My Magical Button to Delete Atheism

Who here is trying to make you own the Crusades?

 

The Russian Orthodox church was a bastion for right-wing absolutists; taking down those antisemitic scumbags was essential for ANY positive progress to be made, though Stalin (being a former priest in training) eventually made himself a patriarch of his own church-like party.

No... just malevolent:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60"]YouTube - Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher Hitchens (1 of 3)[/ame]

On the point of your god's existence, yes.

Mendel's thoroughness and diligence in empirical observation and experimentation was his brilliance... not his theism. And how does Dawkins 'twist' Mendel? From my reading of Dawkins, he rather loves Mendel for laying the groundwork for evolution's verification.

 

How?

And yet the French Revolution was conducted by Christians, culminating in the deaths of hundreds of thousands under Napoleon who was a Christian emperor. Also, how does atheism have anything to do with state-socialism in Russia, China or Cambodia? You realize the population of the Soviet Union was never less than half religious up til 1989?

None? Really? The ignorance of this is far too large for me to address, all I cna share with you is my pity.

Rational thought? Theism is not rational.

 

Your critique here then is not of atheism, but of Leninist-Marxism. You will find however that by way of atrocities and brutality, the Soviet regime was merely a more efficient version of the old Tsarist regime.

 

Firstly, none of those tyrants killed people for reasons relating to their lack of belief in a god, so you wouldn't save any lives. Secondly, most cultural achievements are accomplished for secular purposes unrelated to atheism or religion. In addition, even if you did get rid of atheism, your efforts would be useless as people would believe in god, but not Christianity in particular. This is what I find humorous about the assault on atheism, it does nothing for any particular religion. God (or gods) existing, does not get anyone further to Christianity; and it is a huge leap to say that proving god exists somehow leads to Christianity; it doesn't. Christianity bastardizes the Jewish religion and itself has innumerable problems.

 

Yes they did.

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion

Stalin's actions and intentions are well documented in both historical documentation and literature emerging from the period.

Why are atheists, so called rationalist, so quick to simply ignore evidence when it is placed before them?

You think atheism magically cures the human condition? By pulling an ostrich?

Yep, people have done bad things in the name of religion. They have also done REALLY good things that you fail to mention and ... like the evidence for Stalin ... are deliberately avoiding.

So, what positive influences has atheism brought us to contrast with Stalin and Moa?

Should be an easy case for atheists right?

Instead we get hypicrisy and double standards.

 

But to say atheism was responsible for the actions of Leninist-Marxists is the same as saying Christianity is responsible for fascism because fascists embraced it.

 

Ok...but he didn't do that in the name of the atheism; atheism itself has no doctrine to fight in the name of. It simply is lacking a belief in god; there is no holy book or doctrine to adhere to that would encourage violence.

Sure, one can promote a certain idea by violence; but this isn't equivalent to the idea itself promoting it. There is a reason I won't argue that eliminating Christianity would "save lives" because of the disappearance of the crusades. It might, but that has no effect on the truth value of Christianity.

I don't know of anyone who has claimed that a belief magically cures things.

Atheism is itself simply a lack of belief in a god, it involves nothing else.

 

A deliberate misreading of Marx by Stalin, the writer of the wiki, and yourself. Plus...

... you continue to ignore the role the Russian Orthodox church had in shoring up the brutal regimes of the Tsars, and forming the basis of the new: Stalin, former priest in training made messiah over a church-like Party waging its own crusades. Indeed... his regime frowned upon skeptics as much as the Popes and Calvins of before.

Nope... but it's a good start.

FAR more than the reverse.

Moa? Are we to blame for those flightless birds of majesty?

http://vincentkhoo819.blogspot.com/2010/07/moa.html

 

Right this excuse again.

So let not take your personal and pouuntedly unproveable ascertaintion about atheism about atheism and focus on facts.

1. Was Stalin an atheist?

Yes.

2. Did you use his atheism and Marxist rhetoric to justify his attacks and purges of religion?

Yes.

But atheism has no doctrine?

Funny, atheism is both everything and nothing, but I leave that contradiction to atheists to explain.

How is it that Stalin, who JUST believed in no God, was driven to attack religion .... just like the atheists on this forum? Who JUST don't believe in God?

Facts are a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) are they not?

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>How many Crusades have happened since the Treaty of Westphalia? The last atheist attack on religion .... within living memory.

And yet you are worried about a Centuries dead problem are you?

Hmmm .... our religion causes Crusades .... yours, despite clear involvement in mass murder .... get a magical pass.

See the problem? The lack of objective standards?

No one has an issue with your choice to see no God. We all have issues with these kinds of deliberate misrepresnetation.

Tell that to Yard, who, when I said the same thing accussed me of being a troll attempting to derail his thread.

Tell that to the atheists who are demanding religious represnetation in the military.

Tell that to Wyz, who is pointedly telling me that atheists HAVE religious needs.

Tell that to the Comissars who supported Stalin's murderous wrath.

And then explain to me how JUST a belief in no God allows so many atheists to reach the conclusion, in definace of logic and evidence, that religion causes violence ... but the mountain or evidence of atheist violence should be .... ignored?

You want to be atheist? More power to you.

You want to say something stupid like religion causes war? Expect to be challenged. And, in accordance with your beliefs, expect a sceintifically airtight evidential case in support of YOUR contentions.

 

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>
I sighted wiki. Wiki itslef has citations, and the volumes of documention on Stalin's actions are numerous. As a historian, I have seen them. Thousands of documents that reveal the brutality and warped moralism first aimed ...

In perfect agreement with Marist dictates about religion ....

.... at religion, and then, with moral norms peeled back, at Stalin's paranoia beyond.

What part of religion being an Opiate of the masses did Stalin misread?

Or are you really willing to excuse mass murder ... for what? <<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>>

 

Clearly Neutral, we agree that religion doesn't cause wars and honestly, I think that is a weak attack on any religion in general. The crusades say nothing about Christianity in general.

 

Well GA, I actually have to applaud you for that statement.

Quite literally, in a year of debating this point with atheists too numerous to mention, you are quite literaly the first to make such a statement.

And so I again acknowlegde my faiths fault with the Crusades, even as I again caution any human being with an ideology that ALL ideologies are suspect to corruption and hijacking.

People have a right to choose their beliefs, and in the unknown field of God, it should be respect and exploraation of many ideas that rules the day. Most religions, including no religion, are valid. They offer many of the same insights, provide a framework for exploration, and have enough differences to challenge snd push when such exploration is honest.

GA - thank you for reminding me that not all atheists are bad.

It was a sorely needed reminder.

 

Mate, you are by no means a historian. You once said Napoleon invented the line 'liberty, equality, fraternity'! HAHA! Stalin manipualted Marxism. If you had any actual experience in history you would know that he created a new ideology in russia.

You are asserting atheism made Stalin do what he did?

It is interesting to note the Russian populace has never been less than half religious until 1989.

You are asserting an atheist needs to take responsibility for the crimes of Stanilist Russia, whose own populace was MAJORITY religious??

You are the only person who has said that.

 

So basically you are just insulting others. If you don't like an atheist, you accuse them of Stanilist sympathy. Yeah, we get it.

 

Do you think that removing atheism would keep starving Russian, French and Chinese people from revolting against their oppressors or keep people like Stalin, Napoleon or Mao from getting to the places they had, be it through military coups, promising luxuries and rights in democratic elections or simply rigging them? Do you think that removing atheism would make Stalin not develop his mental illness and paranoia, commonly accredited to the concentration of power he had? And do you think that removing atheism would mean that Stalin would control this paranoia and not order the deaths of anyone?

 

Agh, the Russian people did not remove Stalin.

He died .. of old age.

And the real problem is that the gist of this thread akses one simple question:

What is poitive about atheism?

Should be fairly simple to fill in that blank?

But as most atheists in the religion forum only know how to bash other faiths ....

we see that the answer to THAT particular question is LONG in coming.

Again, not the fault of religion.

 

Indeed and half of Russia was religious at that time. Go figure.

Rational free and logical thinking.

And it is.

Not at all see above.

No, the fault of religion is religion.

 

I was referring to the Tsars, not Stalin in the first question.

Atheism isn't positive in itself, as it has little or no doctrine in itself. It is positive because it means that people aren't just taking the church's word for anything anymore and, as any negative statement, unless you want religion, you're better off without it.

Nonetheless, a world view isn't judged by how positive it is, it's judged by how true it is. It's not like hell is a good concept, that doesn't keep people from believing it, and it doesn't affect whether it exists or not.

 

Evidence? What's important is that the elite, the people running the country were enthusiastic atheists. They of course bear the bulk of the responsibility for Communist atrocities.

 

Why not say atheist-like party or atheist party since the Communists were in fact atheists?

 

Well, I'll leave you to do the maths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

Evidence? You realize Lenin and Torsky or Stalin dont cover all the "elite" of the USSR.

Indeed, you have yet however to show how atheism actually led to the atrocities.

 

Because its not an "atheist party" its a communist party. Atheism isn't an ideology. Humanism is atheistic in many ways. Humanism is more moral than most other ideologies. So which should we call 'atheist party'?

 

Not clear at all that Napoleon was a Christian while he was waging war all over Europe.

quote from Napoleon: As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed

He later changed his mind - though after his career of war-making.

Here's what Napoleon said when exiled on St. Helena: Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. . . . I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man; none else is like Him: Jesus Christ was more than a man

 

Well he was authoritatively crowned by the Pope, so that, to me at least, makes him a Christian emporer. If he was a Christian man or not, I don't know or care.

Where did you get the quote from, btw?

Regardless the Pope and French clergy supported him and latter was highly supportive.

So, he was kind of a Christian. Who cares. Religious or irreligious doesn't =matter, as you can clearly see. So please, for your own intellectual sake, stop equating atheism to communism and stop equating religious belief to moral integrity.