On the old canard of Stalin, Mao, and the rest

[darkstar3]

Lately on this board we've had the little problem of digging up history. The spiral into who-started-what and which-group-is-worse seems to start thusly:

1. (Optional) A Christian/Jew/Muslim/other believer states that religion is a force for good in the world.
2. An atheist states that over the course of history, religion has been responsible for death and suffering.
3. Believers rally and state two things:
a. Religion can't be held responsible for all of those deaths, as human nature or other forces were really the root of the problem.
b. Atheism, in the hands of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler is responsible for just as much death and suffering.
4. And from here we go round and round and round...

I've seen this debate happen 3 times since I joined this board, and countless times here since I started lurking, and as an atheist, I am damn sick of seeing item 3b. So, in answer to that claim, I present the following. The questions are asked in honesty. If you have answers, please chime in.

----------------------------------
Killing in the name of _________.

Atheism: "Become an atheist, or die."
Communism: "Toe the party line, or die."
Christianity: "Believe in Jesus, or die."
Islam: "Pray to Allah, and his prophet Muhammad, or die."

3 of these things have happened, do happen, and will happen again. When has item number 1 happened? Please cite examples.
-----------------------------------
When the Muslims marched on Constantinople, they brought with them the sign of their faith, and placed The Crescent on the highest points of the city.
When the Christians marched on the Muslims in the Crusades, they carried with them the sign of The Cross, and raised it high over the battlefield as they charged their foes.
When the Jews fire missiles into Gaza and Palestinian settlements, The Star of David is painted on their aircraft AND their missiles.

Under what sign do the atheists conquer? Under what mantra do they march? Please cite examples.
-----------------------------------
'Those people were not 'true' Christians'
Define 'true' Christianity. Last I checked, a Christian was someone who believed in Jesus...his existence, divinity, saving grace, and intercessory powers. Are you saying that more is required to be a 'true' Christian? If so, what is required, and where did you get the rules?

[orpupilofnature57]

1. There is no justification for murder in the new testament ,for any reason..

that was Shrub & Kkkarl's ploy ,thats how they justified going to war to christians using old testament logic.Jesus denounced religion as counter productive to knowing god.The Red letters in a Red letter bible are where I got my answers.

[darkstar3]

2. OK.

I'm not sure how that answers any of the questions or points I posted above, but...

If the NT has no justification for murder, and Christians should know this since it's their book, how did Shrub and KKKarl sell their war to the Christians?

I THINK what you're getting at is that the people who participated in these murders/wars weren't real Christians. That still leaves the last question I asked in the OP.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Religion , and I edited and added Red letter bible as my source.but

Fundamentalism is what put Jesus on the cross and Shrub up our ass, for 8 long years.

[darkstar3]

4. Just so that I can be sure of what you're saying

I'd like to clarify.

You are saying that Fundamentalist Christians are responsible for the actions usually associated with Christians in general, and that you reject those people's claim to Christianity based on the 'Red Letters' in the New Testament.

Is that correct?

[orpupilofnature57]

5. I subscribe to the Red letter bible ,and yes most people associate

fundamentalists and their judgmental jihad , as Christianity as opposed to the forgiveness and charity taught by Jesus.Never did Jesus advocate ,murder nor did he address homosexuality at all.

[darkstar3]

6. So they're not true Christians

It is admirable that you at least have something to base that claim on, in the Red Letters of the bible. I have two problems with that, though.

1. You're engaging in the No True Scotsman Fallacy. And aside from that, the people whose faith you reject believe just as strongly that YOU are wrong and not a true Christian. So who is right, and who is damned?
2. The Red Letters are not entirely free of problems. Jesus spoke in Luke 12:47-48 about slavery, and he didn't just fail to condemn it. He spoke specifically about the right way to do it. These verses and others were used by Christians for half a century to justify slavery.

[orpupilofnature57]

7. One, I'd rather say they would denounce me ,before I would them.Two

I see servant as employee, the word Slave is never mentioned.It's a parable about obedience. http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/25508/eVerseID/25508

[darkstar3]

9. Are you KIDDING ME?!

It's talking about BEATING HIM. Do you beat your employees? Does your employer beat you? Of course not, unless you work at a house of S&M.

But it's part of the Red Letters, so why do we ignore that part?

If it's because it's 'a parable,' that still doesn't make sense, because that means that he was using slavery and the beating of slaves as an example to prove his point. I'm a teacher, and I am forced daily to use real-life occurrences and social structures to make my points. I do not use examples that I find morally reprehensible, and no teacher worth his salt would.

If Jesus wanted to denounce or otherwise speak against slavery, he could easily have done so, but he never did, and chose instead to use it as an example for his teachings. That sounds like condoning it to me.

And BTW: You've already denounced the Fundamentalists here in this thread, so how can they beat you to it?

[orpupilofnature57]

19. A lot of verbiage ,Your 47,48was wrong keep searching ,for slavery.

[darkstar3]

23. Just because you don't like what the verse says

doesn't mean you can change it's meaning. He's talking about slavery, and biblical scholars agree with me on that point.

[Leontius]

30. Gotta call bullshit on that one.

[darkstar3]

43. How? How is the verse not about slavery? n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

123. Because your hallucinating the word Slave, as it isn't there.

Where?? How about the word Servitude? http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvluk12.htm

[darkstar3]

128. I know the word is servant in your book.

It's also a freakin' translation from the original Hebrew, and therein lies the problem. The word used can mean simple servant, indentured servant, or slave.* However, if you beat a simple servant, they can leave. Nobody has to stand for that unless they are in some form of forced servitude.

Forced servitude, whether indentured or not, is slavery.

I'm not hallucinating it, it's right there in the context.

*In fact, depending on the word used in this context ('ebed, na'ar, or ama), the word can even be a diminutive term for 'young boy' or 'maid.' Since very few people have had a chance to read the original manuscript in Hebrew, and I can't find it online, we'll just have to guess at which word was used. But given the fact that it talks about BEATING the servant, I'm gonna guess it was 'ebed, and it was meant as slave.

[orpupilofnature57]

130. Your now calling the dictionary to task, whilst interpreting Hebrew text

see ya.

[darkstar3]

131. 'Calling the dictionary to task'? What? n/t

[Leontius]

132. The "original" is Greek , New Testament=Greek, Old Testament = Hebrew

[darkstar3]

133. Oh, silly me

And here I thought that Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all spoke Hebrew.

On edit: My bad, apparently there are some who claim that Jesus spoke Aramaic.
However, I still fail to see how that would mean Matthew spoke GREEK. I would think that if he spoke Aramaic, he would write in Aramaic, which is a derivative of Hebrew.

[Leontius]

138. Jesus and Matthew and John probably did, Mark and Luke probably did

not. The texts however were in Greek.

[darkstar3]

139. How could Mark write in Greek

when he didn't know Greek?

The original texts were in the original language(s) of the men who wrote them. Everything that came after is a translation, including the Greek, and as I've demonstrated above, straight translation is VERY difficult.

Edit: Brain fart, I meant Mark and not Matthew.

[Leontius]

141. Considering the fact that Greek was the universal language of the time

and region and the fact that even Matthew was not writing for the Jews of the era but for Christians, his gospel was more than likely written in Greek since that was the language of his audience.

[darkstar3]

142. But you JUST SAID he didn't speak Greek!! n/t

On edit, I picked the wrong person. I meant Mark, but still, HOW COULD HE WRITE IN GREEK WHEN HE DIDN'T SPEAK IT?

[Leontius]

144. No I said he probably did speak Hebrew or Aramaic nt

[darkstar3]

147. This subthread is getting ridiculous

And I wish we'd never started it, because there's a huge debate among biblical scholars as to what language the original gospels were written in, and even whether or not the purported authors actually wrote the books.

Regardless of that (and I'll admit I made a mistake in assuming Hebrew originally), my point on translation still stands. This website:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1401
states clearly that the Greek word for servant is also the Greek word for slave. Context matters, and in context Jesus talks about beating the 'doo-los', and you don't beat simple servants if you want them to stick around.

[Leontius]

150. Yes you are correct, context matters

and the context you keep avoiding is that during this period physical punishment to those of an inferior station in society, FREE OR NOT, was common and accepted as the order of society all across the Mediterranean.

[Leontius]

146. Almost all scholars agree that the New Testament was written in Greek

with a small minority holding that Matthew and Hebrews may have been in Aramaic originally, there is some mention by a few of the Church Fathers who held this view. The consensus view is that it was all original Greek texts.

[darkstar3]

148. 'The consensus view'?

The Dead Sea Scrolls, their dating, and their origins, are still debated by biblical scholars.

[Leontius]

126. First the word servant is not equal to slave, second the use physical

punishment to anyone, slave or free, of a lower standing was an accepted part of life 2000 years ago so the example was an easily understood parable of order as people of the time saw it.

[orpupilofnature57]

127. It's accepted by the Corporate mentality of the 1% that Need 600%

darkstar3 is substituting Servitude ,which we still live under and Slavery .

[Deep13]

63. This article explains it better than I can.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

Anyway, employees are largely the result of the industrial age. In ancient and medieval times, labor was more likely the result of some form of legal bongage whether it was outright slavery, serfdom, amily obligation or indentured servitude. This was a cash poor and materially poor society and paying workers was not something that that landed classes were able to do. About the only people I can think of who were paid regularly and in large numbers were soldiers.

[orpupilofnature57]

112. Thank you , Jesus said render on to Caesar ,thats the only passive

suggestion,Jesus had in reference to a Government ,Peter ,Paul ,and Judas were important parts of the bible ,but weren't Quoted in Red letters ,meaning their just men.Religious Tolerance .com does a lot of interpreting, I choose to Discern for my self ,They refer to Jesus mentioning Slavery in one of his parables ,and don't mention the parable,whats that???

[Deep13]

118. It's the one where the servants stay up all night waiting...

...for their master--who is out partying--to come home so he'll be pleased with them. So basically, he told them to forget all consideration for themselves--they are human beings remember--and only care about what the master wants. This is from memory, so you might want to double check.

Anyway, men wrote the gospels too. And if JC was real, then he was a man too. Either the Bible is a holy book or it isn't. What is your basis for believing the veracity of the red letters, but not the rest of it?

[orpupilofnature57]

122. Wrote by men completely depends on Faith, no Proof ,that being said

The red letters are the agreed ,as far as the writers of the new testament ,to be the words Jesus spoke.

[darkstar3]

124. Then why are they different between gospels?

[orpupilofnature57]

125. Not by much ,but different enough that it convinces me ,because I know people

see completely different things while looking at the same accident.

[darkstar3]

129. An accident is a situation that is highly charged,

emotionally, which clouds the recollection of witnesses.

But when four people hear a calm speech, with the intent of recording it later, they tend to hear the same things.

[Deep13]

140. They have substantial differences.

In some books Mary is a virgin impregnated by a brand new deity called the holy spirit. In another, Joe and Mary are described as JC's parents (when child JC lectures in the temple). Some mention the move for the census (a census that never happened BTW). Some mention JC's return after his "death" others don't. Some mention JC raising a guy from the dead, not others. And the list goes on. Now, you may say failure to mention something is not contradiction, but that is only an allowance one gives when one is looking for an excuse to believe it.

"Let's see, the greatest story even. Before I begin to write it, I have to decide what to put in and what to leave out. Says here his mother was actually virgin and that he had no natural father. Some people might find that pretty amazing, but I'll leave it out. I'll leave out Lazarus too. No one is going to care about someone coming to life after being dead for three days. ..."

And Paul, the earliest Christian writer with surviving documents does not mention the details of JC's life AT ALL. It is not even clear that Paul is talking about a real person at all. He may have been referring to an earlier myth about a son of god in heaven who was never a person.

And what about the derivative nature of the gospels. The whole impregnated-by-a-god thing is a staple of mythology and has been for a lot longer than Christianity has been around. Apparently, writers back then were so horrified/jealous/confused but female sexuality that it was easier to think of a magic conception than to think of the mother of her X having sex with an actual man. Or maybe they looked at the male role as being unnecessary while the mother was indispensable.

And what about the clear immorality of killing an innocent man for the "sins" of everyone else? If god wanted to forgive those sins (despite his responsibility for making us sinful in the first place) why didn't he just do it? Since he and JC are one and the same, I have to think it was a self sacrifice as an act of contrition for his responsibility in allowing so much suffering.

[Deep13]

137. No, it is a fact that men wrote them. How else did they get on the page?

Their sources were probably oral liturgical traditions and earlier bits of writing. Men either picked up their pens or styli and wrote or they did not. While the ultimate fact may be unknown (it's not), it is still fundamental a question of fact and not one of opinion. Faith just means you assume something is a fact with no objective reason to think so.

And I'm not sure who you are saying agrees that JC said it. In point of fact, we don't really know that he even existed.

[Deep13]

62. Historically speaking, the gospels are the most suspect part of the whole book.

They openly contradict each other and contradict verifiable historical fact. So why did Joe and Mary have to go to Bethleham when Joe lived in Nazareth, had his property in Nazareth and when Augustus never in fact ordered a census outside of Italy? And how come the story is so-o-o damned deriviative of other stories? And why are the moral lessons of JC so--well--immoral? I hope he had some loaves or fishes for Peter's wife and children who Peter abandoned.

[orpupilofnature57]

116. Whaa? show me

[Deep13]

120. What specifically are you asking about? nt

[orpupilofnature57]

135. How mans child support neglect ,,refutes christianity.

[Deep13]

145. Well, it refutes the idea that Chrisitanity has any moral authority.

JC, the very best and moral guy ever to live, tells Peter to abandon his family and follow him. And he calls a woman a dog when she asks for help. And he tells people not to do any work because god will take care of them (still waiting on that). Plus he invents the whole idea of being punished for "sin" even after they are dead. As much of a bastard as Yahweh was, at least he left Job alone when he died. And why cure a blind man who happens to be there? Being god, why not just cure all disease everywhere? (Did he cure any women or was it just men?) And then there are the thought crimes. Before, adultery was a mortal sin. Now even imagining adultery in passing is a sin. And that whole virtue in suffering thing is horribly immoral. He says at least once that suffering here for his sake will result in reward in heaven. So it's not so much of a virtue-based morality as a greed-based one. And of course is the torture and "killing" of an innocent man to de-sin the guilty. What the hell kind of justice is that? If I convince an innocent person to take the fall for a murder I commit, does it make me less guilty? The whole proposition is monstrous on its face.

Those who look at the NT as a great example of morality and ethics really owe it to themselves to read some other books on philosophy.

[Deep13]

56. Read it again.

Jesus denounced the priests of the day of his religion, not religion generally. JC essentially incorporates the old law into the NT which has a lot of reasons for killing people. In Acts, a couple is struck dead because they did not turn over everything to the church leaders.

And of course there is the biggie. It was okay to torture and kill an innocent man for the "sins" of everyone else. From this we get the basic Christian assumption that suffering and putting up with injustice will be rewarded when we are dead, somehow.

And regardless of what the NT says, Christianity has come up with numerous reasons to kill people.

[orpupilofnature57]

134. Not from anything Jesus ever taught ,You like others, ball FUNDAMENTALISTS

WITH CHRISTIANS.

[darkstar3]

136. Because fundamentalists ARE Christians.

What else could they be?

[kwassa]

8. I think it is a different canard than the one you are suggesting

The argument that I've seen gone around since I joined DU several years ago is this version of your point #2.

"2. An atheist states that over the course of history, religion has been responsible for the MOST death and suffering."

which is clearly and wildly historically false.

and I've seen versions of that many times.

and the second problem I see with your analysis is this one:

Killing in the name of _________.

Atheism: "Become an atheist, or die."
Communism: "Toe the party line, or die."
Christianity: "Believe in Jesus, or die."
Islam: "Pray to Allah, and his prophet Muhammad, or die."

Part of Communism is atheism. The communist governments of the Soviet Union and Communist China have actively stamped out religious practice. That is historical fact.

This is another ploy I've seen over and over here on DU; blame Christians for culpability in religious wars, yet attempt to slip out of atheist crimes by declaring Communism a type of religion and therefore not really atheism. Atheism was part of their belief, that is just the way it was.

[darkstar3]

10. Nope.

'The Soviet Union and Communist China have actively stamped out religious practice.'
This is true, but only to a certain extent. China has a state-sanctioned version of Christianity. Sure, it's different than what is taught here, but it's a state sponsored religion in a Communist country that is NOT atheism.

Aside from that, nuance and intent is important, and did you ever stop to think WHY China and Russia would want to stamp out CERTAIN religions?
Is it because they wish that all people become atheists? Or is it because they fear that certain religions will inspire people to fight the party line?

Communism requires that all subjects cooperate with the state for the good of the state and their own survival. Citizens will give to the state what is required, when it is required, without question, or they are not good citizens.

Compare this with the radical life of Jesus, or other prominent religious figures, and you have a problem. Jesus and others inspire radicalism and may even inspire individualism. This cannot be tolerated in a communist regime.

Again, the crime committed by Communists was item 2 from my post - 'Toe the party line, or die.' No Communist has ever said 'Become an atheist, or die.'

[kwassa]

11. I'm sorry.

Never heard of any Communist Chinese version of Christianity. You will have to substantiate that one... sounds as bogus as can be.

and your "nuance and intent" is nothing more than your personal imagination.

Communism was not about toeing a party line, it is about a belief system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless and stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society.<1><2><3>

What is bizarre about your post is your ahistorical view of Communism. It is necessary for you to do this, however, for your theory to work. But, it doesn't.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

The 20th century also saw the political advancement of atheism, spurred on by interpretation of the works of Marx and Engels. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, increased religious freedom for minority religions lasted for a few years, before the policies of Stalinism turned towards repression of religion. The Soviet Union and other communist states promoted state atheism and opposed religion, often by violent means.<94> <96>

and what Joe Stalin actually did:

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

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.<68> During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted. Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church, Uniats, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.

[darkstar3]

13. Your post says exactly what mine did!

From your post:
'Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted.' <emphasis mine>
That's exactly what I said. Communism persecutes CERTAIN religions because they are not useful for the party.

Your definition of Communism provided by Wiki never once mentions belief. So help me understand. You say 'it is about a belief system', then you provide a definition that should ostensibly support your claim, and the definition never once mentions belief or belief systems.

Further, the definition you provide for Communism ('classless and stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general') supports exactly what I said about Communism ('Communism requires that all subjects cooperate with the state for the good of the state and their own survival. Citizens will give to the state what is required, when it is required, without question, or they are not good citizens.'). So how is my view a historical?

As for your state sponsored Christianity in China, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China#Official_Christian_organizations

[kwassa]

24. Communism IS the belief system. (face palm!)

what part of this don't you understand?



and your Christianity in China is only since the 1970s, not during the establisment of Communist China and the first 25 years, which were quite atheistic.

Further, the definition you provide for Communism ('classless and stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general') supports exactly what I said about Communism ('Communism requires that all subjects cooperate with the state for the good of the state and their own survival. Citizens will give to the state what is required, when it is required, without question, or they are not good citizens.'). So how is my view a historical?

It is NOT exactly what you said! The Wiki definition of Communism says nothing about how citizens must behave. All of your citizen requirements are not the belief system, but YOUR interpretation of how people must live in a Communist state.

Reading comprehension. It explains many things.

[PVnRT]

29. You just conceded his point

"Communism IS the belief system!"

In other words, people were persecuted in the name of state communism, not in the name atheism. Glad we could all come to agreement on that.

[kwassa]

33. No, I didn't concede in the slightest.

"In other words, people were persecuted in the name of state communism, not in the name atheism"

Atheism was part of state communism. Therefore, being persecuted in the name of state communism is also getting persecuted in the name of atheism.

Atheism is still on the hook, and can't wriggle free.

[darkstar3]

40. Look up the transitive property,

and then learn about the fact that you are using it improperly.

[kwassa]

45. So, you have no rebuttal?

We have been here before.

[darkstar3]

47. I don't NEED one

Your logic is flawed and therefore you haven't said anything worth rebutting.

Have a nice day. :)

[kwassa]

49. Except that you can't find the flaw ..

because there is none.

You have been defeated once again.

[darkstar3]

52. .

:rofl:
Thanks, I have a meeting to go to and I needed a laugh.

Again, look up the transitive property, and the limitations of its use. There's your flaw. Have fun.

[kwassa]

57. It is your argument, you post it.

saying "transitive property" is meaningless. It is like those who refer to logical fallacies, but then fail in drawing the connection to them. You fail here precisely the same way.

Like I said, you have no argument.

[darkstar3]

59. Transitive property

A leads to B leads to C. The problem is, it only works one way.

A can lead to B, which then leads to C. That does not mean you can say that C leads to B which leads to A. You are reversing the transition, and therefore abusing the transitive property.

And I shouldn't have to educate you about this.

Here's an old joke on the subject. It's homophobic, which I don't like, but I can't find a better version right now.
http://www.wakafun.com/jokes/work_and_education/52060

[kwassa]

70. and how does this apply to this discussion?

Still have no connection to this thread in any way.

[darkstar3]

74. Oh, so I post the flaw in your logic,

and you say it somehow doesn't apply?

You're doing EXACTLY what I've stated above, walking the chain of transition in the opposite direction to try and paint atheism as the root cause.
The chain, BTW, as you and others have stated it:
Atheism can lead to Communism, which can lead to the crushing of dissent, which can lead to mass murder.

You're walking back up the chain and trying to say that atheism is the cause of the mass murder, when the two cannot be equated. Only the bridge of Communism makes the transition complete, and therefore Communism is the root cause of the mass murders you've cited.

This is a logical fallacy that was used many times by the Bush administration to try and push us into war, to scare us into re-electing them, and for many other political points besides. I would think by now you would be able to recognize it, even if it IS the only way you can try to score points in this discussion.

[kwassa]

79. What chain? Maybe you created a chain, but I haven't..

I never said atheism caused mass murder, via Communism or anything else.

I've said Communists who were atheists caused mass murder. The Communists caused murder with all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons, but as atheists made a concerted effort to suppress the practice of religion and punish those who practiced it, and punished and/or killed religious leaders who got in their way.

(I correctly guessed that you were misapplying a logical fallacy. Happens a lot in this forum. "No True Scotsman" is the one most often abused.)

So, keep on trying, but you will never get the atheism out of the Communists, seperate it from their bodies, and render atheism innocent of all crimes. It is just one of those false memes that keep re-appearing over and over again.

Like a Whack-A-Mole, to be knocked down, only to pop back up again a few months later.

[darkstar3]

89. Funny you should mention 'Whack-A-Mole'

considering you're the mole.

But you already knew that.

'I never said atheism caused mass murder, via Communism or anything else.'
You have proven time and again that your desire, in fact your entire reason for posting in this thread, is to paint atheism with the mass murders committed by Stalin, Mao, and the rest. Even the post where you try to say 'no I didn't' contains that stupid meme.

The problem is that I and others have already shown you that you are wrong. Again.

Repeating yourself does not make an argument.

But you already know that too.

And my final word to you in this thread is: Remember Towelie, you're a towel.
:evilgrin:

[kwassa]

93. You haven't shown me wrong at all. You haven't addressed most of the issues.

Not a person here has shown me wrong, least of all you.

I don't think you even read my posts, judging by your replies.

My reason for posting in this thread is to paint athesim with the religious oppression and murder of religious figures by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and other communists. That is completely valid. They murdered plenty of other people for other reasons, other parts of their ideology.

That meme it the truth. You have done nothing to invalidate it. Like I said, you haven't even addressed most of the material I posted.

You will never get atheism off the hook, as hard as you try, and as little as you know about history, for that matter.

[orpupilofnature57]

21. Thanks ,good info.

[kwassa]

12. State atheism

Just to ignore the obvious examples of the Soviet Union and China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

According to Karl Marx the founder of the communist ideology, religion is a tool utilized by the ruling classes whereby the masses can briefly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions. It is in the interest of the ruling classes to instill in the masses the religious conviction that their current suffering will lead to eventual happiness. Therefore as long as the public believes in religion, they will not attempt to make any genuine effort to understand and overcome the real source of their suffering, which in Marx's opinion was their non-Communist economic system.<26> Marx saw religion as the "opium of the people" in the sense that it was used to control the masses. Critics argue that this has motivated certain communist regimes to curtail religious freedom or seek to suppress religion because they considered it a suppressive, subversive set of guidelines, and thereby attached the charge of sedition to certain religions.

Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge

Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was completely razed. The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed. Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed.<49><50> Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed because of their religion.<51>

Cuba

Originally more tolerant of religion, after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba instituted state atheism, arresting many believers and shutting down religious schools, its prisons since the 1960s being filled with clergy and faithful. <52> It is the only country in the western hemisphere which has attempted to impose state atheism.<53> Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has amended its statutes to declare itself a "secular state" rather than atheistic but, as a practical matter, it continues to harshly repress believers. <54>

[darkstar3]

14. You're still missing the 'why'

It's true that Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin were atheists. It's true that they killed lots and lots of people. What you're missing is WHY.

You've already quoted Marx as saying that religion is useful as a tool to control the masses. I think it's safe for both of us to assume that Stalin, Mao, and the others agreed with him.

But any fool knows that an 'opiate of the masses' can be used as a double-edged sword. If the government can use it to control people and keep them in their place, then populists can use it to whip up anti-state sentiment and start a troublesome rebellion.

So in order to guarantee that everyone conforms, that everyone is common, that everyone keeps their head down, religion has to go.

So to answer the question of WHY: They did it for power, and to maintain the status quo. Stalin, Mao, and the rest were interested in total control of the masses, and if any religion would let them do so, they would take it. As I stated above, certain religions that are not deemed a threat to the state are allowed to survive in Communist countries. Openly practicing a faith not sanctioned by the state makes you a threat, and threats must be eliminated.

So again, we're back to 'Toe the party line, or die.'

[orpupilofnature57]

20. No ,they did it out of Paranoia of losing what they already had.unlike...

Jesus ,who waited for his enemies to come for him ,that was probably advocating SLAVERY too, huh. Oh and BTW, I don't switch subjects to make a point ,your post addressed Killing and slipped in to Slavery ,thats a little slippery.

[darkstar3]

22. Sure, you and I went a little off topic,

but only because of the 'true' Christian/Red Letter conversation that you started. You said that you use the Red Letters to justify saying that fundamentalists aren't true Christians, so I pointed out that those Red Letters aren't perfect either.

No slipping here. :hi:

[orpupilofnature57]

115. Never said it ,in essence or any sort ,Like Democrats unlike Republicans

Their of a different ilk ,And don't pat yourself on the back for showing the imperfections of Red letters ,because you haven't. You seem to be unaware of your own ambiguous logic ,And I know I'm Guilty ,so talk to you soon. Peace

[kwassa]

26. You are completely misinterpreting the Marx quote. Why do you do this?

Marx didn't describe is as a useful tool for Communists. He described it as a tool the ruling classes used, not one that the Communists would use.

If you are going to continue to engage in such dishonest interpretations as this, I am going to be done with this conversation very soon.

So to answer the question of WHY: They did it for power, and to maintain the status quo. Stalin, Mao, and the rest were interested in total control of the masses, and if any religion would let them do so, they would take it. As I stated above, certain religions that are not deemed a threat to the state are allowed to survive in Communist countries. Openly practicing a faith not sanctioned by the state makes you a threat, and threats must be eliminated.

So again, we're back to 'Toe the party line, or die.'

Fail. Again. It isn't just about power.

They did it because of their Communist belief system, too, something you haven't even acknowledged EXISTS! Part of that belief was atheism, which I've already shown. This is their ideology, their motivator, their guide.



So, atheism is still on the hook, as a subset of the Communist belief. Nothing you can do will change that.

[darkstar3]

42. Your argument has been answered,

and quite succinctly. Not just by me, but by LaconicSax and PVnRT as well.

If you wish to continue in this line of debate, please cite one instance where anyone was told 'Be an atheist, or die.' Otherwise, you're simply repeating yourself until I get tired.

That's not how adults win arguments.

[kwassa]

48. when you start to lose, you turn to personal attacks?

It is getting rather funny to debate you.

You had no argument in the beginning, you have none now.

You can't substantiate a thing.

[darkstar3]

54. Come back when you can answer any of the questions in the OP. n/t

[kwassa]

58. I've rebutted them, and you can't respond.

Which demonstrates how weak your OP was to start with.

[darkstar3]

60. .

:rofl:
'You're a towel!!'

[kwassa]

71. so, without an argument you veer into nonsense.

[darkstar3]

75. See our other subthread above...

and BTW Towelie, 'You're a towel.'
:rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

32. How is the state atheism of totalitarian communism

all that different from the state religions of the various nation states that engage in mass killings cited by the OP?

The star of david on a missile seems not so different from the hammer and sickle on a missile. Marxism entwines itself in atheism and has a rather bloody track record. We atheists do not get off the hook. There is nothing about atheism that precludes mass murder.

The difference seems primarily that outside of the communist states of the 20th century there have been no major atheist organizations. More clearly there is nothing equivalent to non-state organized religious institutions among atheists. Atheists are not generally organized, and even when they are (e.g. Secular Humanists) they are very small organizations.

Nothing about atheism precludes the development of a non-state atheist organization that was violently opposed to non-atheists. It just hasn't happened.

[Deep13]

61. I can't help noticing all your examples were previously religious societies.

In other words, these Stalinist fanatics were able to take advantage of societies who were already accustomed to obeying authority without question.

BTW, belief in Stalin-type communism is not atheism.

[darkstar3]

65. +10! n/t

[kwassa]

73. But atheism is part of both Communism and Stalin-type Communism

and there is no way to escape it, as hard as some atheist propogandists try.

[darkstar3]

76. Which does not mean

that people were killed in the name of atheism. See our subthread above.

[Deep13]

84. I agree with the second part of that.

Not all communism is Marxist. The Acts of the Apostles describe a form of communism right down to punishment withholding total commitment to the cause.

Atheism is one of the dogmas of Stalinism. Atheism by itself is not dogmatic, but when Lenin and Stalin et al. insisted people accept it, it became part of the dogma of Stalinism. A rejection of feudalism is also part of the dogma of Stalinism. And, of course, having been abused by Christianity (and for some residents Judaism) they were eager to see its overthrow. Plus, having never practiced self government, they were willing to accept Lenin's total rule.

The point is that atheism is a subset of Stalinist communism, but not the other way around. People who reject the idea of divinity are not suddenly going to start oppressing their neighbors, burning their temples or killing their priests. It's usually other believers who do that shit.

Anyway, all this argument really does is advance the proposition that a government based on belief in impossible gods is no worse than one based on belief in impossible social models.

[kwassa]

90. Atheism isn't really a basis for a state

as it is a rejection of a belief, or absence of belief, and therefore nothing to adhere to, and the state must have a belief system in addition to atheism as a reason for being. Atheism can be a component of that belief-system state, of course, which is what happened with the Communists.

[laconicsax]

170. Thank you for making the case against you.

"Atheism isn't really a basis for a state...the state must have a belief system in addition to atheism as a reason for being."

So how do you justify placing the blame exclusively on atheism when you repeatedly acknowledge that there are necessarily other factors at work?

[laconicsax]

17. The connection between communism and atheism is political.

Both the Soviet Union and China are authoritarian states. In such a state, any institutions that are perceived as a threat to the state's authority are stamped out. That isn't a tenet of atheism, it's a tenet of authoritarianism.

[kwassa]

27. It doesn't have to be a tenet of atheism.

Atheism is a subset of the Communist belief system, a political belief that is also atheistic.

Calling it authoritarianism is to duck the issue of the belief.

[laconicsax]

67. Still missing the point.

Religious people, when confronted with the inquisition, crusades, modern sharia law in Saudi Arabia, etc. go to an ad hominem tu quoque invoking Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

There's a significant difference here. The religious atrocities were done in the name of a specific religion, but the atrocities committed by the latter group were done in the name of the state.

Crimes committed in the name of religion are religious crimes. Crimes committed in the name of the state are state crimes, not atheistic crimes.

When the Church rounds up and tortures/executes people suspected of witchcraft, it's religious because the driving motivation is religious. When Stalin rounds up and tortures/executes people suspected of treason, it's political because the driving motivation is political.

[darkstar3]

68. It's nice to see someone who understands nuance.

Hi Laconic! :toast:

[kwassa]

99. It would be nice if you understood the word nuance, and used it properly.

You've misused it several time.

This isn't about nuance, it is about knowledge and logic, two areas of weakness for you.

[Leontius]

81. With the exception of Sharia law which I will not

comment on since I don't know enough to say if it is Islamic religious or Arabic cultural the instances you reference the original motivation was political as well and I do not deny the use of religion to intensify and expand the acts by turning religious prejudice into a weapon.

[kwassa]

98. Uh, no, you are playing with labels, that's all.

By this reasoning, religious crimes can only be brought about by religious institutions or states; religion doesn't kill anything by itself. Only institutions can bring the manpower to commit mass murder, so your argument fails there.

So, which is it, statism or belief? The truism is that states commit crimes, but what is the state motivator? A belief system. That can be religious, political, nationalistic, cultural, or parts of many of those things. Atheism is part of the Communist belief system that motivates the state to oppress religious individuals.

Christianity and Commmunism are both belief systems. Part of the Communist belief system is atheism, and the Communist state exercises that belief by oppressing all that oppose them or believe differently.

[laconicsax]

109. Are you being intentionally dense?

"Part of the Communist belief system is atheism, and the Communist state exercises that belief by oppressing all that oppose them or believe differently."

Seriously? Do you honestly believe this to be true?

Someone being arrested/tortured/executed for speaking against the state is an example of the state exercising its atheistic beliefs?

What do you call it when someone is arrested/tortured/executed for speaking against the Church? Is that an example of the Church exercising its atheistic beliefs too?

[kwassa]

152. Thanks for the insult.

"Someone being arrested/tortured/executed for speaking against the state is an example of the state exercising its atheistic beliefs?

Not for speaking against the state, but for practicing their religious faith. I can see you understood nothing I just wrote in my previous note, speaking of denseness. I was, of course, completely clear. Sorry you didn't get it.

"Someone being arrested/tortured/executed for speaking against the state is an example of the state exercising its atheistic beliefs?"

No. Where in the world are you getting that from? People get murdered by states for all kinds of reasons. To state it one more time, atheism is a subset of the Communist belief system and the source for oppressing religion and clerics and worshipers in Communist countries. Is that clear, or do you need me to break it down into even simpler words?

Your original analogy was off to start with, and I pointed out the rather massive flaw in it, which you haven't responded to, by the way.

[laconicsax]

156. Maybe I got it from what you posted.

Namely, this bit that I cited in my response:

"Part of the Communist belief system is atheism, and the Communist state exercises that belief by oppressing all that oppose them or believe differently."

You are directly saying that "the Communist state exercises [its belief in atheism] by oppressing all that oppose them or behave differently. This directly leads to what I asked you about.

"all that oppose them or behave differently"

Making this refer exclusively to people "practicing their religious faith" is absolutely ridiculous. "All that oppose them" necessarily includes political dissidents. You opened the door to being asked about "someone being arrested/tortured/executed for speaking against the state."

The "massive flaw" you claim to have pointed out is anything but. I did respond to it in my response #67, to which you said that, in essence, someone being arrested/tortured/executed for speaking against the state is an example of the state exercising its belief in atheism. By the way, when you say belief in atheism, I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about since, as you pointed out in your response #90 atheism, "is a rejection of a belief, or absence of belief." Marvelous how you so readily contradict yourself.

Interesting that when darkstar, PVnRT, and Deep13 challenged this so-called "massive flaw" you refused to accept their challenges because they didn't fit your faulty premise of atheism=communism=murder.

[kwassa]

158. I am guilty of one thing.

and it is not finishing the thought I made in the statement you quoted:

"Part of the Communist belief system is atheism, and the Communist state exercises that belief by oppressing all that oppose them or believe differently."

It is pretty unclear on re-reading it, non-specific, though I believed at the time the implication it that "the Communist state exercises that belief by oppressing all that oppose them or believe differently." about that atheistic "belief", if quote marks will make you happier about me associating the idea of atheism with belief. I do associate it, because I am talking about strong atheism, of course, as you only partially quoted my previous explanation.

by the way, I never made the premise of atheism=communism=murder. Find it anywhere in my previous notes and quote it. You and darkstar keep attacking this straw man you set up yourselves. If you like attacking straw men, keep at it.

Deep13 agreed somewhat with me, by the way, in case you haven't read most of this thread, and we generally agree about very little.

[darkstar3]

159. How you contradict yourself.

From an earlier post:
'My reason for posting in this thread is to paint athesim (sic) with the religious oppression and murder of religious figures by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and other communists.'

This contradicts your post here:
'I never made the premise of atheism=communism=murder.'

In your first statement, you say that you are blaming atheism for the murders committed by these Communists, and then in your second statement you deny ever trying to lay that blame.

But feel free to continue calling US stupid while you spin in circles trying to defend your baseless claims. In a way, it's entertaining.

And you're still a towel. :evilgrin:

[kwassa]

167. you compare two statements with different meanings and say they are the same.

I need a link for the first, because it doesn't sound like the way I write.

but taking it as a factual quote, don't you see the difference?

'My reason for posting in this thread is to paint athesim (sic) with the religious oppression and murder of religious figures by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and other communists.'

This does not contradict

'I never made the premise of atheism=communism=murder.'

That is quite an illogical comparison. The first statement indicates atheism as the subset source of belief in Communism for the specific murder of a subset of people, the religious. I never equated atheism to communism, and I never said atheism was responsible for all communist murders, which is what that second statement would indicate.

"Atheism=communism=murder" is YOUR invention, picked up by your friend laconicsax. This absurd reduction makes no sense on its own, much less as a false representation of what I said.

This is a straw man erected by the two of you. Whack away at your straw man all you want to, it has nothing to do with me, and I could care less.

To me it simply shows how you behave when you start to lose an argument. Making thing up doesn't work, and you still lost this one.

I also had to look up your towelie towel references, because I had no idea what you were talking about, but guessed you were trying to insult me. Does it make you feel cool to make reference to South Park characters? I think it pretty childish, actually. Keep doing it, and I will go back and alert on every single note in this thread, because personal insults are against the rules on DU.

[darkstar3]

184. Watch the episode where Towelie makes his first appearance.

Recognize the fact that his entire method of argument is based on repetition, even when his claims are demonstrably false.

I pulled the reference because I saw a strong similarity between your debating styles and thought I might be able to get through to you via humor. Obviously, I was wrong. But just because you didn't understand the reference doesn't make it an insult.

[kwassa]

186. You are so full of it.

I just pointed out another giant flaw in your argument, and you completely avoided dealing with it.

Figures.

[darkstar3]

187. Now who's insulting?

Don't you ever get tired of attacking people who are different than you just because they're different?

[Leontius]

31. Somewhat off the original idea here I have a question, what was the

cause that prompted the call for the Crusades?

[laconicsax]

111. If I recall correctly,

it was the Church wanting to pad its coffers. They had a political goal, and used religion to attain it.

If the instigating authority sells a conflict on religious grounds, it's religious.

There's some wiggle room in there, but by and large if its sold on religious grounds and the people fighting are doing so for religious reasons, it's more than likely religious.

[Leontius]

121. Actually it was the Roman emperor Alexius I asking the

Pope to use his connections with western rulers to aid in raising mercenaries to help Alexius regain territories lost to the Empire over the last 40 or so years and end the Seljuk threat to Constantinople, an entirely political motive.

[laconicsax]

151. Sold on religious grounds.

Defending Christendom from the heretical Muslims.

Either way, how about the goal of capturing Jerusalem or the subsequent Crusades? Are you going to insist that the people fighting those campaigns thought they were fighting for purely political reasons or do you acknowledge that they were fighting a Holy War against enemies of the faith?

[Leontius]

155. Given the fact that State and Church were intertwined to a degree

that is alien to todays society very few with a knowledge of the history of the time would deny a religious overlay in all the actions of states of the era. A general reading of writings of the period will show how arguments of theological doctrine permeated all ranks of society at whatever level of sophistication their education allowed. I would think that this may be the level of difference in your view and my view, you seem to say that religion was the prime driving force while I would say that it was one force among several that drove events.

[laconicsax]

171. I say it was a necessary force.

It's fair to say that it is impossible to declare a holy war if there is no religion defining things as holy.

Might Alexius have lobbied for support anyway? Maybe, but as the territory he lost was taken as part of an Islamic holy war, he may not have had the original motivation--if Islam had never come about, it's possible (but not given) that the Seljuqs wouldn't have had the same motivation to aggressively expand their Empire.

[Leontius]

173. I say the difference here is, you say necessary force

I say one force among several of almost equal forces. As to the Seljuk motivation my reading of the history is that religion was of little importance to their expansion when compared to land and wealth. I won't continue this argument since most people seem to find it dull but the period and people involved is a passion of mine not widely shared by many. Well just one more point the Islamic, religion driven, conquests had brunt themselves out almost two hundred years earlier with the Arab failures at Constantinople.

[darkstar3]

41. Thank you. n/t

[PVnRT]

28. Anti-religion is not necessarily a fundamental staple of communism

For instance, take the liberation theologists of Central America, who were very much Marxist, whether they admitted it or not. Would they stamp out religion if they were to gain power? Probably not.

Did the Soviets come down on the Orthodox Church? Yes, but not in the name of atheism. The Orthodox Church was deeply entrenched with tsars and was a virulent opponent of Lenin and his revolutionaries. Stalin revived the church (granted, under state control) during WWII to drum up patriotic fervor. Even a communist (if in name only) will happily use the religion to beat the war drums.

The central point is that while atheism has a home in many flavors of communism, it is not why communists persecute. They persecute those they see as enemies of the state, and when the churches are actively hostile to the state, they're going to get taken down. Same thing with former royalists, army officers and anyone else who stands in their way. That's kind of how repressive regimes work; all loyalty and the hearts and minds of the people are with the state or against it.

Blaming individual Christians is wrong, but indicting Christianity (and Islam and Judaism and Hinduism and Buddhism and all the others) for the wrongs committed under their banner isn't. Yes, sometimes it is about land. And sometimes it isn't. Just ask the Mormons or the Jews.

Now, if you can name me an officially atheist state that persecuted people in the name of atheism and the rejection of religion, go ahead. Good luck, though, because the only officially atheist state to ever exist that I can think of was Albania under Hoxha.

[kwassa]

35. But atheism usually was a fundamental staple of Communism, and that is historical fact.

"Did the Soviets come down on the Orthodox Church? Yes, but not in the name of atheism."

How do you know? What is your proof of this statement?

It sounds more like your subjective interpretation, conveniently editing out atheism's role as part of the Communist belief system. Sorry, can't be done.

[Deep13]

38. They did and it was to promote their own view of Marxism.

Marxism tends to be atheistic as part of its dogma. This crack-down was a reaction against the RO Church's support for the Tsar.

I should point out that communism is also a staple of Christianity. Read Acts of the Apostles next time you want some light reading. That is an example of a communistic, totalitarian society. Everything must be for the LORD (which means the bishops) and no one is allowed any private space for possible dissent.

[kwassa]

83. I agree that it was communistic, but I don't agree that it was totalitarian

The early days of the church were more communitarian in nature than anything else.

[Deep13]

85. What about the couple that was struck dead...

...for retaining some private possessions?

[kwassa]

88. I'm not sure what you are referring to ...

but communitarian doesn't always mean happy, either.

[Deep13]

105. Acts 5:1-10 nt

[Deep13]

37. They have replaced religion with their own dogmatism.

You also have too look at why the people were so conditioned to accept that kind of dogma and to follow it without question. Stalin can do nothing unless people obey him. A thousand years under a church-supported tyranny did that.

[Why Syzygy]

15. Idealogies don't kill

people. People kill people.

Both groups should stop pointing the finger at the other. There have been murderers in both camps.

[darkstar3]

16. Oooh, Gungeon talk in the R/T forum

Glutton for punishment, are we? :hi:

You know, I'd love to not point fingers at believers, but they ask me to. Every time that a believer talks about how their religion has a lock on morality or goodness (and it's not always here on DU), I can't HELP but tell them that they are wrong. It's like a reflex for me. That's when they ask for specific examples of HOW they're wrong, and I either have to point fingers or shut up.

[Why Syzygy]

91. "He made me do it"? lol

First grade talk in the R/T forum? Mom would say, don't play with those kids.

Seriously. Some day you may mature to the point that you don't have to be "Right".

Of course, this is a 'discussion' forum, yada yada. My answer IS the proper answer. The killers are PEOPLE. You want to disregard the religion of the atheist killers, but not the religious ones. Present day, there are no religions that suggest murdering dissenters. That method is still used in the realm of socio-political power grabbing sociopaths.

[darkstar3]

97. Uh oh,

I take issue with several of your points.

'Mom would say, don't play with those kids.'
Yeah, well, they're taking over my sandbox. We can either play together or I can leave the sandbox, and it's my fucking sandbox too.

'Some day you may mature to the point that you don't have to be "Right".'
See above, and try in the future not to attack the maturity of a poster interested in honest discussion (and OK, the occasional snark. :))

'You want to disregard the religion of the atheist killers'
Atheism isn't a religion. Never has been, and I thought you and I were on the same page about that.

'there are no religions that suggest murdering dissenters.'
That depends on who among those religions you ask.

Ask a moderate or lefty Muslim, and they will tell you that the struggle of Jihad talked about in Qu'ran is entirely internal to the mind and soul of the believer. But not all Muslims believe that, notably the 19 who paid us a visit in planes a few years ago.

So while Muslims and Christians argue over who has the right interpretation of their holy books, I look at the books themselves. There's quite a bit of murder and mayhem done in the name of God/Allah in those books, so I have to wonder if your statement is correct, or not. I don't have the answer, but until someone can flat out explain to me how all of that violence DOESN'T encourage today's believers to behave in the same way, I'll doubt your statement that 'there are no religions that suggest murdering dissenters.'

[Why Syzygy]

103. "They're taking over my sandbox" ..

is a debatable claim. Do you consider a forum for RELIGION and THEOLOGY to be YOUR sandbox?

Of course atheism is a belief system! There would not be so many atheists hanging out in R/T badgering people with their point of view if it were not a BELIEF SYSTEM!

The need to be perpetually "right" is an indication of immaturity. If your ego needs to defend itself against that claim, that's between you and your psyche.

A "lefty Muslim" fits into the criteria I listed as a socio-political power grabbing sociopath.

I just repaired a relationship with a woman I've known since 8th grade. That was a LONG time. Five years ago we had a fight because she is a fan of George Bush. She is still a partially-rabid right wing conservative. I've recently decided to redirect my energies toward our real enemy, the corporate seized state, and leave the raggedy repukes out of it. The dissension among the slave ranks only serve to strengthen the power of the slave masters. I'm not going to say anything to her about politics. Your real enemies are not the right wing fanatics religionists; but rather the globalists who empower them to oppress you and vice versa. That, and possibly your ego, which must defend itself as an all powerful and knowing entity.

btw. We are on the same page regarding corporal punishment of children. Everything else is left to discovery.

[darkstar3]

104. I love how you suddenly just know me...

First, while my choice of words in the first part of my sentence may have been poor, my point on the whole 'sandbox' thing is 'it's my fucking sandbox too.' I won't shut up and go away just because others don't like my sand castles. And since we've now run this metaphor into the ground, I'm done with it.

'Of course atheism is a belief system!
This has been debunked so many times by so many people it's getting ridiculous, but here's something for you to think about. If atheism is a belief system, as you claim, then what do atheists believe?

'A "lefty Muslim" fits into the criteria I listed as a socio-political power grabbing sociopath.'
Um, what?!

As for my ego, you know not of what you speak. You should not attempt to psychoanalyze someone based on a few posts on an internet message board, especially when most of those posts deal with a single topic.

[Why Syzygy]

106. You are the one

who adopted an air of familiarity. We know a bit from PM exchanges. I know more about you than I do many others who post here. We've publicly discussed only one subject prior to this exchange. :shrug: Whether or not I just know you has no bearing on the subject at hand. Taking up that angle is just another defensive move on your part.

Atheism belief system is "No God". Secondary belief system: "Religions oppress me".

I know quite a lot about ego in general. But I am not here to debate yours. I only pointed out its possible influence on your perception of the transaction you claim impels you into debates about which belief system is the more brutal.

[darkstar3]

107. Atheism belief system is "No God".

So lacking belief in any God you may wish to speak about automatically equals a belief system?

How can the lack of belief be a belief?

[Why Syzygy]

117. A belief system can refer to

a life stance
a religion
a world view
a philosophy
an ideology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

Atheism is not "lack" of belief. It is an affirmative belief that no god(s) exist.

[darkstar3]

119. Affirmative belief?

I do not believe in any gods.

From the Greek: A(without) - theos(deities).

How does the phrase 'I do not believe' translate into 'I believe'?

[Why Syzygy]

143. A federal court goes even further than calling it a "belief system".

Federal Court declares Atheism a religion

Chicago, Ill., Aug 23, 2005 / 12:00 am (CNA).- Last week, a Chicago federal court of appeals ruled in favor of a Wisconsin inmate who claimed that the prison violated his first amendment right to practice religion. The problem? He’s an atheist. According to the American Family Association, The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals “ruled that prison officials erred because they ‘did not treat atheism as a ‘religion.’”

Citing the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, in which a Court called “secular humanism” a religion, the Chicago court said that even though he denies belief in a supreme being, the inmate must be allowed to follow through with his plans for an “atheist study group.”

Brian Fahling, the American Family Association’s senior trial attorney for its Center for Law & Policy, called the ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.” “Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion.”

“It is difficult”, continued Fahling, “not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4697

[darkstar3]

149. Court rulings

do not hold sway over definitions.

Further, the court made an error, because 'secular humanism' and atheism are two different things. Now if they're using secular humanism as a precedent, that's one thing, but if they're equating the two, that's a mistake.

This will be challenged and overruled by higher courts, because atheism is in fact NOT a religion or belief system.

This post illustrates the 'broken clock' phenomenon in two ways. I NEVER thought I'd agree with anyone from the AFA on ANYTHING, and I never thought that catholicnewsagency.com would be a news source usable on DU.

[Why Syzygy]

153. The other source was WND

and it was written as if this just happened. It was 2005.

I know atheists refuse to believe they have a belief system, for some unknown reason.
But you do. It is obvious to everyone who is not an atheist.

[darkstar3]

154. 'It is obvious to everyone who is not an atheist.'

I disagree, but since neither of us can prove what EVERYONE who isn't an atheist believes, I'm dropping that part of the argument.

But to answer your claim of a 'belief system' one more time, let's look at the STRETCHED definition you posted:

a life stance
a religion
a world view
a philosophy
an ideology

Saying 'I doubt that' or 'I disagree' when someone else makes the wild claim 'there is a God' doesn't fall into any one of those categories.

[laconicsax]

164. WND? As in WorldNetDaily?

The birther, death panel, racist, home of Jerome Corsi?

No wonder you went with the Catholic News Agency.

[laconicsax]

166. Sorry, wrong.

I'd bet that if someone asked you, "Do you believe in Thetans?" You'd respond, "no," but I doubt that part of your belief system actively involves Thetans not existing. Your belief system probably doesn't include Thetans at any point. If this premise is accurate, then the non-existence of Thetans is not an active belief on your part and it wouldn't be correct to say that a defining part of your belief system is that thetans don't exist though it would be correct to call you an athetanist.

[laconicsax]

18. There's an important difference.

Ideologies can lead people to kill other people.

When members of group A believe that their god commands them to kill members of group B, it could be justly claimed that the ideology bears responsibility should A start killing B.

[Why Syzygy]

94. Ideollogies can do no such thing.

They are inanimate objects. Human intervention is required to accomplish murder. A murderer can CLAIM that he is responding to ideology. But the final act is still controlled by self will.

[laconicsax]

113. So self will is completely unaffected by ideological beliefs?

A person's beliefs have no impact on their behavior? Why then do people who believe in Jesus' divinity tend to worship at Christian churches while those who believe that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet tend to worship in mosques? Why do people who hold conservative beliefs tend to vote Republican while those with progressive beliefs tend to vote Democratic?

[rrneck]

39. Thank you.

Both religion and firearms are tools and respond to the intent of the user. Atheism may fall prey to the pitfalls of fundamentalism and do just as much damage as any religion.

I screwed up my left hand last week so that's about all I can type. :blush:

[Jim__]

25. Believers rally and state ... human nature or other forces were really the root of the problem.

Only believers state that? Really? Try looking under History of Warfare under wikipedia:war. There are a large number of theories on the underlying causes of war. These theories are not just propounded by believers - even on DU. Your view is far too narrow.

As to the "old canard of Stalin, Mao, and the rest" you also might try broadening your knowledge before asserting that this is a theory propounded by believers. Here is an excerpt from a well-known philosopher (and atheist), John N Gray on this "canard":

Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril. Dawkins makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real enough. He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed scientific sanction for their crimes. Nazi "scientific racism" and Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula. In each case, the science was bogus, but it was accepted as genuine at the time, and not only in the regimes in question. Science is as liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the risk of it being used in this way is greater.

Contemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognizes that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains the oppression they practiced had nothing to do with their ideology of "scientific atheism" - what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.

Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany. Dawkins dismisses any suggestion that the crimes of the Nazis could be linked with atheism. "What matters," he declares in The God Delusion, "is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does." This is simple-minded reasoning. Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarised Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism. He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible.

Questions about human nature, the nature of religion and the causes of war are extremely complex. The issues are important - life and death of our species important. Your questions don't begin to address the real issues.

[darkstar3]

51. I never said

that my old canard was limited ONLY to people of faith. What I said specifically was that people of faith on THIS BOARD use it.

I'm citing examples without breaking the rules and pointing to threads. I did it to set the scene for what was under the dashed lines. I never intended to say that this discussion is limited only to the examples I have given, but rather to say that these are the examples that recently got my attention.

As for John Gray, I'd love to see him debate one of the atheists he's so upset with. I suspect the event would be :popcorn: worthy.

As for addressing 'the real issues,' that's for a later thread. In THIS thread I'm trying to address a specific issue, which is the constant use of a meme that should be eliminated.

[Jim__]

100. So, when you said ...

... Believers rally and state two things that's not really what you meant. You really meant people rally and state two things, but I only want to complain about believers so I'm ignoring the fact that unbelievers also make these claims.

As for your claim that the "meme" should be eliminated, if the argument is valid, and I maintain that it is, there is no reason for people not to use it.

You have said nothing to establish that the root cause of war is religion. The facts indicate that indeed religion is not the root cause of war (again see the wiki page cited above on the history of warfare and the various causes people cite for it).

You have said nothing to establish that the horrific murders and wars of atheistic regimes in the 20th century were unrelated to their atheism. Specifically, you have not explained how Mao's attack of Tibet under the slogan, "Religion is poison," was unrelated to his atheism.

Your being "damn sick of seeing" something is not an argument.

[darkstar3]

102. So you're saying that

while atheism is responsible for the horrific murders of various Communist regimes, religion gets a clean bill?

HTF does that work?

Mao attacked Tibet under the slogan "Smash the Four Olds." Your 'Religion is Poison' quote comes from a PEACEFUL meeting he had with the Dalai Lama.
http://www.rangzen.com/history/history.htm

As for 'ignoring the fact that unbelievers also make these claims,' I made this OP in specific regard to recent happenings on DU, which involved believers. So take your fauxtrage at my supposed cherry picking elsewhere.

[Jim__]

108. You actually managed to get every part of your response wrong.

while atheism is responsible for the horrific murders of various Communist regimes, religion gets a clean bill?

Where did I say religion gets a clean bill? My point is that your arguments are childishly simplistic. As I said in post #25: Questions about human nature, the nature of religion and the causes of war are extremely complex. That's not denying that religion has any responsibility here. It's saying that weighting responsibility is extremely complex. Also, you cannot arbitrarily assign a weight of zero to certain traits that are present in numerous instances where atrocities took place (which goes to your claim that the atheism of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao played no role in their atrocities).

Mao attacked Tibet under the slogan "Smash the Four Olds." Your 'Religion is Poison' quote comes from a PEACEFUL meeting he had with the Dalai Lama.

You might want to go back and re-read the article you cited. The People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet in 1950. In 1951 the Tibetans acknowledged China's sovereignty over Tibet. Your "Smash the Four Olds" was under Mao's Great Leap Forward 1958 - 1961. China was in control of Tibet long before this. They even separated the events out by a timeline in the article.

As for 'ignoring the fact that unbelievers also make these claims,' I made this OP in specific regard to recent happenings on DU, which involved believers. So take your fauxtrage at my supposed cherry picking elsewhere.

That just goes to show the sloppiness of your thinking. I have stated before on DU under the R/T Forum when these arguments have come up, that I do not consider religion to be a root cause of war, nor do I think you can just give the atheism of atheistic regimes a pass. I'm not a believer. So, you can claim that your post was not in response to my claims in the R/T Forum, but then, your argument is extremely parochial and not worth discussing. Also, as to my "fauxtrage," I don't have any emotional investment in this thread, and I'm certainly not feeling any rage.

[darkstar3]

110. And my point on Mao still stands

He NEVER used 'Religion is poison' as a slogan to attack Tibet. He said it once when he met with the Dalai Lama. Those are two very different things, and to equate them is intellectually dishonest.

As for the rest of your post, it boils down to 'your argument is stupid and not worth discussing.' So why did you even stop by?

Oh, that's right, to play pigeon on my thread...

[Jim__]

114. I responded to your thread to make a serious point.

The point I ended my post #25 with: Questions about human nature, the nature of religion and the causes of war are extremely complex. The issues are important - life and death of our species important. Your questions don't begin to address the real issues.

I gave specific responses to your arguments. None of my arguments were of the "your post is supid" variety. I did say that if you were going to claim that your arguments with respect to Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were restricted to a select number of threads in R/T and did not apply outside of that, as implied in your previous reply, then your arguments were too parochial to be discussing.

[HamdenRice]

34. Your argument is based on putting your fingers in your ears and saying nyaa I can't hear you!

Atheism: "Become an atheist, or die."

Evidence of this has been posted many times, but the fundie atheist response is simply to ignore the evidence and say it never happened.

Yes, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all "said" this or versions of it. A more forceful version, Pol Pot's, was: "You're a Buddhist -- now die. You don't even have a chance to become an atheist. You're vermin to be exterminated."

Versions of that stronger statement also were used by Stalin and Mao for the respective religions they were stamping out.

[darkstar3]

44. Prove it.

If you have evidence of this statement, post it.

[HamdenRice]

64. Google Pol Pot and Muslims or Buddhists

I've posted this information before, and in fact others have posted it in this thread. The response is predictable.

Either "I don't believe it," or "But they executed those religious people for reasons other than religion -- other than the reasons they said they were executing people for."

Life is too short to repost it again. If you really want to find it, search this forum for my posts.

[darkstar3]

66. In other words

You're participating in the same old canard I posted about in the first place. You have no direct answer to any of the questions I posed, but you're still hellbent on spinning against atheism in any way you think you can get away with.

ETA: If you disagree, answer just one of my original questions with something other than 'google it.' I HAVE 'googled it' and this is what I've come up with.

[HamdenRice]

69. Did you google Pol Pot and Muslims?

It only takes a second and it will provide the date you seek.

[Deep13]

36. First, lets be clear on the historic facts.

I don't really know what the private beliefs of the dictators of the 20th century were. The real issue is not what they thought but what they did and the reasons for it.

Stalin may have been an atheist, although he was a seminary student at one point. While he disavowed belief in god, he certainly required an irrational belief in Lenin-style communism. He was able to do this in part because the public had been conditioned by centuries of despotic rule (supported and promoted by the R.O. Church) to submit to authority no matter how unfair or irrational. Critics of Stalin were treated as heretics and communist heros were lionized as quasi-saints.

Hitler from all outward appearances was a Roman Catholic and even if he was an unconventional one, he believed that divine providence guided his destiny and that of Germany. His rise to power was in part predicated on the traditional Christian bigotry against Jews. That bigotry was brought to its logical conclusion under Hitler and was only stopped by the German capitualtion. In the meantime, the RC church had a working relationship with the Nazis and cooperated in the Nazi racial ideology through birth and baptismal records. Throughout the war, churches actively supported Hitler's agenda and the few clergy who chose to side with reality ended up in the camps. After the war, the RC Church assisted Nazi war criminals escape from Europe. No high-ranking Nazi has ever been excommunicated by the RC Church except for one who married a Protestant.

I don't know as much about Mao as some of the others, though it is pretty hard to call what he did atheism. Making oneself god is not nonbelief and requiring people to believe it is not critical thinking. My understanding is that Chinese leaders, including the Maoists, rule under a mandate from heaven. Rather than deciding what is best for the Chinese people, the common feeling seems to be to do what divinity requires. The end of a dynasty seems to result from the feeling that said dynasty has fallen out of favor with the gods. Obviously, this is not an atheistic system.

Kim Jung Il rules N.Korea as an absolute dictator in the name of his dead father. His father divinely communicates with him to tell him how to rule. This is an extreme case of animistic ancestor worship common in non-Abrahamic countries.

In any event, the real goal is not to replace religion with an equally dogmatic atheistic regime. The real goal is secularism where the state operates from reality-based policies and individuals are free to believe what they want. As much as I hate what religion does, I would not outlaw it even if I could. Critical thinking has to be free of constraint even if it leads others to conclusions I don't like.

[darkstar3]

46. At first glance, I like your analysis

but I take issue with your last paragraph. Where in this thread did anyone say they wanted to outlaw religion?

(My way of saying 'it wasn't me.') :)

[Deep13]

50. Stalinist states do outlaw or at least repress religion.

I'm only drawing a distinction between the kind of atheism that comes from critical thinking and the dogmatic regimes that have atheism as one of its dogmas.

Of course religious states are more than happy to outlaw dissenting views and even some ostensibly secular states have laws protecting religion from legitimate criticism.

[darkstar3]

55. Ah, I see what you're saying

And that's one of the points I'm trying to make here. Atheism doesn't try to stamp out the beliefs of others. Atheists could give a damn what other people believe, as long as they leave us alone. It's COMMUNISM that's all about squashing dissent, and therein lies the important distinction that you have nailed and so many others have missed.

Thank you. :hi:

[kwassa]

72. It is those Communist atheists that have been squashing dissent

Try as you might, you can't get the atheist out of the Communist.

You're still on the hook.

[darkstar3]

77. And your method of argument bores me

You know you're caught in a fallacy, so you continue to repeat yourself in as many places as possible to try and dodge me or tire me out. Would me letting you get away with it somehow mean you win by default? No.

Scream at the top of your lungs as loud as you like in as many places as you want. It will not change the fact that you cannot blame atheism for the mass murders of Communists. See our subthread above on the transitive property.

[kwassa]

80. There is no fallacy, there is simply you misapplying one.

because you don't even understand the argument.

[darkstar3]

87. Call it whatever you want, you're still wrong,

and I explain why above.

[kwassa]

95. but you failed, of course.

[kwassa]

78. but please don't try to minimize atheism

"I don't really know what the private beliefs of the dictators of the 20th century were. The real issue is not what they thought but what they did and the reasons for it."

They all persecuted religious figures in their countries in the name of their state cause. Any of the Communist countries were atheist as part of the belief system.

I don't think Hitler an atheist, but he has developed his own peculiar idea of Christianity that he didn't follow himself. To call him Roman Catholic is a real stretch, as there is no evidence of him practing Catholicism as an adult.

[Deep13]

86. Right, that's what they did.

What I meant was, I don't know if Stalin really was convinced there is no god or whether (like so many preachers) he was only using the idea to eliminate dissent from the Church.

There is substantial evidence of him practicing Catholicism as an adult in letters and maybe speeches. But all that proves is that being religious does not necessarily make someone good.

[Deep13]

53. For the record, no one who accepts this argument is a bigot...

...at least not because of that. I mean the argument that atheistic regimes are as evil as religious ones. Also, no one is going to hell for accepting that argument either. Because there is no hell. While I disagree with this argument on factual grounds, people who accept it have not been corrupted by Satan and are not evil people because of their acceptance.

As a side note, even if somehow nonreligious government is as bad as theocracy (and I wonder what the Inquisition would have done with automatic weapons) that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not god is real.

[SidneyCarton]

82. There is no such thing as a "true" Christian, and there is no such thing as a "true" Atheist

If Stalin & co. prove anything, it is that human beings find other things to slaughter each other over when religion is removed from the equation. That with, or without deities, we are still the same irrational, bloodthirsty and vicious beings.

The argument, even in your revised form is tiresome. Neither Theists, nor Atheists have a monopoly on rationality, morality or wisdom. And the continuing attempts to force either group under a single monolithically homogenous rubric is both intellectually dishonest, and asenine.

K&U

[darkstar3]

92. It sounds like you're trying to disagree with me,

but I agree with everything you've said.

Especially this: 'Neither Theists, nor Atheists have a monopoly on rationality, morality or wisdom. And the continuing attempts to force either group under a single monolithically homogenous rubric is both intellectually dishonest, and asenine.'

There is one statement in your post that confuses me, though, and makes me think that you're trying to disagree with me in a way I haven't understood yet.
'The argument, even in your revised form is tiresome.'

Do you take issue with any of my statements, or just with the entire concept of arguing over who killed whom?
Not snarky, upset, or anything like that...just curious where you're going. :hi:

[SidneyCarton]

96. It would seem that I took issue where there was none to take.

Consider it a case of one "vehemently agreeing" with the other. :hi:

[darkstar3]

101. 'Vehemently agreeing'

I like that one. :toast:

[darkstar3]

157. In all this bluster over Communism and slavery

I think we may have strayed somewhat from the original questions.

1. When has anyone said 'Become an atheist, or die.'? Please cite examples.
2. Under what sign do the atheists conquer? Under what mantra do they march? Please cite examples
3. Define 'true' Christianity.

It has been shown by many DU'ers in this thread that Communism does not answer question 1. Questions 2 and 3 have been largely ignored. Does anyone have specific examples to cite that will answer any of these questions?

If not, can we finally throw out the old chestnut of Stalin, Mao, and the rest?

[laconicsax]

176. Sadly, that chestnut never gets old for some people.

That and it's an ad hominem tu quoque.

If I tell someone that their shirt is torn and they respond, "yeah, well your shirt is too," they haven't addressed the fact that their shirt is torn.

[darkstar3]

177. Hence the point of the OP.

But of course, proving haters wrong and illogical never seems to stop them from hating.

Maybe once I get beyond a thousand posts I'll have acquired such wisdom, instead of having to learn it from flamewars.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

160. Your beef with Christianity seems to be a thousand years old...

Seriously. You're still pissed about the Crusades? Personally, I can't BELEIVE the nerve of those Hittites.

Blaming modern Christianity for the Crusades is like blaming modern medicine for leaches.

And if you think that the conflict between Palestinians and Israeli's is merely a religious dispute, you really don't know much about the region.

[darkstar3]

161. 700 years, and maybe some change

We still have:
Torquemada
The Salem Witch Trials
The varied and hateful ways in which Christians are trying to limit the rights of other Americans.

Of course, that leaves a lot of stuff out. But the bottom line is that violence and oppression are a common theme.

But I didn't post the OP because I have a 'beef with Christianity'. If you'll read it again you'll see that I managed to get a knock or two in against Muslims and Jews too. I tried to keep it as wide as possible in definition because I didn't actually WANT to attack a single faith. I am MORE interested in debunking this...slur, for lack of a better word...against atheists.

There IS one problem with that, though. I know more about Christianity than any other particular religion, and so far it seems that the distribution on this board is mostly Christian and atheist with the occasional Jew or member of an Eastern faith. I guess that would inevitably lead to the idea that this was another Christian vs. atheist thread.

Not what I had in mind, though.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

165. Which of us went off the deep end?

I posted the OP interested only in defending atheism from baseless claims. You took it as an attack on Christianity, and when I tried to say 'not what I had in mind,' you went OFF. Your entire first paragraph is one of the worst examples of ad hom I've ever seen, and I really don't understand where all the venom contained therein came from.

Why are you so interested in twisting this thread into an attack on Christianity? Are you that afflicted with a persecution complex? Or is it simply that you consider defense of atheism to be an attack against believers?

[laconicsax]

163. What a selective reading of the OP.

The OP makes a post about the specific, ongoing, ridiculous charge of Atheism being responsible for the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. and you read it as an attack on Christianity.

[kwassa]

168. But it is not a ridiculous or baseless claim.

You and darkstar just won't admit it. You wish to believe something that is essentially atheist propaganda.

Atheism is part of the Communist belief. It is surely responsible for some of the atrocities. Neither you or darkstar have mounted any proof otherwise.

[laconicsax]

169. If you make a claim, you have to back it up with more than your opinion.

And so far, your opinion is all that's driving your argument. You have yet to offer actual proof that the anti-religious acts were driven by anything other than the standard modus operandi of a totalitarian state. Endlessly repeating that it was an expression of the state's 'belief in athiesm' doesn't make it true unless you can back it up, especially when you simultaneously say that atheism has no beliefs and that the state actions are an expression of those beliefs.

I don't need to offer proof of you being wrong until you offer some proof that you're right. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[kwassa]

172. I believe the burden of proof is on you.

Assertion #1. It is you and darkstar making the OP assertion that atheism had nothing to do with communist murders, and you both did it without offering any proof. Your assertion, it is yours to prove. Neither of you has made any effort to do so, in this entire thread, and it is the very subject of this thread.

You can start by proving that there is a standard modus operandi of a totalitarian state that they all follow. Assertion #2. You claim this, and offer no proof.

I offered up the historical recognition that atheism was part of the Communist belief system, and that historians recognize most Communists as atheists. For your assertion to work that their atheistic viewpoint had nothing to do with the murders, you would have to prove that they separated that belief out from their personal motivation to murdering their opponents.

Good luck with that. I await the results.

[laconicsax]

175. The OP laid out the argument in plain language.

The OP laid out the criteria for killing in the name of something with four examples. They were:

Atheism: "Become an atheist, or die."
Communism: "Toe the party line, or die."
Christianity: "Believe in Jesus, or die."
Islam: "Pray to Allah, and his prophet Muhammad, or die."

You've been insisting that killing in the name of communism is killing in the name of atheism but haven't offered any evidence other than your opinion.

Atheism as part of the 'communist belief system' isn't proof that atheism is responsible unless you can show that it is a significant motivating factor. By insisting that atheism is a part of the communist belief system, but insisting that it is the only part responsible for Stalin's purges, you leave yourself open to questions of what the other parts are and how do they bear no responsibility?

You have yet to offer an explanation as to why atheism, being only part is both necessary and the only part responsible.

For example, why does totalitarianism, which was a significant part of Stalin's regime hold no responsibility?

What's more, there isn't a uniform belief system to which communist states adhere. For example, North Korea, a communist state, isn't atheist. When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, homosexuality was decriminalized but when Castro seized power in Cuba, homosexuals were arrested and executed.

[kwassa]

185. You misstate my argument again.

"You've been insisting that killing in the name of communism is killing in the name of atheism but haven't offered any evidence other than your opinion."

No, I've insisted that SOME killing in the name of communism is killing in the name of atheism. Big, big difference.

"Atheism as part of the 'communist belief system' isn't proof that atheism is responsible unless you can show that it is a significant motivating factor."

I've already done that with extensive quotes about state atheism in this thread that you apparently never read.

"By insisting that atheism is a part of the communist belief system, but insisting that it is the only part responsible for Stalin's purges, you leave yourself open to questions of what the other parts are and how do they bear no responsibility?"

I agree. What's your point? I never said that atheism was solely responsible.

"You have yet to offer an explanation as to why atheism, being only part is both necessary and the only part responsible."

I never said anywhere in this thread that it was the only part responsible. That is your misreading, not what I've written.

"For example, why does totalitarianism, which was a significant part of Stalin's regime hold no responsibility?"

Totalitarianism is not a guiding philosophy. Every society has a belief system, and the belief system of communism includes atheism, which was reflected in the oppression of religion in communist countries. The choice of targets is guided not only by threats but by beliefs.

"What's more, there isn't a uniform belief system to which communist states adhere. For example, North Korea, a communist state, isn't atheist. When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, homosexuality was decriminalized but when Castro seized power in Cuba, homosexuals were arrested and executed."

Showing slight variances in Communist countries practices doesn't negate what most do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

By 1970 all 22 nations of central and eastern Europe which were behind the Iron Curtain were de jure Atheistic, promoting it, ideologically linked to it and opposed on principal to all religion. <20> Communist regimes elsewhere took similar approaches.

[laconicsax]

188. You have yet to show which acts were clearly 'in the name of atheism.'

Clearly show which acts were undoubtedly committed in the name of atheism. You have yet to offer any examples that can't be attributed to other influences, such as the totalitarian ideals that were clearly embraced by many of these states.

[darkstar3]

174. Sometimes you just gotta let 'em scream

Just ignore him. Maybe he'll give up and maybe he won't, but he's already shown that his arguments don't hold water and that all he cares about is insulting atheists, even if it means he has to contradict himself.

In fact, I think this entire thread demonstrates that the people who use this slur against atheists can't prove it, but some will continue to throw it out there because all they really care about is denigrating atheism.

I was hoping we could agree to retire this old hateful propaganda the way DU retired the word 'bitch', but obviously I was wrong and that's never gonna happen.

[Leontius]

178. Would you mean retiring the hateful propaganda

that religion haters use too, and they almost always claim to also be atheists. It is a common theme in their rage against religion that this war and that war or this horror and that horror etc. etc. etc, was caused by and only caused by or at the very least mostly caused by religion. When you're willing to do that maybe just maybe you'll have some credibility. Until then well....

[darkstar3]

179. Ad hom

I posted a very simple set of questions giving people the opportunity to substantiate their baseless claims of atheist atrocities, and you attack my credibility as if that had anything to do with the argument.

Further, as was already discussed above, I'm not trying to attack faith in this thread, but rather to defend atheism from bullshit. Why does that upset you so?

[Leontius]

180. Just the basic dishonesty you show in your argument and

I'm not particularly upset. Atheism is a central tenet of classical communism. Is it the reason, the only reason, or even perhaps the major reason for the death and torture of millions in recent history by communist regimes, No. Is it partly responsible for some of them, Yes, it is one tool in the arsenal . This is where your dishonesty in argument lies, you wish to claim that atheism is unrelated to totally separated from those who have professed it as truth and used that profession to remove what they see as the cancer of religion, one of the evils afflicting current bourgeois society, from their perfected proletarian society by violent means. In a perfect world atheism and theism would be benign concepts but we don't live in a perfect world we live in a world with, for the lack of a better word, evil men who will use any and all things conceivable by man for their own ends.

[darkstar3]

181. Again,

you can't answer any of the questions from the OP, but you take issue with the fact that I'm defending atheism, so you attack me as dishonest or lacking credibility.

That's called an ad hom, and it is not an argument.

[Leontius]

182. Pointing out that your argument is false and what I consider an intellectually

dishonest position and showing the reason behind my opinion, which you did nothing to refute by the way, is not an ad hom.

[Leontius]

183. By dishonest I didn't mean to attack

your character, I am not saying that you cheat at cards or would steal my car, so I if my choice of words insulted you I apologize. It was not meant as a personal insult.

[clear eye]

189. Maybe more people have been persecuted in the name of religion

because religionists have been in power way longer and in larger areas of the world than non-religionists. It takes having the power to persecute in order to do it. The largest organized body of atheists in power have been Communists, and only since around the early 1900's. Nazis demanded allegiance to a specifically anti-religious system or death.

You've asked in other posts, but why did the Communists persecute the religious (implying it was for reasons other than the beliefs of the religious), but don't similarly ask why did religionists in religion-affiliated nations persecute atheists. In countries where the political leadership was not specifically affiliated w/ religion, like the Netherlands, there was no inquisition. So perhaps religious persecution of atheists is as much about consolidating power (and not over dogma) as Communist persecution of believers.

Goes back to the likelihood you so lightly dismiss (3a), and that is persecution of those challenging any kind of orthodoxy, religious or anti-religious, is an expression of the human failing in some of the need to bully and to unite w/ others to bully more successfully.

DU seems to have a significant majority of anti-religious members. Its administrators and the reality of Internet interactions largely limit how members can bully other members. Yet even here, just knowing that atheism predominates at times leads to mobbing of those expressing positive views about belief (not even religion, just belief). By mobbing, I mean times when poster after poster uses extreme sarcasm to make the same attack on an individual poster again and again and again. This contrasts with less emotionally loaded threads where, after someone makes a point other readers who agree mostly say nothing, feeling that their idea has already been expressed, or occasionally post "+1".

This doesn't make DUers worse than most people, but just the opposite. It makes us as a group the same as most people, meaning that when finding ourselves in an significant majority, there is a chunk who can't resist beating up on the minority. I'm not even saying that the behavior should be banned. To ban "mobbing" would mean an administrator would have to make problematic decisions about who is responsible--the first attacker? the third?--and when something is gratuitous and not a valid expression of a point of view. It just supports the contention that persecution is not so much intrinsic in religion as intrinsic in human nature.

DU is organized as a group that by definition is intolerant of posters politically right of center (to allow meaningful discussion of how to advance center-left and left goals, and to lift morale), but not by definition intolerant of spiritual believers. Yet to paraphrase the OP, when someone has expressed belief in God on this board, they have sometimes been villified by being subjected to a diatribe about the harm done by religion--even at times referencing the Inquisition. When on this board have believers subjected someone merely expressing atheism to a diatribe on the harm done in the world by non-believers? Has anyone linked an atheist DUer w/ Attila the Hun, for instance? Please cite examples.

{BTW, in Israel, the Star of David is not primarily a religious symbol but a national one--like the bald eagle in the U.S. only more so as it is the only thing on the Israeli flag.}

Hope I have helped answer your honest questions.

[darkstar3]

190. Doesn't look like it.

It looks like rather than answering the questions, you've flipped the coin and used my OP to defend religious DU'ers who have been attacked for things like the Inquisition. I understand your desire to do so, but this thread isn't about that. As I stated above, my point for this OP is specifically to try and defend atheism from baseless claims of mass murder, and to allow those making those claims a chance to cite examples. If you wish to do the same for religions, I encourage you to start your own thread and give everyone in R/T a chance to see it.