Does this hold much water? (atheist countries)

Discussion in 'Answers' started by Hmmm, Jun 4, 2009.

  1. Does this hold much water? (atheist countries)

    Atheist countries are more peaceful.

    I genuinely want to know everyones thoughts on this as i think its relevant information.
  2. The problem with statistics and surveys like that are that they can so easily be manipulated to show anything the author intends. Kind of like carbon dating.

    Run three tests, date the object at 6 Million, 600,000 and 6,000 years, then use the data that fits the agenda.

    Besides, 92.479% of all statistics are just made up anyway.
  3. I would rather be Christian living in a violent country than be an atheist living in a peaceful one
  4. I believe that this account in scripture would be ableto explain this, if it is so:
    Would it be benificial to Satan to raise turmoil in a populace that he already controls? Would he not be wise enough to remain silent in such a nation, where there is no resistance to his influence, in order that such questions as yours could be asked? What was your( as the one who posted this) response to that report? Did you wonder if it is not more beneficial for a nation to abandon belief in a higher authority, if it leads to peace among its populace? That is one of the great temptations that Satan uses. But that peace is temporal. Every manand woman that dies without Christ immediately realizes their folly. Then their eyes will be opened to the truth, that the end of their earthly life was not the end of their life. They will spend eternity lamenting the absence of their father, who loved them more than they knew they could be loved. They will cry out for forgiveness, for another chance, but it will not come. This will torment them for eternity, and there will be no consolation, no comfort to be found.
  5. My question is:

    Is there a truly 'atheist' country? Isn't that kind of rude to atheists? It's making them seem more like grocery store labels than anything.

    No offense. Just wondering. :eek::)
  6. Well, isnt atheism just like the pictures on the box? I know that my frozen dinners have never looked as good on my table as they do in the picture? Satan is, after all, the the first marketing executive.:cool:( no offense intended if any members here are in advertising)
  7. Just think about Soviet Russia. Any peace there was kept through fear and repression. False peace is no peace.
  8. Well, I was more there a truly 'atheist' country, where the majority of the people do not hold any beliefs in a supreme being (and I am talking any religion/belief, not just one...). Also, it seems they are putting them into a generalization...a box of sorts. Not individuals. To me, it is labeling. I don't like to label people/places/things as 'something'. Aren't we more 'someone'?

    That's all folks. :)

  9. To often people see only what they want to see. I have known a few folks from Fidel's Cuba and have talked to a couple of folks from Communist China and fear is the only thing that controls an abused and disgruntled people.
  10. Even so - so what if a patient who just received a guaranteed successful cure for cancer, sits in his bed itching for a few hours before it kicks in, instead of being more comfortable like the cancer patient who's going to die at age 10.
  11. they keep mentioning sweden.but 79% go to lutherin church.the government forces them.there is always a story if you research.athiests say only 8% or so are christian,but why all these churches in sweden.?:eek:
  12. Atheists are famous, especially today, that religion is the root cause of world conflict. Although there is truth to this they fail to say that some of the worst human atrocities were caused by atheists driven along by the belief of "survival of the strongest". Eg Hitler and Stalin
  13. I live in Norway, who can be described as an Atheist/agnostic country- same with Sweden.
    And i cant say that we are the most agressive og nations. But i dont belive that religion in the western world is what drives violence.
  14. The problem with statistics and surveys like that are that they can so easily be manipulated to show anything the author intends. Kind of like carbon dating.

    Run three tests, date the object at 6 Million, 600,000 and 6,000 years, then use the data that fits the agenda.

    Besides, 92.479% of all statistics are just made up anyway.


    Haha very valid point. But how is this argument relevant? If you are saying the author is wrong in his/her data then come out and say it but i dont see any evidence to support this.


    I dont mean any offense to anyone here but honestly this is the mentality that scares me with religion. To fulfill the word of scripture one would rather see violence than peace, when quite obviously a peaceful route can better sustain the fulfillment of scripture by not allowing scripture to put chains around ones identity as a human being, or rights as a human being. (as demonstrated by the article in question).


    What is satans influence? If he remains silent in a atheist country and that country is peaceful, but presents himself in a religious country as violence then by logic i can only conclude that satans influence is the church itself- assuming a populace influenced by organized religion does indeed bring more violence than a populace not influenced by organized religion.

    Following the ten commandments, more specifically the 6th "You shall not murder", then it would seem to me the more peaceful atheist countries are doing a better job fulfilling gods word than those who are influenced by organized religion. And if peace is temporal, so is violence, and if violence is influenced by organized religion, than should organized religion also not be temporal? You just might be surprised how much of an ability you have to make satans influence, or even satan himself temporal.

    My conclusion is, regardless of philisophical values or beliefs, if the ten commandments are being better represented and upheld within a populace largely not influenced by organized religion and, more so, than a populace largely influenced by organized religion, does it not argue a point that maybe the atheist countries are actually doing a better job in manifesting gods word?


    Again, I dont understand how relevant this argument is. I can tell you first hand as a "non believer" i have no false peace through fear or repression. In fact i felt that more through attending church "dont sin or you will be sent to hell". (Obviously my experience with religion can not be assumed as everyones experience with religion). I can only assume you're implying that the predominate atheist countries are living a false peace through fear and repression of organized religion like soviet russia in which case i just simply dont see the correlation or evidence to back this up.


    I ask you this...What if scripture is a diversion tactic of satan? Has this not been asked? If it brings separation through such hatred and violence....


    I think the author of the article is merely labeling people who do not attend any sort of church or abide by any "laws" or "rules" of any scripture as atheists for the sake of the argument. If you did follow any scripture or attend church regularly (or religiously..pun intended :-P ) it would be safe to assume you as non atheist.

    Its like saying america is a christian nation because the majority of the populace conforms to the beliefs of christianity through scripture or church. It doesnt mean all the millions of americans are christians cut from the same cookie cutter. Honestly to argue this is just nit-picky, and i think would be naive to assume simply because a label is produced to describe a certain lifestyle of a certain people does not mean they are not individuals. Do you come to the "christian forum site" assuming all here are less than individuals?


    Well i know thats a very good analogy but i dont understand how i can relate it realistically to this situation in question? Cancer is different from war and violence...
    I'm curious :)


    If you're referring to the wiki article you're leaving out the last bit of information. Only 4% are attenders of church and only 2% are regular attenders. My argument here is pertaining to organized religion so saying sweden is predominantly atheist (not followers of scripture or attenders of church) would be accurate.


    I'm not arguing Hitler to be a good person by any means. I'm not exactly saying religion is bad or wrong at all i'm just wondering what others (primarily religious people) think when statistics show a populace heavily influenced by "organized religion" to be more violent than a populace that is not.

    Again im not trying to inflame or incite arguments im just trying to better understand the viewpoints of others in areas where i have many questions and think this is a good site to seek answers. Thanks for your words i appreciate it.
  15. quote .. Atheist countries are more peaceful. .. end quote

    Which atheist countries? Do you have any specific ones that you can name?
  16. Is it that atheists create peaceful countries, or that in violent countries people are more likely to turn to God?

    And just how were these 'atheist' countries founded? I think you will find the basic principles of the Bible in their foundations (i.e. right to life and liberty, freedom of speech). What I notice is that officially atheist countries like the Soviet Union and China are/were quite violent and repressive - as opposed to predominantly christian nations that are grounded on Biblical principles.
  17. Some interesting points raised here. Cards on the table, I'm a devout atheist. First of all I would agree that I can't think of a truly atheist country - as far as I'm aware all countries have an element of the population that believe in one form of deity or another (even communist Russia allowed Greek Orthodoxy to exist). I'm equally not sure that religion or lack of it has much of an effect on any form of crime. There are a couple of points raised that I feel need addressing:

    Finding Away – You are, of course, fully entitled to this view, but to me this is the purest example of why I can’t reconcile myself to Christianity (or most other religions), that you would sacrifice your fourscore years on earth - no matter how you got here this is still the single most wonderous experience you are definitely going to have and yet you would live in abject misery in the faith of getting ‘something better afterwards’.

    Carolinasteve – Poor form. As an atheist I don’t of course believe in Satan, but I do object to your view that atheists are, by definition, evil, immoral, unethical etc, etc. I do not need a fictional character to tell me how to live a ‘good’ life. If I were able to convince you that god did not exist would you immediately go out and murder someone?

    Boanerges – Absolutely. But wasn’t that also the case with Puritan England? Fearful and repressive governance isn’t limited to atheism. Mussolini ruled Italy, a country within which lies the centre of the Catholic faith, but maintained a dictatorship for years.

    Heart after his own - I don't believe that we need the bible, or any other religious tract, in order to live a moral or ethical life (I certainly don't). The growth of societies needs rules in order that anarchy doesn't result from a number of individuals living in close proximity. This will result in some very standard regulations being applied / accepted at an early stage - murder and theft (as extreme examples) would destroy any form of society at a very early stage if they were considered acceptable. There were large, developed societies in existence prior to the bible that would have developed these concepts in isolation, those who didn't were condemned to fail at an early stage. You may have a point that people in violent societies turn to one god or another, but places like Somalia would suggest that they're just as likely to join one violent sect or another for purposes of self-preservation rather than attempt to stand outside the norm and reject the prevailing culture.

    Kevin - Hitler was a confirmed Catholic and, I understand, referred to his faith in some (although definitely not most) of his speeches. He is often held up as an example of what would happen if religion were abandoned - it's a very poor example and one that with minimal research gets thrown back in the face of those using it. I will mention Jim Jones at this point and leave it there. There probably are atheists who’ll claim that religion is at the root of all conflict, I think that’s a bit extreme – but it certainly holds its own against all other roots – possibly because it generates so much emotion and demands so much adherence, whatever the reason, denying that religion has caused a monumental amount of deaths through conflict is ridiculous and untenable and as bad as a claim that it is the only root of world conflict.

    Sorry, this post is a lot longer than I originally intended, but it is the type of question that will raise a lot of points and one which I have, unintentionally, widened.
  18. You just made that up, didn't you? :p

Share This Page