[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< It takes up between 1/4 and a 1/5 of a page. It’s gotta be a record! [/quote]A meaningless idiosyncratic pet peeve of mine. It irritates me when people post 12 quotes deep to say six words about the last sentence of the last quote. To me it’s kinda like handing somebody an atlas of the world to give them directions to the nearest gas station.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
all aboard the quote train choo choo
It takes up between 1/4 and a 1/5 of a page. It’s gotta be a record! [/quote]
The real feat was keeping all the quote tags strait… 
[quote]Pat wrote::
[quote]bigflamer wrote::
Just because Stalin targeted the institutions of the religious, does not mean that it was “done in the name of atheism”, that’s lazy reasoning. Stop being so lazy, and think about it.
LOL @ your link.[/quote]
What does it mean? It made him horny? LOL at your lack of any proof of your points. If all you got is a bulshit flag, then you got nothing.[/quote]
Horny? Interesting response, Pat.
I’m reluctant to do the heavy lifting for you on this, but I’ll help you out a wee bit with a question: What sort of political involvement would lead Stalin to view the ROC as a political threat? Because we’re back to that being a driving reason for his actions against the church.
Now get to work and come back to me with a better understanding.
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote::
I’ve successfully made my point over and over again; not my fault that your intellectual laziness disallows you to recognize it. Or perhaps I’m giving you too much credit in that regard, and you’re just too stupid to see it?
Which one is it, Patty Cakes? Intellectual laziness, or simple stupididty? Let me know when you get around to it.[/quote]
You’ve successfully made a point?! LOL! Where? If anything you have been engaged in a massive FAIL from the start. Your started with a losing point and went down hill from there.
You refusing to look at the reams of evidence that shows that atheist ideology and state policy was the driving force for many, murders, tortures, and exiles is pure unadulterated stupidity on your part.
Calling me names, flamey, will not make your invalid point any more valid. And the only people here more intellectually lazy than you are HH and tirib.[/quote]
Pure AND unadulterated stupidity, on MY part?!? Oh my…whatever shall I do? How will I carry on?
Truth is, you’ve not shown ANY evidence for atheism for the sake of atheism as the driving force behind the staggering atrocities of Stalin. What you’ve done is offer up your incorrect conclusions heavily influenced by your religious bias. Yes, your reasoning is LAZY.
Another summary of your lazy logic:
[i]
- Stalin was an atheist
- Stalin rose to power with ruthless aggression
- Stalin targeted the church, and murdered many of it’s leaders and followers in his rise to power.
- Atheism therefore, was responsible for the atrocities of Stalin.[/i]
Now, tell me why that is nothing more than failed logic, filled with intellectual laziness.
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You avoided the question. Did Stalin also target fellow Communists? Murder and imprison them? Does this make him a militant capitalist? Do answer…
Aaaaaaand, I’m not arguing with you about the facts surrounding what Stalin did. I’m fully aware of what he did, and I’m not disputing them. I’m just pointing out to you, your failed, simplistic, biased interpretations of those facts.[/quote]
You clearly aren’t “fully aware” of what he did, you can’t be because nobody is totally sure at the depths of his cruelty. The fact that he murdered others, does not invalidate the fact the he murdered thousands of religious because they were religious and no other reason. Ignoring the facts, doesn’t make them disappear it just makes you delusional at a very profound level.
[/quote]
Ahhh, but I’ve not ignored your facts; and have gone out of my way to agree with them. It’s your conclusion that’s failing so miserably. You want soooo bad for atheism to be the evil here, that you fail to see the truth. Oh, and do a count of the insults traded in this conversation and you will come up with the only category you’re winning in this thread. You’re clearly winning THAT contest.
I’ll say it as many times as necessary; Atheism doesn’t kill, fanaticism, dogma (be it religious OR political), and blind faith kills. You continually fail to understand atheism; non-belief does not kill.
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
SIGH You’re getting boring as shit with this tripe. Yes he killed lots and lots and lots of the religious, but that does not mean that atheism was the driving force. Destroying the institution of the church, and it’s power base was; try to wrap your head around that.
[/quote]
We the stated reason is to purge religion and the religious, when they murder and send you to gulags because you are not an atheist, it very much is the driving force. It’s not just Stalin, Lenin did a heck of a job and it was STATE POLICY. It’s matter of historic fact and there isn’t shit you can do about it. You’re no better than those holocaust deniers out there.
Boring? That’s rich. Your trumping a stance that has no evidence. Well I guess a lot of people consider real actual facts boring, usually school children. I guess it’s more exciting to make shit up out of thin ass air.[/quote]
I’ve made nothing up, and it’s amusing to witness how angry you respond to all of this. Your failed biased argument is highlighting your lack of knowledge regarding the relevant history.
What political role did the church play in Russian politics? Was the failed politics of the ROC also to blame in this? Did the ROC back the wrong guy/party in the revolution, and pay the political price for it?
You claim only facts that are obvious and true, however your facts have done nothing to shore up your position that atheism was to balm for what Stalin did. NOTHING. All they do is shore up that he was an atheist, and that he killed lots of people.
Your conclusions are still wrong, and no amount of whining and name calling on YOUR part can change that.
[quote]Pat wrote:
Call your ‘wah-mbulance’ ~
http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/542[/quote]
I ask you for Stalin quotes, and you give me a quote from Trotsky and one from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; LOL…classic.
You ARE aware that these men were political rivals of Stalin and their communist/Marxist dogma, right? You’re aware that they were both viewed as "enemies of the state, right? LOL…you just keep making my point for me.
Trotsky was exiled by Stalin, and later assassinated by Stalin. Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned and beaten by Stalin for his unflattering writing and other “crimes against the state”.
Sorry about your fail.
[quote]Pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I don’t have to support my atheism, it’s folks like you that have to support your belief.[/quote]
You do have to prove it.[/quote]
No, I really don’t.
So what is it then that atheists believe in? What dogma? What belief system does an atheist hold?
Do I believe in not believing? LOL…you’re a funny guy.
Such as?
BINGO!
Now explain to me how a virgin birth works…
Golly, thank you! Oh, I promise I’ll keep my filthy atheism to myself, Pat; thank you for your permission!
LOL
Sweet! Is this where you prove to the world that not only is there a god, but he’s a christian god! Yay for the Christians! I am soooo looking forward to you proving with beyond a doubt facts that the christian god exists. After all, it’s YOU making the claim, so it should be you providing the proof, right?
So exciting!!
Yet your whole argument has been nothing but repetitive cop outs and lazy reasoning.
[quote]Pat wrote:
Really, than why the League of Militant Atheists? Oh, I suppose they didn’t exist either.
http://www.presentpasts.info/article/view/pp.13/18[/quote]
You mean the The Soviet League of the Militant Godless? The political arm of the communist party? From your link:
[i]Throughout the Soviet period, direct attacks on religious institutions were just one part of the struggle. Quite as important (and more interesting from our point of view) were the propaganda efforts of the Party. These comprised a range of techniques: public lectures and debates, booklets, films, radio and television, plays, “houses of atheism” and museums (Struve 1967, 276). The organization the Party created to lead the struggle was The Soviet League of the Militant Godless. In his fascinating study, Daniel Perris shows that despite its nominal membership in 1933 of 5.5m (2m more that the Party itself) in fact the League was “largely a house of cards - a nationwide Potemkin village of atheism” (Perris 1998, 9). More than that, its series of campaigns never really engaged with the promotion of atheism, but concentrated on criticizing and attacking the institutions of belief: clergy, churches and religious holidays. Even there it was ineffective: it was the power of the State, rather than any successful persuasion of the masses, that closed churches, persecuted clergy and abolished the sacred calendar.
The Soviet anti-religion campaign mostly had little to do with “scientific atheism”. Not least because few cadres had the education to be able to lead such a campaign, most propaganda activity was devoted to exposing the tricks of self-interested clergy, attacking the “absurdities” of superstition, and contrasting old Holy Russia with the new Soviet society of industrialization, electrification and social justice.[/i]
[quote]Pat wrote:
You are fucking dying here. Let’s try something new, present actual real facts to support your point because you’ve presented ZERO. For as many times as you called me stupid, you’d think you have at least one. The ONLY nimrods who support your view are atheist propaganda websites. I keep hitting them. Not a single, minutely reputable source with touch your idiotic assertions with a ten foot cattle prod.
Got proof? Got facts? Thought not.[/quote]
I might remind you here that it was YOU who made the claim that “atheism was at the core of the atrocities that occurred under Stalin”, and yet you have miserably failed in every regard to back up that position. All you do is drone on about how many Stain killed, and that he was an atheist. Well,…no shit.
But that does not back up your position, now does it? You need to prove that atheism was the central driving force behind Stalin’s atrocities, and not fanaticism. I’ve provided for you why it was political dogma, the lust for complete control/power, and the resulting fanaticism that killed. All you’ve done is repeat ad nauseam the same irrelevant points.
Sorry Pat, but people don’t kill other people in the name of “no gods”.
Some interesting reading for you, Pat.
[i]Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism â?? which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself â?? did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened â?? which is utter nonsense.
The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion’s responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.
Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist â?? unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences. [/i]
Atheism and Stalin
[i]…Yet, Stalin was an atheist. He was very clear about that. So should his subsequent actions as the dictator of Soviet Russia be pinned exclusively to his atheism? The answer is no. Why? Because there is no evidence for it, and if you are an atheist, evidence is important to belief, unlike the Christian belief system.
Why was he an atheist, and to what use did he put his personal atheism? He was a communist first, a devotee of Marxim, who was raised as a Christian, and even studied in the seminary to be a priest. He realized how important, and how intertwined, religion was in the lives of the Russian people. He also knew that for the communist state to succeed, it could have no competition for the hearts and minds of the people from any other source. In Stalinâ??s communism, the state was everything. Religion had to go. Why? Not because he didnâ??t personally believe in god, but because god (or more correctly, godâ??s institution here on earth) interfered with his ability to control Russia. So the state became officially atheistic.
The underpinnings of atheism are freethought. Thatâ??s FREE THOUGHT. Thought that is free. Free thinkers are able to make up their owns minds about their beliefs; beliefs are not imposed by the state on free thinkers. Atheism, as we know it and advocate it on blogs such as this one, is anathema to communism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Polpotism (OK, I made that word up) or any other â??ismâ?? that relies on state centered dogma imposed from above. Atheism in Stalinâ??s Russia, then, was a mere tool used by Stalin, for the greater good of the state, imposed on the structure of society. Itâ??s effect was to strip away the power of the church to oppose his power. It was not a mere lack of belief in gods. Stalin could care less about the individual beliefs of the peasant, his focus was on destroying organized religion. Religion still flourished unofficially in Stalinist Russia, he actually reopened the churches during WWII in order to motivate the people to fight, and religion continues to this day.
No one died because they refused to embrace atheism. Many died because they were deemed enemies of the state. Religious leaders may have been among the executed, but not because they refused to become atheists, but because they were viewed as holdovers of the old order that would try to oppose the state… [/i]
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html
Hitler, Stalin and Atheism
[i]Note that in no case is atheism central to the building of these dogmatic positions. [d]
Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately “unreal” and “no longer needed” by socialism and communism. [9] This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:
Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation…[10] [Emphasis added]
It is important to pause for a moment and consider this statement carefully. If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?.[/i]
Hey Pat, you gonna get around to starting that “god does/does not exist thread”? I thought you wanted to discuss that?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Some interesting reading for you, Pat.
[i]Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism â?? which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself â?? did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened â?? which is utter nonsense.
The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion’s responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.
Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist â?? unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences. [/i]
Atheism and Stalin
[i]…Yet, Stalin was an atheist. He was very clear about that. So should his subsequent actions as the dictator of Soviet Russia be pinned exclusively to his atheism? The answer is no. Why? Because there is no evidence for it, and if you are an atheist, evidence is important to belief, unlike the Christian belief system.
Why was he an atheist, and to what use did he put his personal atheism? He was a communist first, a devotee of Marxim, who was raised as a Christian, and even studied in the seminary to be a priest. He realized how important, and how intertwined, religion was in the lives of the Russian people. He also knew that for the communist state to succeed, it could have no competition for the hearts and minds of the people from any other source. In Stalinâ??s communism, the state was everything. Religion had to go. Why? Not because he didnâ??t personally believe in god, but because god (or more correctly, godâ??s institution here on earth) interfered with his ability to control Russia. So the state became officially atheistic.
The underpinnings of atheism are freethought. Thatâ??s FREE THOUGHT. Thought that is free. Free thinkers are able to make up their owns minds about their beliefs; beliefs are not imposed by the state on free thinkers. Atheism, as we know it and advocate it on blogs such as this one, is anathema to communism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Polpotism (OK, I made that word up) or any other â??ismâ?? that relies on state centered dogma imposed from above. Atheism in Stalinâ??s Russia, then, was a mere tool used by Stalin, for the greater good of the state, imposed on the structure of society. Itâ??s effect was to strip away the power of the church to oppose his power. It was not a mere lack of belief in gods. Stalin could care less about the individual beliefs of the peasant, his focus was on destroying organized religion. Religion still flourished unofficially in Stalinist Russia, he actually reopened the churches during WWII in order to motivate the people to fight, and religion continues to this day.
No one died because they refused to embrace atheism. Many died because they were deemed enemies of the state. Religious leaders may have been among the executed, but not because they refused to become atheists, but because they were viewed as holdovers of the old order that would try to oppose the state… [/i]
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html
Hitler, Stalin and Atheism
[i]Note that in no case is atheism central to the building of these dogmatic positions. [d]
Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately “unreal” and “no longer needed” by socialism and communism. [9] This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:
Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation…[10] [Emphasis added]
It is important to pause for a moment and consider this statement carefully. If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?.[/i][/quote]
LOL! All your shit is from athiest propaganda websites. Got any unbiased sources? Thought not. Run along silly. I knew you didn’t have shit.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Hey Pat, you gonna get around to starting that “god does/does not exist thread”? I thought you wanted to discuss that?
[/quote]
That’s what we were discussing, to your hitler and pol pot stupidity. I don’t see where you get off telling me what to do, anyway. Most religious threads are started by atheists anyway, I don’t have to lift a finger. Also, it’s been done to death.
If you want me to kick your ass in another thread, go nuts. I may or may not bother.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Some interesting reading for you, Pat.
[i]Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism �¢?? which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself �¢?? did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened �¢?? which is utter nonsense.
The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion’s responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.
Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist Ã?¢?? unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences. [/i]
Atheism and Stalin
[i]…Yet, Stalin was an atheist. He was very clear about that. So should his subsequent actions as the dictator of Soviet Russia be pinned exclusively to his atheism? The answer is no. Why? Because there is no evidence for it, and if you are an atheist, evidence is important to belief, unlike the Christian belief system.
Why was he an atheist, and to what use did he put his personal atheism? He was a communist first, a devotee of Marxim, who was raised as a Christian, and even studied in the seminary to be a priest. He realized how important, and how intertwined, religion was in the lives of the Russian people. He also knew that for the communist state to succeed, it could have no competition for the hearts and minds of the people from any other source. In Stalin�¢??s communism, the state was everything. Religion had to go. Why? Not because he didn�¢??t personally believe in god, but because god (or more correctly, god�¢??s institution here on earth) interfered with his ability to control Russia. So the state became officially atheistic.
The underpinnings of atheism are freethought. That�¢??s FREE THOUGHT. Thought that is free. Free thinkers are able to make up their owns minds about their beliefs; beliefs are not imposed by the state on free thinkers. Atheism, as we know it and advocate it on blogs such as this one, is anathema to communism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Polpotism (OK, I made that word up) or any other �¢??ism�¢?? that relies on state centered dogma imposed from above. Atheism in Stalin�¢??s Russia, then, was a mere tool used by Stalin, for the greater good of the state, imposed on the structure of society. It�¢??s effect was to strip away the power of the church to oppose his power. It was not a mere lack of belief in gods. Stalin could care less about the individual beliefs of the peasant, his focus was on destroying organized religion. Religion still flourished unofficially in Stalinist Russia, he actually reopened the churches during WWII in order to motivate the people to fight, and religion continues to this day.
No one died because they refused to embrace atheism. Many died because they were deemed enemies of the state. Religious leaders may have been among the executed, but not because they refused to become atheists, but because they were viewed as holdovers of the old order that would try to oppose the state… [/i]
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html
Hitler, Stalin and Atheism
[i]Note that in no case is atheism central to the building of these dogmatic positions. [d]
Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately “unreal” and “no longer needed” by socialism and communism. [9] This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:
Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation…[10] [Emphasis added]
It is important to pause for a moment and consider this statement carefully. If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?.[/i][/quote]
LOL! All your shit is from athiest propaganda websites. Got any unbiased sources? Thought not. Run along silly. I knew you didn’t have shit. [/quote]
Way to avoid the argument.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Some interesting reading for you, Pat.
[i]Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism �?�¢?? which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself �?�¢?? did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened �?�¢?? which is utter nonsense.
The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion’s responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.
Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist Ã??Ã?¢?? unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences. [/i]
Atheism and Stalin
[i]…Yet, Stalin was an atheist. He was very clear about that. So should his subsequent actions as the dictator of Soviet Russia be pinned exclusively to his atheism? The answer is no. Why? Because there is no evidence for it, and if you are an atheist, evidence is important to belief, unlike the Christian belief system.
Why was he an atheist, and to what use did he put his personal atheism? He was a communist first, a devotee of Marxim, who was raised as a Christian, and even studied in the seminary to be a priest. He realized how important, and how intertwined, religion was in the lives of the Russian people. He also knew that for the communist state to succeed, it could have no competition for the hearts and minds of the people from any other source. In Stalin�?�¢??s communism, the state was everything. Religion had to go. Why? Not because he didn�?�¢??t personally believe in god, but because god (or more correctly, god�?�¢??s institution here on earth) interfered with his ability to control Russia. So the state became officially atheistic.
The underpinnings of atheism are freethought. That�?�¢??s FREE THOUGHT. Thought that is free. Free thinkers are able to make up their owns minds about their beliefs; beliefs are not imposed by the state on free thinkers. Atheism, as we know it and advocate it on blogs such as this one, is anathema to communism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Polpotism (OK, I made that word up) or any other �?�¢??ism�?�¢?? that relies on state centered dogma imposed from above. Atheism in Stalin�?�¢??s Russia, then, was a mere tool used by Stalin, for the greater good of the state, imposed on the structure of society. It�?�¢??s effect was to strip away the power of the church to oppose his power. It was not a mere lack of belief in gods. Stalin could care less about the individual beliefs of the peasant, his focus was on destroying organized religion. Religion still flourished unofficially in Stalinist Russia, he actually reopened the churches during WWII in order to motivate the people to fight, and religion continues to this day.
No one died because they refused to embrace atheism. Many died because they were deemed enemies of the state. Religious leaders may have been among the executed, but not because they refused to become atheists, but because they were viewed as holdovers of the old order that would try to oppose the state… [/i]
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html
Hitler, Stalin and Atheism
[i]Note that in no case is atheism central to the building of these dogmatic positions. [d]
Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately “unreal” and “no longer needed” by socialism and communism. [9] This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:
Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation…[10] [Emphasis added]
It is important to pause for a moment and consider this statement carefully. If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?.[/i][/quote]
LOL! All your shit is from athiest propaganda websites. Got any unbiased sources? Thought not. Run along silly. I knew you didn’t have shit. [/quote]
Way to avoid the argument.
[/quote]
Propaganda is not an argument. And your one to talk. Why not look at history rather than a giant atheist circle jerk. Actual history> propaganda. Sorry you didn’t know that.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Hey Pat, you gonna get around to starting that “god does/does not exist thread”? I thought you wanted to discuss that?
[/quote]
That’s what we were discussing, to your hitler and pol pot stupidity. I don’t see where you get off telling me what to do, anyway. Most religious threads are started by atheists anyway, I don’t have to lift a finger. Also, it’s been done to death.
If you want me to kick your ass in another thread, go nuts. I may or may not bother.[/quote]
How many religious threads have I started? Not many.
I’ll once again remind you that it was NOT ME who first made the [false] claim that atheism was the sole driving factor behind Stalin/Pol Pot/Hitler atrocities; that was YOU.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Some interesting reading for you, Pat.
[i]Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism �??�?�¢?? which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself �??�?�¢?? did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened �??�?�¢?? which is utter nonsense.
The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion’s responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.
Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences. [/i]
Atheism and Stalin
[i]…Yet, Stalin was an atheist. He was very clear about that. So should his subsequent actions as the dictator of Soviet Russia be pinned exclusively to his atheism? The answer is no. Why? Because there is no evidence for it, and if you are an atheist, evidence is important to belief, unlike the Christian belief system.
Why was he an atheist, and to what use did he put his personal atheism? He was a communist first, a devotee of Marxim, who was raised as a Christian, and even studied in the seminary to be a priest. He realized how important, and how intertwined, religion was in the lives of the Russian people. He also knew that for the communist state to succeed, it could have no competition for the hearts and minds of the people from any other source. In Stalin�??�?�¢??s communism, the state was everything. Religion had to go. Why? Not because he didn�??�?�¢??t personally believe in god, but because god (or more correctly, god�??�?�¢??s institution here on earth) interfered with his ability to control Russia. So the state became officially atheistic.
The underpinnings of atheism are freethought. That�??�?�¢??s FREE THOUGHT. Thought that is free. Free thinkers are able to make up their owns minds about their beliefs; beliefs are not imposed by the state on free thinkers. Atheism, as we know it and advocate it on blogs such as this one, is anathema to communism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Polpotism (OK, I made that word up) or any other �??�?�¢??ism�??�?�¢?? that relies on state centered dogma imposed from above. Atheism in Stalin�??�?�¢??s Russia, then, was a mere tool used by Stalin, for the greater good of the state, imposed on the structure of society. It�??�?�¢??s effect was to strip away the power of the church to oppose his power. It was not a mere lack of belief in gods. Stalin could care less about the individual beliefs of the peasant, his focus was on destroying organized religion. Religion still flourished unofficially in Stalinist Russia, he actually reopened the churches during WWII in order to motivate the people to fight, and religion continues to this day.
No one died because they refused to embrace atheism. Many died because they were deemed enemies of the state. Religious leaders may have been among the executed, but not because they refused to become atheists, but because they were viewed as holdovers of the old order that would try to oppose the state… [/i]
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html
Hitler, Stalin and Atheism
[i]Note that in no case is atheism central to the building of these dogmatic positions. [d]
Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately “unreal” and “no longer needed” by socialism and communism. [9] This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:
Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation…[10] [Emphasis added]
It is important to pause for a moment and consider this statement carefully. If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?.[/i][/quote]
LOL! All your shit is from athiest propaganda websites. Got any unbiased sources? Thought not. Run along silly. I knew you didn’t have shit. [/quote]
Way to avoid the argument.
[/quote]
Propaganda is not an argument. And your one to talk. Why not look at history rather than a giant atheist circle jerk. Actual history> propaganda. Sorry you didn’t know that.
[/quote]
Still avoiding the argument.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Some interesting reading for you, Pat.
[i]Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism �??�??�??�?�¢?? which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself �??�??�??�?�¢?? did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened �??�??�??�?�¢?? which is utter nonsense.
The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion’s responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.
Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences. [/i]
Atheism and Stalin
[i]…Yet, Stalin was an atheist. He was very clear about that. So should his subsequent actions as the dictator of Soviet Russia be pinned exclusively to his atheism? The answer is no. Why? Because there is no evidence for it, and if you are an atheist, evidence is important to belief, unlike the Christian belief system.
Why was he an atheist, and to what use did he put his personal atheism? He was a communist first, a devotee of Marxim, who was raised as a Christian, and even studied in the seminary to be a priest. He realized how important, and how intertwined, religion was in the lives of the Russian people. He also knew that for the communist state to succeed, it could have no competition for the hearts and minds of the people from any other source. In Stalin�??�??�??�?�¢??s communism, the state was everything. Religion had to go. Why? Not because he didn�??�??�??�?�¢??t personally believe in god, but because god (or more correctly, god�??�??�??�?�¢??s institution here on earth) interfered with his ability to control Russia. So the state became officially atheistic.
The underpinnings of atheism are freethought. That�??�??�??�?�¢??s FREE THOUGHT. Thought that is free. Free thinkers are able to make up their owns minds about their beliefs; beliefs are not imposed by the state on free thinkers. Atheism, as we know it and advocate it on blogs such as this one, is anathema to communism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Polpotism (OK, I made that word up) or any other �??�??�??�?�¢??ism�??�??�??�?�¢?? that relies on state centered dogma imposed from above. Atheism in Stalin�??�??�??�?�¢??s Russia, then, was a mere tool used by Stalin, for the greater good of the state, imposed on the structure of society. It�??�??�??�?�¢??s effect was to strip away the power of the church to oppose his power. It was not a mere lack of belief in gods. Stalin could care less about the individual beliefs of the peasant, his focus was on destroying organized religion. Religion still flourished unofficially in Stalinist Russia, he actually reopened the churches during WWII in order to motivate the people to fight, and religion continues to this day.
No one died because they refused to embrace atheism. Many died because they were deemed enemies of the state. Religious leaders may have been among the executed, but not because they refused to become atheists, but because they were viewed as holdovers of the old order that would try to oppose the state… [/i]
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html
Hitler, Stalin and Atheism
[i]Note that in no case is atheism central to the building of these dogmatic positions. [d]
Indeed to the founder of communist doctrines, Karl Marx (1818-1883), atheism, was just a stage on the path to communism, and it was ultimately “unreal” and “no longer needed” by socialism and communism. [9] This is what Karl Marx himself said about atheism:
Atheism as a denial of this unreality; has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a denial of God and tries to assert through this negation the existence of man; but socialism as such no longer needs this mediation…[10] [Emphasis added]
It is important to pause for a moment and consider this statement carefully. If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?.[/i][/quote]
LOL! All your shit is from athiest propaganda websites. Got any unbiased sources? Thought not. Run along silly. I knew you didn’t have shit. [/quote]
Way to avoid the argument.
[/quote]
Propaganda is not an argument. And your one to talk. Why not look at history rather than a giant atheist circle jerk. Actual history> propaganda. Sorry you didn’t know that.
[/quote]
Still avoiding the argument.
[/quote]
That shit has been debunked way before you posted your propaganda. I have already read that tripe before. I see little point in wasting more time and repeating myself and presenting the hundreds of links I all ready presented pointing out that this wishful thinking is just pure, unadulterated bullshit.
The issue is plain facts and you don’t have any. All you can do is post from the silly atheist websites. And if it’s non-belief, then why do you need propaganda in the first place. That alone shows that it isn’t a non-belief, but very much a belief.
Wait, if atheism can’t be responsible for atrocities carried out under it’s banner, how is Theism then skewered?
If the argument is that atheism holds no such idea that believers are sub-human, non-bright, sheeple, that must be actively oppressed for the betterment of some future human state of near utopian rational being, because atheism simply lacks a belief in god, carrying none of the above baggage then Theism is exonerated too. Theism simply means a belief in a deity. It doesn’t mean a belief in oppressing unbelievers in order to bring about a theocratic world. It simply means a belief in a deity. Specifically, with the West in mind, Christianity simply means a belief in and a following of Christ. Christ, objectively, did not instruct his apostles or disciples to convert by sword. In fact, an objective reading quickly reveals that following Christ necessitates a peaceful invitation to the unconverted, in order to follow Christ.
So, if atheism is innocent because ‘atheism’ simply mean a lack of belief in a deity, without any requirements to ‘unconvert’ the converted by the sword, then so too is Christianity clean as the wind driven snow.
No it’s not. Atheism is simply non-belief/disbelief in a deity. The above statement is dogma. What’s up, is the one true atheism excommunicating it’s heretics, or something?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No it’s not. Atheism is simply non-belief/disbelief in a deity. The above statement is dogma. What’s up, is the one true atheism excommunicating it’s heretics, or something?
[/quote]
“Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or the intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.” Atheism falls under the philosophical umbrella of freethought, although some of its “adherents” are little more than impressionable sheep. Not making that accusation against anyone in this thread.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
"Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. [/quote]
That’s not atheism, which is simply the non-belief or disbelief in a deity. Adding qualifiers to what atheism and atheists must be is dogmatic.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
"Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. [/quote]
That’s not atheism, which is simply the non-belief or disbelief in a deity. Adding qualifiers to what atheism and atheists must be is dogmatic.[/quote]
That is simply a sweeping generalization. Why does it matter what you personally call them in the end Sloth? Their kind has been persecuted for thousands of years, a practice that continues to this day, even in the West. Most simply want to be tolerated and accepted for who they are. By definition, people can’t choose what the believe in, they simply believe. Dogmatic? Hardly. Where is the established body (i.e. the Catholic Church) that determines this for atheism? It holds different for each freethinker.
Difference in Knowledge
A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods.
An agnostic atheist doesnâ??t believe in gods, but doesnâ??t claim to know there are no gods.
- Difference in Affirmation
A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist.
A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist.
- Difference in Scope
A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.
A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
- Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism
An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist.
An indifferent atheist doesnâ??t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist.
A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist.
- Difference in Openness
A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.
An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.
- Difference in Action
A passive atheist doesnâ??t believe in god but doesnâ??t try to influence the world in favor of atheism.
An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.
An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.
A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term â??militant atheistâ?? is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the â??militant Christianâ?? who bombs abortion clinics or the â??militant Muslimâ?? suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of â??militant atheistâ?? that assumes acts of violence.)
- Difference in Religiosity
A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.
A non-religious atheist does not practice religion.
This is just the tip of the philosophical ice berg.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
"Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. [/quote]
That’s not atheism, which is simply the non-belief or disbelief in a deity. Adding qualifiers to what atheism and atheists must be is dogmatic.[/quote]
That is simply a sweeping generalization. Why does it matter what you personally call them in the end Sloth? Their kind has been persecuted for thousands of years, a practice that continues to this day, even in the West. Most simply want to be tolerated and accepted for who they are. By definition, people can’t choose what the believe in, they simply believe. Dogmatic? Hardly. Where is the established body (i.e. the Catholic Church) that determines this for atheism? It holds different for each freethinker.
Difference in Knowledge
A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods.
An agnostic atheist doesn�¢??t believe in gods, but doesn�¢??t claim to know there are no gods.
- Difference in Affirmation
A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist.
A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist.
- Difference in Scope
A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.
A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
- Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism
An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist.
An indifferent atheist doesn�¢??t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist.
A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist.
- Difference in Openness
A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.
An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.
- Difference in Action
A passive atheist doesn�¢??t believe in god but doesn�¢??t try to influence the world in favor of atheism.
An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.
An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.
A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term �¢??militant atheist�¢?? is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the �¢??militant Christian�¢?? who bombs abortion clinics or the �¢??militant Muslim�¢?? suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of �¢??militant atheist�¢?? that assumes acts of violence.)
- Difference in Religiosity
A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.
A non-religious atheist does not practice religion.
This is just the tip of the philosophical ice berg.[/quote]
That’s cool and all, but atheism is simply a nonbelief/disbelief in a deity. Period
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
"Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. [/quote]
That’s not atheism, which is simply the non-belief or disbelief in a deity. Adding qualifiers to what atheism and atheists must be is dogmatic.[/quote]
That is simply a sweeping generalization. Why does it matter what you personally call them in the end Sloth? Their kind has been persecuted for thousands of years, a practice that continues to this day, even in the West. Most simply want to be tolerated and accepted for who they are. By definition, people can’t choose what the believe in, they simply believe. Dogmatic? Hardly. Where is the established body (i.e. the Catholic Church) that determines this for atheism? It holds different for each freethinker.
Difference in Knowledge
A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods.
An agnostic atheist doesn�??�?�¢??t believe in gods, but doesn�??�?�¢??t claim to know there are no gods.
- Difference in Affirmation
A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist.
A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist.
- Difference in Scope
A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.
A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
- Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism
An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist.
An indifferent atheist doesn�??�?�¢??t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist.
A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist.
- Difference in Openness
A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.
An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.
- Difference in Action
A passive atheist doesn�??�?�¢??t believe in god but doesn�??�?�¢??t try to influence the world in favor of atheism.
An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.
An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.
A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term �??�?�¢??militant atheist�??�?�¢?? is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the �??�?�¢??militant Christian�??�?�¢?? who bombs abortion clinics or the �??�?�¢??militant Muslim�??�?�¢?? suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of �??�?�¢??militant atheist�??�?�¢?? that assumes acts of violence.)
- Difference in Religiosity
A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.
A non-religious atheist does not practice religion.
This is just the tip of the philosophical ice berg.[/quote]
That’s cool and all, but atheism is simply a nonbelief/disbelief in a deity. Period[/quote]
What makes you the authority on this? There are quantifiable variations of atheism and relegating it to simply “nonbelief/disbelief” in all cases is misleading at best. What personal stake do you have in the definition? None? Then why do you care?
[quote]Legionary wrote:
What makes you the authority on this? There are quantifiable variations of atheism and relegating it to simply “nonbelief/disbelief” in all cases is misleading at best. [/quote]
No, it’s accurate. There are no denominations of atheism. The atheist who nonetheless believes in the existence of good and evil, outside of human opinion, is an atheist. The atheist who believes there is no such thing as good and evil, is an atheist. The Randian uber-capitalist atheist, is an atheist. The communist atheist, is an atheist. The murdering atheist is an atheist. The pacifist atheist, is an atheist.