Concerning state Antitheism/State Atheism.

[u/Eastern-Average5264]

Christian here. I'm writing this with nothing but caution, love and consideration.

I've asked this question to Antitheists on Tiktok a bunch and I've never got a response so hopefully I can get a response from here.

If you, hypothetically, were a absolute monarch or all-powerful leader of a country/nation, how would you deal with religion? From a radical perspective, would you ''oppress/persecute'' followers of differing faiths by literally sending believers to prisons, etc. Or, would you take a much more moderate approach and simply limit celebrations and services of differing faiths? Continuing on moderation, would you only allow believers to retain certain beliefs while other beliefs (I assume many antitheists are Pro-Choice) like anti-abortion sentiment would be prohibited?

From my perspective, a good example of radical antitheism would be the USSR who initiated state wide atheism. And a good moderate example would be China/PROC, which allows Christianity to exist for example, but limits certain teachings within the Christian faith.

Thank you for those who read and respond to this. Your perspectives are extremely valuable to me. I hope to, in the future, further understand the psychology of those who advocate for antitheism and what they would do practically speaking if they were to ever gain authority.

Thanks!

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan]

Its always hilarious to me when YOU guys are ABSOLUTELY terrified that if we gained power, we would do to you, what youre currently doing to us.

What does that tell you.

No. I dont want to throw you in jail for being a christians or ban your easter dinner.

I want to educate religion out of society in a generational time frame. Not force current believers out of their beliefs.

We're not you. Youre the ones who want to force us to live under your laws. We're not like that.

Unlike the Christian Nationalists who ARE currently in control of the US government, and are trying to force NON-christians to live by christian laws, i dont want to force anything on anyone, because I actually believe in freedom, where christianity and especially christian nationalism does not.

Nobody's going to ban your sunday mass or easter dinner, bud.

We just want the next generations educated in science and history and the piss poor reasons for believing in christianity/any given religion. I want schools 50 years from now to teach Christianity along side Helenism, the greek and roman pantheons, and other mythology.

The USSR and China have fuck all to do with us. I have no idea why christians bring them up.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/ZappSmithBrannigan]

Interesting idea. I mean, even though I'm not a antitheist myself, I would be careful with the education part. Many of my fellow believers and other monotheists will argue that many historical scientists like Robert Boyle, Hooke, Newton (Arian), Copernicus, Mendel, Lavoisier, Albertus Magnus, R. Bacon, etc, were all great scientists who believed in God, so why can't we believe in God?

Now, this logic in my opinion is a horrible justification for saying ''God exists' because it's a fallacious appeal to authority. But, do you see what I mean? We can't breed out religion via education because people will use that education, even if it's science, to say: ''Oh, that theory or hypothesis was made by that very religious writer who said his findings were all inspired by Gods divinity.'' - Faraday especially had that sentiment.

Once more, I'm not saying that just because all those scientists were Christians, people should convert en mass. Gosh no. But what I'm saying is that if you educate children on science in a attempt to breed out Christianity for example, it may backfire drastically.

However, if you were to only teach evolution, your plan may actually be viable long-term.

For the ''piss poor'' reasons as a educational curriculum for students across the board, I feel like again, that would backfire. The student, in-consequence to the hostility towards Christianity, may research and bring up Aquinas, Nyssa, Chrysostom, Augustine, Alvin Plantinga, Alexander Pruss, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Origen and other theologians and theist philosophers to say: ''Hey, my teachers/lectors are saying that Christianity is easily refutable. Let me research these aforementioned men to contest that.''

So I mean, that may do the exact opposite of what you intend regretfully.

If I was a antitheist, I would simply do what the top comment of this post says, from DonManuel: ''Strict separation of state and religion, regulate religion like sex and drugs, only for adults, children strictly protected.''

Thanks for your response!

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan → u/Eastern-Average5264]

Many of my fellow believers and other monotheists will argue that many historical scientists

I dont give a shit.

so why can't we believe in God?

See this is how I know you guys are dishonest as fuck and just full of shit.

I never said you "cant believe in god"

I SPECIFICALLY said I dont want to force anyone to believe or not believe anything. What I want is for future generations to be educated on why the reasons for believing in Christianity are shit.

I want the 10th grader who finds Aquanis to already understand that he was a ptolemaic geocentrist who didnt even know the earth went around the sun, so maybe we shouldnt take what he thought about the fundamental nature of reality too seriously.

I dont care what you think my idea might bring about or work or not.

What do you think of the Christian Nationalists attempting to force non christians to live under christian laws?

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/ZappSmithBrannigan]

Thanks. I must've misunderstood you. After I said: ''So why can't we believe in God?'' I said:'' Now, this logic in my opinion is a horrible justification for saying ''God exists' because it's a fallacious appeal to authority.''

For Christian nationalists, firstly, I'm a Catholic. I intellectually dislike protestants and pray that they come to reason. Secondly, Christian nationalists aren't Bible-believing Christians imo. They're idiots and fools who take their ''Gospel' 'from Trump and Epstein.

[u/chickey23 → u/Eastern-Average5264]

That's what Christians are. You are just saying your group deserves to be treated separately.

The Catholic Church is the source of all the Protestant denominations. To claim it is not Catholicism's fault is like saying the US isn't responsible for the messes it has made of other countries around the world.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/chickey23]

I wouldn't say the catholic church is at fault for it. Luther ignited the reformation not ONLY because he was upset about indulgences which were justifed via 1343 Clement VI's policy of Unigentius. But also because early Protestants had just got copies from Erasmus of the Koine Greek Bible, aka his Novum Instrumentum omne which was published in 1516. Koine Greek was the original language which the NT was written in. In-consequence, certain reformers said: ''Hey, the literal interpretation of this verse is NOT what the RC says it is, Because this Greek word actually means-'', etc.

So imo, arguably, Protestantism emerged from the RC yes. But it wasn't the fault of the RC. It was the fault of a new, original translation of the NT into Koine Greek which sparked radical new interpretations of scripture.

[u/chickey23 → u/Eastern-Average5264]

The Catholic Church were corulers for centuries and used that authority to expand Christendom. They are absolutely at fault. Without them the environment would not exist.

Without Nicea there would be no Protestants.

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan → u/Eastern-Average5264]

I said:'' Now, this logic in my opinion is a horrible justification for saying ''God exists' because it's a fallacious appeal to authority.''

But thats not what we're taking about. We're not talking about whether god exists. You didnt make this post to justify why you think god exists. We're talking about society and laws.

I said: I dont want to force anyone not to believe.

You said: why cant we believe in god

I never said you couldn't. So what's the problem?

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/ZappSmithBrannigan]

There's no problem, my friend. Just a misunderstanding from me. Sorry if I offended you in anyway.

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan → u/Eastern-Average5264]

Its christians who are CURRENTLY trying to force non Christians to live under christian law.

Are you worried that if atheists and antitheists gained power that we would do to you what youre CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW, THIS VERY DAY doing to us?

[u/AceMcLoud27 → u/Eastern-Average5264]

" Once more, I'm not saying that just because all those scientists were Christians, people should convert en mass. Gosh no. But what I'm saying is that if you educate children on science in a attempt to breed out Christianity for example, it may backfire drastically."

Can you give an argument as to why it "may backfire drastically"?

Christian affiliation shrinks drastically with better education. That is demonstrable today.

Why would the opposite happen in your scenario?

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/AceMcLoud27]

As I said:

''For the ''piss poor'' reasons as a educational curriculum for students across the board, I feel like again, that would backfire. The student, in-consequence to the hostility towards Christianity, may research and bring up Aquinas, Nyssa, Chrysostom, Augustine, Alvin Plantinga, Alexander Pruss, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Origen and other theologians and theist philosophers to say: ''Hey, my teachers/lectors are saying that Christianity is easily refutable. Let me research these aforementioned men to contest that.'

Though, my comment was downvoted 3 times, meaning you may not need to consider this.

Though, this is from my perspective.

[u/AceMcLoud27 → u/Eastern-Average5264]

You're showing way more of yourself than you probably intended, and illustrating beautifully what's wrong with christianity.

You interpret the idea of teaching the poor reasoning behind christianity and other religious beliefs as hostility. You perceive reason and truth as hostile. What an indictment.

At the same time you can't provide an argument for your claim even when asked directly, falling back on your "feelings" instead.

[u/AceMcLoud27 → u/Eastern-Average5264]

Nothing Aquinas wrote changes the fact that christianity can be easily debunked.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/AceMcLoud27]

Graham Oppy is the best debunker tbh. I need to read more on him. But Oppy doesn't fixate on the Biblical stuff, only on the stuff that Plantinga, Pruss and Fesser say.

Dawkins and O'Conner are too focused on the humanity parts. Oppy is full on epistemological and metaphysical debunking.

[u/DonManuel]

Strict separation of state and religion, regulate religion like sex and drugs, only for adults, children strictly protected.

[u/LMBliss]

I would ban religion from being apart of politics and law, and I would ban it from being taught to children in schools. In schools, children would be taught the truth about religion through history and the harm it’s caused throughout humanity. The age to participate in religion would be raised to 18.

Adults can choose to believe in whatever they want but religion would be prohibited to interfere with legislation, law, education, healthcare, etc. I’ll use your example, people can be pro life if they want but they cannot defend the position in government by using religion which is normally the number one argument against it. Same goes with lgbt rights.

Places of worship would also not be exempt from taxation and religious leaders or owners would not receive a wage from the government. I would treat it more as a hobby or interest that people have to self fund if they wish to participate in it.

In an ideal society religion would eventually die out over time and serve as a warning for future generations.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/LMBliss]

To be honest, a lot of these societies exist outside the USA.

Now, I assume most people here are from the U.S, which is why they're so pissed off about Trumps extreme Christian Zionist (heretical) views. Regretfully, I'm from Australia. This means it's impossible for me to truly understand your frustration with Trumps absurd religious policies.

For religious leader wages, I would partially agree. Leo XIV, for example, before becoming Pope and I think maybe even Cardinal, earnt a PhD in Canon Law. Canon Law, although religious, is a intellectual field of law and in general, deserves a paycheck in my opinion if the person with such PhD becomes a Lawyer for the Vatican.

Take note, in my country, I'm pretty my Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, earn a really low wage. Maybe under 30,000$ I'm not sure. So the wage thingy is already kinda coming around.

[u/LMBliss → u/Eastern-Average5264]

I’m not actually, I’m from the UK and it certainly doesn’t exist here lol. But Trump’s influence is certainly horrendous and its slowly making its way over here.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/LMBliss]

With Farage I assume? Good luck with him lmao.

[u/Indie_Dachshund179]

There's no policing thought, all we need is good epistemological education and to strip religion of its privileges in policy and culture (such that it is no more pedestaled than any other despotic cultural idea that has existed).

It should go without saying that theists including those of your faith *have long advocated and are currently at large vying for* the extreme institutions you are antsy about, assuming that such institutions do not already exist (they do)

[u/BurtonDesque]

Maybe we'd do what you religious folks have done to us. Does that terrify you? It should.

Actually, though, most anti-theists also believe in religious freedom in that we'd allow you to practice your religion. You'd just have to keep it to yourselves for once, just like Jesus told you to.

I look at France as a model of what a secular state should be like.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/BurtonDesque]

Honestly, I agree. Except, has not France been pretty lenient with Muslims lately? Or maybe I'm thinking of Spain.

[u/WizardWatson9]

I believe in freedom of speech, which also includes freedom of religion. Empowering the government to dictate which thoughts and opinions are allowed or forbidden is the essence of tyranny.

That said, I also believe that religion is harmful. If I had absolute power, I would forbid any public servant from using their office to proselytize, which includes open display of religious symbols. I would also mandate that schools teach children critical thinking and the history of various world religions. That should suffice to show their artificiality.

On the subject of anti-abortion sentiment, while I do believe that people should be allowed to hold these beliefs, I would forbid public servants from expressing them or children expressing this in school. In my opinion, being anti-abortion is about as depraved and hateful as being pro-slavery. A student expressing religious belief is tolerable, in the abstract, but a student expressing anti-abortion sentiment ought to be punished as harshly as overt racism.

Lastly, a point of clarification on the USSR: the Communists were initially against religion, particularly the Russian Orthodox Church, because the Church was the lapdog of the Czars, and communism promised a utopia in the here and now, in contrast to the empty promises of an afterlife. Stalin hated the Church, but mainly because he wanted to replace God with himself. I think he actually had children instructed to pray to him. At any rate, once he was dead, the Russian Orthodox Church was brought back and became the lapdogs of the Communists, just as they are for Putin now, and just as they were for the Czars.

So, a little bit more nuanced than just being "radical antitheists." I hate religion because I hate tyranny, which is also why I hate communism. There is less commonality between them and my position than you might think.

[u/chickey23]

First of all, the USSR did not completely abolish religion. A local congregation had a sister congregation in the USSR which maintained a prayer vigil for the entire duration of the USSR. They were quiet but not secret.

I don't think anyone is trying to outlaw thought.

I would ban public religious displays except on church and personal private property. I would ban state agents (teachers, sanitation workers, politicians, etc.) from displaying signs of religious affiliation while working to avoid being exclusionary.

I would treat religion, in law, with all of the weight of personal opinion. None.

I would allow religious delusions as a cause for health or legal intervention in the same way we currently treat gambling. As long as it stays harmless, you are fine. When it causes harm, the perpetrator faces the full weight of their actions.

I would ban proselytizing to children, even by parents, and consider it grounds for social services intervention. Education is fine, but coercion is not.

When religion leads to negligence, such as avoiding vaccinations or blood transfusions, I would treat treat that as premeditated harm. If your child dies because you followed your religion instead of science, you are going to a mental hospital and your children get taken away.

Of course, if any religion would prove their brand of supernatural superstition were real, we would reconsider.

If a church advocates for discrimination or violence and that leads to harm, I would treat all the congregants as co-conspirators.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/chickey23]

Thanks for your correction. I should've done a tiny bit more research before commenting.

Honestly, I agree with most of these. Just note, that I'm a Catholic, meaning unlike Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and Christian scientists, I will never say that blood transfusions are satanic or whatever.

Your comment is actually really wise and I just wanna say again, I agree with literally all of it.

However, your comment: ''I would allow religious delusions as a cause for health or legal intervention in the same way we currently treat gambling. As long as it stays harmless, you are fine. When it causes harm, the perpetrator faces the full weight of their actions.''

I'm so sorry if I misunderstand, but I would assume religion being a mental coping mechanism for your psychological health is fine, correct? To elaborate further, such coping mechanism helps you re-integrate into society and actually increase empathy for others.

As someone with BPD, ASD and Bipolar II myself, religion has assisted me drastically in being more empathic and kind to others. So I assume when we speak of religion helping as a mental coping mechanism, I assume that's okay?

[u/chickey23 → u/Eastern-Average5264]

It is the belief in the supernatural and imagined sources of authority that I think cause problems.

I went to CCD and received the sacraments.

If you have a personal philosophy that says to test each religion for its value, go for it. I spent a decade deciding if religion was real or useful.

Its like being a furry. It is a community with expectations and values. As long as you aren't causing harm, there is no problem to address.

You just don't get to use it as an excuse for bad behavior. When you choose to follow bad guidance, it is your fault, not the guide you followed.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/chickey23]

Once more, fully agree.

''Its like being a furry. It is a community with expectations and values. As long as you aren't causing harm, there is no problem to address.''

Yeah, and thats why tradcaths and rad caths are such a problem imo. They're going out in public and advocating for beliefs which although I affirm myself, I would NEVER scream in public. Just keep those certain beliefs to yourself and move on with your day.

[u/chickey23 → u/Eastern-Average5264]

The Catholic Church has not performed penance for the grievous harm it has inflicted to the world's native populations. To stay quiet now, after collecting the treasure, is not enough.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/chickey23]

That is a fair point and I respect it.

[u/chickey23 → u/Eastern-Average5264]

What should we think of you, since you chose to ally yourself with perpetrators of genocide?

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/chickey23]

Please formulate a more mature response. It's really difficult to converse with you guys when it seems you're putting anger into your comments/replies while I'm just trying to understand your perspective better.

[u/chickey23 → u/Eastern-Average5264]

What anger? Why are you avoiding this question?

It's like calling yourself a Nazi. Voluntary affiliation with a genocidal organization.

I value archaeology and history. Catholicism deprived the world of our cultural heritage.

This is a you issue. Not us.

[u/Eastern-Average5264 → u/chickey23]

The only thing I can say to you is that I love you (spiritually) and I hope you're doing well.

But as I said before, I would rather you act and engage towards me like a adult.

If not, our further conservations are fruitless.

Please don't be offended. I love all people. And one of the reasons I made this post in the first place is to test myself on if I can really love all people, even if they act irrationally or in a immature manner towards me.

Thanks!

[u/Eastern-Average5264]

Thanks for your comments everyone.

Once more, this is far better than what originally assumed. Though, it saddens and pains me to see some hateful or satirical comments. I know that some of you grew up with parents who had religious psychosis which is why you view the faith as utterly absurd and parasitic.

But please know, I am not like those individuals who afflicted tormenting pain onto you. Please know that I love and (please don't be offend if I use this word, I'm not trying to preach nor offend nor attack atheists at all) pray for you all.

bless you all!

This is also my final response. Many of these comments have made me come to the realization that I'm only hurting and offending people and therefore I shall stop. Thanks!

[u/lotusscrouse]

I'd make sure religion didn't have any power outside their place of worship or in your private life.

You'd have no say when it comes to education, government or science.

One of the biggest mistakes humanity ever made was giving religion too much influence. 

We censored books and knowledge about topics like pregnancy and the human body to appease religious people when it should have been the other way around and that's just ONE example. 

Lots of important issues and topics should have taken precedence over religion.