John Doe believes in god and you don't. Why do you think he is wrong and you are right?

[Valjean]

Religion separate from state control provides a degree of social cohesion, a sense of communal belonging through shared rituals,common aims. On an individual level it motivates people to make moral decisions, obey laws, contribute to the communal good and gives people a sense of direction and purpose.
Western Europe is a good case- it is overwhelmingly Christian in culture- many political parties in Europe are Christian democrats and religion is a major feature of European societies.
If we stick with Eastern bloc countries they have mostly overthrown their Communist/atheistic governments and now allow religious freedom for people of all faiths.
They overthrew their Communist dictatorships because they were not working on economic or political levels. I hope I've answered your point.

Much of Western Europe allows religious freedom, but social organization has obviated the need for religion. Most people are unbelievers, or give the matter little thought.
Religiosity seems inversely proportional to security.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Prejudice?

Yes.

You asked me for some examples of atheistic states.

No, that was someone else.

Some you may regard as Theist but they certainly persecuted if not directly banning religious practises that contradicted their political principles.

I was just trying to make the case that the promotion of atheism does not necessarily allow for social freedoms or individual liberties.

Right: you were trying to push prejudice.

There's no such thing as "promotion of atheism." People promote worldviews; there are atheist worldviews, but atheism itself is not a worldview.

... and there's more similarity between the worldviews of atheist authoritarians and theist authoritarians than there is between atheist authoritarians and secular humanists.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah, but some religions/faiths/ways are not like that.
Examples?
Ummmm. ....... Quakers?...... Buddhism?....... Universalism?

I mean, you could be so busy bashing some of the really intrusive, aggressive ones that you'd never have time to give the nice ones a kicking!

But I do like having a go at some of the Abrahamic sects, cults etc.

There might be some Quaker kids become adults who might have something to say about this. I, myself, have nothing to say - because I have never personally been assailed or intellectually insulted by Quakers. And so? I don't "go after" them. Why would I? If they keep it to themselves, there is no need!

And yes, I would be entirely too busy going after the intrusive, aggressive religions that I would never go "giving the nice ones a kicking." Again - if they keep it to themselves, how am I to even know what they believe? This is precisely the reason I advocate this exact thing to theists who complain up one side and down the other about how "tortured" they are by society. If they would just keep their mouths shut and not go around trying to tell everyone under the sun about how great their beliefs are, then no one would ever have a single thing to hold against them.

As I have said many times - if it weren't for the theist talking his/her head off about God, I would simply never broach the subject.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was honestly confused what you meant by this. Can you give me a couple of examples, as way of clarifying?

They're reasonable now?
They have as much in common with most atheists as Aghori beliefs do to most theists, but if you want to broad brush all of us, I don't suppose much I say will impact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, but some religions/faiths/ways are not like that.
Examples?
Ummmm. ....... Quakers?...... Buddhism?....... Universalism?

I mean, you could be so busy bashing some of the really intrusive, aggressive ones that you'd never have time to give the nice ones a kicking!

But I do like having a go at some of the Abrahamic sects, cults etc.

Buddism absolutely is like that in countries where Buddhism is the dominant religion.

Quakerism used to be like that in isolated Quaker communities.

Religion only becomes kind and gentle when it doesn't have societal power.

 

[oldbadger]

Religion only becomes kind and gentle when it doesn't have societal power.

Or is that 'humanity only becomes .......'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or is that 'humanity only becomes .......'?

Sure.

In all of our institutions, we need to build in equity, accountability, transparency, and responsiveness to the people.

Putting a religion - any religion - in charge is probably the quickest way to make sure that these things don't happen, but they can be denied in other ways, too.

Making government and society secular isn't a guarantee of freedom, but it is a necessary step if freedom will be achieved.