree?

No, because theism is a positive belief, not a lack of belief. In fact there is even a word for it: Theocracy. There is no corresponding word for atheist-based governments.

By the way, since you are playing so fast-and-loose with Aldus Huxley, (who indeed was not an atheist), you might want to read an actual link to something he said which shows his distrust of theistic governments.

The desire to justify a particular form of political organization and, in some cases, of a personal will to power has played an EQUALLY large part in the formulation of philosophies postulating the existence of MEANING in the world. Christian philosophers have found no difficulty in justifying imperialism, war, the capitalistic system, the use of torture, the censorship of the press, and ecclesiastical tyrannies of every sort from the tyranny of Rome to the tyrannies of [Calvin's] Geneva and [Puritan] New England. In all cases they have shown that the meaning of the world was such as to be compatible with, or actually most completely expressed by, the iniquities I have mentioned above--iniquities which happened, of course, to serve the personal or sectarian interests of the philosophers concerned.

Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York and London, 1937, fifth edition, p. 316

I can give you several examples of political systems based on theism (Iran being one). Can you give me an example of one based on atheism?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Once again I present North Korea. Tell me how this doesn't seem like religion to you. Religion is simply competition to the worship of the state, the system, the leader. If you have not seen this film, I suggest you do. What goes on in this kind of state is far beyond the cat fighting religion. You are completely missing the point.

"....I study with a picture of the Great Leader and General..."

 

[plumjam]

Really? Could you give us an example of a political system that is based on atheism? No, don't mention communism. It is in no sense based on atheism. It is secular.

I'm curious as to how much you know of history.

ok, so you are saying that, despite the fact that up until the late 19th Century every single human society that we know of was theist, that you now want me to name some that weren't communist... well that gives me a pretty narrow window.. given that constraint I would argue that in practice Nazi Germany was hugely atheist, if not always explicitly, its main belief system completely disregarded God and centred all value on human values and forms of society. So there you go. Nazism.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The Nazi's were not atheist. Try again, Plumjam.

 

[Tricky]

ok, so you are saying that, despite the fact that up until the late 19th Century every single human society that we know of was theist, that you now want me to name some that weren't communist... well that gives me a pretty narrow window.. given that constraint I would argue that in practice Nazi Germany was hugely atheist, if not always explicitly, its main belief system completely disregarded God and centred all value on human values and forms of society. So there you go. Nazism.

Wrong

Mein Kampf, published in 1925-26, before his rise to power, displays a more ambivalent attitude. In an attempt to justify Nazi intolerance he recommends militantism, which he associates with the rise of Christianity. He refers to Christianity as "the first spiritual terror," as a model for the Nazis in their pursuit of power.

 

[plumjam]

Not at all. Theism is usually a belief system, it not only involves believing a god exists but obeying what that god says is right and so on and so forth. Atheism is just a lack of such a belief and a belief system. Try again.

So atheism is a positive belief in the absence of a god, and a positive belief in the lack of any system of morality that the existence of a God might bring about?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So atheism is a positive belief in the absence of a god, and a positive belief in the lack of any system of morality that the existence of a God might bring about?

No. Atheism is the doubt of the claim "there is a god" and nothing more.