NationStates Jolt Archive

:headbang: Is that possible? Can I create a government where the people are forced to worship nothing and make idols to It. It's a paradox I know, but it has a nice ring to it. Any suggestions, comments or questions are apprecieated. :sniper:

I'm not sure what you mean "make idols to It". Make Idols to nothing?

But didn't Soviet Russia force religious organizations out?

:headbang: Is that possible? Can I create a government where the people are forced to worship nothing and make idols to It. It's a paradox I know, but it has a nice ring to it. Any suggestions, comments or questions are apprecieated. :sniper:

I don't think you'd be forced to make 'idols to nothing' in an Atheist theocracy, you'd just suffer brutal consequences if you were found to have religious beliefs.

The Atheist in me is laughing, but the Libertarian in me is telling the Atheist to shut up. ;)

A theocracy is where the clurgy rule... You could have an 'Athestic' Theocracy, but not an Athiest one. YOu would have to create a church that had no god or gods or goddess/es, with a clergy first. Hope that makes sence.

There is already a system of government that could be considered an Atheist Theocracy. It's called Communism.

I'm not sure what you mean "make idols to It". Make Idols to nothing?

But didn't Soviet Russia force religious organizations out?
They had more of a state sponsored thing going on (china is closer then russia really was)

Russia was more anti any class diversification (religion included) then an actual athiestic belief (anti organization if you will)

There is already a system of government that could be considered an Atheist Theocracy. It's called Communism.
You dont understand comunist belief then ... their opposition is not to belief it is to organization wich is a class seperater there is a difference

An atheist theocracy is indeed possible and the 20th Century has seen many. You just call the the Priesthood "the Party" and have them address one another as "Comrade" and that is all you need. Not as many of them as there once were once the Berlin Wall fell though! ^_^

You could have enforced secularity, but I don't think enforced atheism is plausible.

An atheist theocracy is indeed possible and the 20th Century has seen many. You just call the the Priesthood "the Party" and have them address one another as "Comrade" and that is all you need. Not as many of them as there once were once the Berlin Wall fell though! ^_^
Yay someone else who does not understand comunism or russian intent :p

You could have enforced secularity, but I don't think enforced atheism is plausible.
Exactly ... comunism was closer to the former not the latter (no one gets that)

Yay someone else who does not understand comunism or russian intent :p

Besides yourself?
:confused:

Besides yourself?
:confused:
Nope I understand the difference between enforced secularity and enforced belief

Exactly ... comunism was closer to the former not the latter (no one gets that)

Communism doesn't even have to involve enforced secularism, either. The enforced secularism is much more a result of authoritarian and tyrannical natures of the communistic governments we have witnessed.

Nope I understand the difference between enforced secularity and enforced belief

What? Do you mean that belief is actually possible outside the realms of organized religion?

Communism doesn't even have to involve enforced secularism, either. The enforced secularism is much more a result of authoritarian and tyrannical natures of the communistic governments we have witnessed.
Yes ... I am sorry difference between comunist theory and the implementation of such (russia was not comunist as much as a hybredsocialist) sorry I should have made that more clear

What? Do you mean that belief is actually possible outside the realms of organized religion?
:p LOL might want to ad a [sarcasm] tag there :) some people are slow on the uptake :p

Do you? o_O

In that case you should know better than to try to claim they weren't in the business of enforcing belief. Or do you understand where the phrase "thought crime" or "brainwashing" came from? Have you taken a look at the bilge that comes out of North Korea or China? I'm sorry if I've insulted your particular religion but Marxism in all its variants was *and is* clearly a nut cult and the states that were set up in their name were and are clearly theocracies. A pile of manure by any other name, ne? ;)

:p LOL might want to ad a [sarcasm] tag there :) some people are slow on the uptake :p

I could have some Jesussaves style of fun with anybody who doesn't pick up on the sarcasm.

The liberals on here are much more uppity than the conservatives.

Do you? o_O

In that case you should know better than to try to claim they weren't in the business of enforcing belief. Or do you understand where the phrase "thought crime" or "brainwashing" came from? Have you taken a look at the bilge that comes out of North Korea or China? I'm sorry if I've insulted your particular religion but Marxism in all its variants was *and is* clearly a nut cult and the states that were set up in their name were and are clearly theocracies. A pile of manure by any other name, ne? ;)

You must have big feet, with all the toes you just stepped on.

Stick around, you will begin to grasp the ethos behind Communism eventually.

You could possibly have a deist theocracy saying Man rules man, and God set it all up and sat back to watch. You could also possibly have a theocracy where you say something is out there, but your not sure what. By that means, you wouldnt have a set religion, just an acknowledgment of a higher force.
Idols to nothing? What would they look like? And if you worship nothing, but nothing is something, youd worship one thing, and then have that be your god. So your god of nothing is a god of at least one thing that implies the abscence of things. So by this account having a belief in it means you would believe in the lack of things?
By that system would the poor be the rich, since the poor have the greater lack of moeny, would they have the most? The more we take, the more we give?
In that system, the foolish are wise. By thier lack of wisdom, they become in themselves elders....


I'm babbling again.........

Do you? o_O

In that case you should know better than to try to claim they weren't in the business of enforcing belief. Or do you understand where the phrase "thought crime" or "brainwashing" came from? Have you taken a look at the bilge that comes out of North Korea or China? I'm sorry if I've insulted your particular religion but Marxism in all its variants was *and is* clearly a nut cult and the states that were set up in their name were and are clearly theocracies. A pile of manure by any other name, ne? ;)
Well I will start with the simple (and no this is not my personal belief so don’t worry bout stepping on my toes)

You did know Russia and china were not truly communist do you not? (cant blame you for not understanding that ... people got all hyped up about it and it is a common misconception) nor is Marxism true communism (way to throw out buzzwords) you may want to do some studying before you put forth a flawed example of communism as representative of the theory (I do not think communism works in practice personally but I don’t disillusion myself to what it really is)

Do you? o_O

In that case you should know better than to try to claim they weren't in the business of enforcing belief. Or do you understand where the phrase "thought crime" or "brainwashing" came from? Have you taken a look at the bilge that comes out of North Korea or China? I'm sorry if I've insulted your particular religion but Marxism in all its variants was *and is* clearly a nut cult and the states that were set up in their name were and are clearly theocracies. A pile of manure by any other name, ne? ;)
Well I will start with the simple (and no this is not my personal belief so don’t worry bout stepping on my toes)

You did know Russia and china were not truly communist do you not? (cant blame you for not understanding that ... people got all hyped up about it and it is a common misconception) nor is Marxism true communism (way to throw out buzzwords) you may want to do some studying before you put forth a flawed example of communism as representative of the theory (I do not think communism works in practice personally but I don’t disillusion myself to what it really is)

You must have big feet, with all the toes you just stepped on.

Stick around, you will begin to grasp the ethos behind Communism eventually.

Fine by me. Sacred cows make the best beef. And I already understand the "ethos" behind Communism. It's nothing more than misanthropy given an ideology behind which it may organize.

But by all means make whatever apologias for Communism you consider appropriate anyway. I can always use a good laugh. ^_~

Fine by me. Sacred cows make the best beef. And I already understand the "ethos" behind Communism. It's nothing more than misanthropy given an ideology behind which it may organize.

But by all means make whatever apologias for Communism you consider appropriate anyway. I can always use a good laugh. ^_~
You really don’t understand us we are not supporting communism rather making a correction in the belief that communist ideology enforces atheism. I have no wish to support a theory witch I do not feel can be maintained with human beings

I know its been said. But most Communist nations were Atheist Theocracies, the statues weren't to nothing, that would be pretty mystical, but they didn't believe in any Gods. And they lived their lives by a strict, codified ideology.

I know its been said. But most Communist nations were Atheist Theocracies, the statues weren't to nothing, that would be pretty mystical, but they didn't believe in any Gods. And they lived their lives by a strict, codified ideology.
Again wrong: but you are right it had been said before (so read back posts starting to cover it … I am sure they will go farther)

Well I will start with the simple (and no this is not my personal belief so don’t worry bout stepping on my toes)

You did know Russia and china were not truly communist do you not? (cant blame you for not understanding that ... people got all hyped up about it and it is a common misconception) nor is Marxism true communism (way to throw out buzzwords) you may want to do some studying before you put forth a flawed example of communism as representative of the theory (I do not think communism works in practice personally but I don’t disillusion myself to what it really is)


True communism? What an interesting concept, sounds Platonic. An arguement could be made that Soviet russia and the other Socialist Dictatorships were not Communist, as They do not follow the principles put forth in the Communist manifesto, but saying Marxism is not true communism is like saying Christ didn't teach true Christianity, Marx defined Communism.

Fine by me. Sacred cows make the best beef. And I already understand the "ethos" behind Communism. It's nothing more than misanthropy given an ideology behind which it may organize.

Communism is not based in a doubt of humanity, but a belief in the community. Most communists believe that a community of people working together is stronger and can accomplish more than a group of people struggling against each other.

But by all means make whatever apologias for Communism you consider appropriate anyway. I can always use a good laugh. ^_~

I do not wish to apologize for Communism, I am not a believer in it. However, your ideas of communism seem to be a little flawed.

True communism? What an interesting concept, sounds Platonic. An arguement could be made that Soviet russia and the other Socialist Dictatorships were not Communist, as They do not follow the principles put forth in the Communist manifesto, but saying Marxism is not true communism is like saying Christ didn't teach true Christianity, Marx defined Communism.
He was the father not the end point … it was based off of his theories yes but they do not encompass them all

(ie just like your Christ example Christianity is based off of Christ but the religion of Christianity was not defined by Christ himself rather started to be defined by his apostles)

Communism is not based in a doubt of humanity, but a belief in the community. Most communists believe that a community of people working together is stronger and can accomplish more than a group of people struggling against each other.



I do not wish to apologize for Communism, I am not a believer in it. However, your ideas of communism seem to be a little flawed.
I am coming from the same position … just because I don’t accept making judgments off of false information on a topic (ie communism) even when I don’t personally believe in it
They think I support thus fore stated topic

He was the father not the end point … it was based off of his theories yes but they do not encompass them all

(ie just like your Christ example Christianity is based off of Christ but the religion of Christianity was not defined by Christ himself rather started to be defined by his apostles)


That would make the Soviet's truly Communist. They implemented a system loosely based on the framework Marx had given them. Meanwhile the "true" communists you are speaking of haven't implemented anything. They would be more like the Albigensians than the mainstream church, heretics who have fallen along the way.

That would make the Soviet's truly Communist. They implemented a system loosely based on the framework Marx had given them. Meanwhile the "true" communists you are speaking of haven't implemented anything. They would be more like the Albigensians than the mainstream church, heretics who have fallen along the way.
I did not mean to imply there was a totally direct correlation between your example and communism just pointing out some ideas

I am coming from the same position … just because I don’t accept making judgments off of false information on a topic (ie communism) even when I don’t personally believe in it
They think I support thus fore stated topic

Most posters on NS completely eschew conversation on subjects and simply jump straight to the argument phase.

That means that with many threads you are assumed to be on either posting for or against the current subject.

I find myself having an argument with someone who agrees with me quite often.

I did not mean to imply there was a totally direct correlation between your example and communism just pointing out some ideas

The only problem is you still haven't given a reason that the definition of Communism you are giving is "true" communism. Marx was the original, the Soviets were the application, meanwhile the Communitarian Anarcho Pacifist Communists are essentially a small splinter.

Most posters on NS completely eschew conversation on subjects and simply jump straight to the argument phase.

That means that with many threads you are assumed to be on either posting for or against the current subject.

I find myself having an argument with someone who agrees with me quite often.


Defining the terms is usually the first salvo in an arguement. I almost always argue the hell out of the terms *griN*

Defining the terms is usually the first salvo in an arguement. I almost always argue the hell out of the terms *griN*

Yes, but you are preparing to argue with someone who doesn't believe in communism.

Yes, but you are preparing to argue with someone who doesn't believe in communism.


Actually, I believe in Communism. I figure if I can get Upward Thrust to defend it I win before I even begin. (I'm one of those Anarcho Pacifist Communitarian Communists.)

Actually, I believe in Communism. I figure if I can get Upward Thrust to defend it I win before I even begin. (I'm one of those Anarcho Pacifist Communitarian Communists.)

You anarcho-communists are a crazy lot.

Actually, I believe in Communism. I figure if I can get Upward Thrust to defend it I win before I even begin. (I'm one of those Anarcho Pacifist Communitarian Communists.)
Not my fight to defend it ;) I got in it on the atheistic level …will leave it at that for now maybe at a later time (I have not read the manifesto in years and am not brushed up on economics and some of the other basics I should have … at least resources for arguing) religion is another matter (or computers which is not applicable)

So you seem to have a familiarity with communism … what is its standpoints as to faith (personal not organized) or institutionalized faith?

You anarcho-communists are a crazy lot.


Well, we do tend to be kinda devious. But that's because in a system based on cooperation you always have to be kinda devious and manipulative, you trust the others involved to be manipulative as well.

Its almost disappointing that none of you have come up with the correct answer yet...

You cannot have an "atheist theocracy," it is a contradiction in terms.

However, you can have an "atheocracy."

:)

Well, we do tend to be kinda devious. But that's because in a system based on cooperation you always have to be kinda devious and manipulative, you trust the others involved to be manipulative as well.

That would be capitalism you are speaking of there.

Its almost disappointing that none of you have come up with the correct answer yet...

You cannot have an "atheist theocracy," it is a contradiction in terms.

However, you can have an "atheocracy."

:)

You could have enforced secularity, but I don't think enforced atheism is plausible.

If I didn't have the right answer, I was at least pretty damn close.

What? Do you mean that belief is actually possible outside the realms of organized religion?

Erm... sure. Why not?

Sure, you can make an aethiest Theocracy, why not? People have made much stupider things work for a while at least.

Idols to nothing? What would they look like?

Like the number zero I'd assume ;)

To the original question: the moment you start believing something is right,wrong, true or false out of faith without conclusive proof or start worshipping it, you have a religion. A deity is not needed for a religion. Though I know this is not what the topicstarter meant literally worshipping "nothing", the void, the grand vacuum or however you wish to call it is therefor quite possible. It's not so different from chaos gods for instance, which are found in many religions. Though the risk that the symbol instead of the void itself becomes the focus of belief is quite high.

A state where having no religion is enforced is theoretically possible and has been tried. Having one where people worship the non-existance of a deity.. also possible if the surrounding countries are quite religious. Then it could be a form of nationalism: "we don't believe in your silly things".

Sure, you can make an aethiest Theocracy, why not? People have made much stupider things work for a while at least.
Because it is not possible lol

the·oc·ra·cy Audio pronunciation of "theocracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

Athiesm has no religous athority not being a religion (do not confuse with not being a belief ... that is different)

:headbang: Is that possible? Can I create a government where the people are forced to worship nothing and make idols to It. It's a paradox I know, but it has a nice ring to it. Any suggestions, comments or questions are apprecieated. :sniper:
suggestion: yes, it is possible to build a government in which religious worship is illegal and secularlism is enforced. however, if your goal is to have an atheist population, building this sort of government would be the worst possible course of action. look at Prohibition: alcoholism skyrocketted during the Prohibition years, just as drug abuse and addiction are significantly higher in our prohibitive societies than they are in societies with permissive drug use laws. prohibiting worship will just increase the number of people becoming dependent on faith and using it as a crutch for their lives.

the way to get rid of religion is to help build a world where people are not forced to resort to faith for fulfillment and happiness. help make a world where people don't need superstition to be moral, where they don't have to be bribed or threatened into being decent, where they don't need myths to give their lives meaning. some people are fortunate enough to live this way already, but many people don't. screaming at people that religion is bad or wrong will accomplish the same thing that drug prohibition does: more "addicts", more abuse, more people determined to spite the Man, more people stubbornly committed to their martyr complexes. effective treatment addresses the CAUSE of the addiction, and helps the addict to build a healthy and complete life that does not require the crutch of their drug (or their faith).

Did somebody call?

:headbang: Is that possible? Can I create a government where the people are forced to worship nothing and make idols to It. It's a paradox I know, but it has a nice ring to it. Any suggestions, comments or questions are apprecieated. :sniper:

Athiesm is the state declared religion of North Korea.

Athiesm is the state declared religion of North Korea.
Yet the two biggest religions are Buddhism and Confucianism

In fact there are even government funded religious groups in north Korea interesting

I think you meant non allowed of practice of non sponsored religions rather then atheism (there is a difference)

And here is some itresting information


The country has a total land area of approximately 47,000 square miles, and the population is approximately 21 million. The number of religious believers is unknown but has been estimated at 10,000 Protestants, 10,000 Buddhists, and 4,000 Catholics. In addition the Chondogyo Young Friends Party, a government-sponsored group based on a traditional religious movement, is still in existence. There has been a limited revival of Buddhism with the translation and publication of Buddhist scriptures that had been carved on 80,000 wooden blocks and kept at an historic temple. In the late 1980's, the Government sent two Roman Catholic men to study religion in Rome. However, the two returned before being ordained priests, and it still is not known whether any Catholic priests, whose role is a fundamental element for the practice of the Catholic faith, remain in the country. Seoul Archbishop Nicholas Jin-Suk Cheong, appointed by the Pope as Apostolic Administrator of Pyongyang, was quoted in July 2000 as stating that while there were 50 priests in the country in the 1940's, it was not known if they still were alive in July 2000.
Two Protestant churches under lay leadership and a Roman Catholic church (without a priest) have been opened since 1988 in Pyongyang. One of the Protestant churches is dedicated to the memory of North Korean former leader Kim Il Sung's mother, Kang Pan Sok, who was a Presbyterian deacon. Several foreigners resident in Pyongyang attend Korean services at these churches on a regular basis. Although some foreigners who have visited the country over the years stated that church activity appears staged, others believe that church services are genuine, although sermons contain both religious and political content supportive of the regime. The Government claims, and visitors confirm, that there are more than 500 authorized "house churches." Hundreds of religious figures have visited the country in recent years, including papal representatives, the Reverend Billy Graham, and religious delegations from the Republic of Korea, the United States, and other countries. A Vatican delegation, including Archbishop Celestino Migliore, Vatican undersecretary for relations with states, visited the country in November 2000. The delegation reported a meeting with the Catholic community in Pyongyang, and a meeting with the leader of the Association of North Korean Catholics. Overseas religious relief organizations also have been active in responding to the country's food crisis. An overseas Buddhist group has been operating a factory in the Najin-Sonbong Free Trade Zone since 1998 to produce food for preschool children.
There are 300 Buddhist temples. Most of the temples are regarded as cultural relics, but in some of them religious activity is permitted.
There have been unconfirmed reports of members of underground Christian churches.


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2001/5585.htm

Yet the two biggest religions are Buddhism and Confucianism

In fact there are even government funded religious groups in north Korea interesting

I think you meant non allowed of practice of non sponsored religions rather then atheism (there is a difference)

And here is some itresting information
<snip>

Though, there doesn't seem to be many of either. And, somewhat ironically, both could be considered atheistic religions.

Though, there doesn't seem to be many of either. And, somewhat ironically, both could be considered atheistic religions.
More philosophies (but their are other religions allowed) but I digress not making it sound like they make it easy for religions rather then what they press on their people is a hardship of not practice not a belief

More philosophies (but their are other religions allowed) but I digress not making it sound like they make it easy for religions rather then what they press on their people is a hardship of not practice not a belief
Understood. And if you're arguing they fail to meet the conditions required to be considered a theocracy, I would agree.

Understood. And if you're arguing they fail to meet the conditions required to be considered a theocracy, I would agree.
That too :) but I wasent going to get into that right away :)