Ah, the good ol' "If I didn't have God to guide me I'd be out murderin' and rapin' til the cows come home." philosophy.
Yes that good ole sayin'. Then I guess an American could say. "Well since we are such a free thinking culture; those barbaric Arabs unjustly prosecute and kill the free thinking man!" Lmao!!!!
Here are a few more links about the Soviet Genocide. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM The funny thing in this link, is the Soviets believed this wasn't murder. That they must cleanse their nation from religion and democracy. Ironically; they believed they were just and doing the right thing. And letters were made suggesting the extermination of any and all religious heads in their state. When you reference the actual charts and figures. The "Democide" was a reference of "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connexion with any crime against peace or any war crime."
Right. But you see, I'm not, in principle, disputing any of your horrific descriptions. (I mean, I used to study the Holocaust, I have a (small) library of personal, survivor accounts. Elie Wiesel is a personal hero. I've met and talked to him. I am sure as heck not disputing the historic truth of human nastiness.) But once more I must emphasize, you're not establishing a causal role for atheism itself. This is a logical matter more than anything, Mags. Look, even your own language reflects what I am saying: 1) "the Soviets believed this wasn't murder." But this is not atheism nor does it follow from atheism. 2) "they must cleanse their nation from religion and democracy." But again, this is not atheism nor does it follow from atheism. These are beliefs unto themselves -- religion is bad because of x, democracy is bad because of y. X or Y is not atheism. 3) "they believed they were just and doing the right thing." Yes, as a result of their (poor) reasons, but not because of atheism. 4) "And letters were made suggesting the extermination of any and all religious heads in their state" ... because getting rid of the religious heads was understood to be instrumental in their plans, not because of atheism, nor does it follow from atheism.
Or ... just staying at home raping the cows. "And why not," asks the Christian, "why shouldn't I give Bessy a go (after milking) if there's no god to tell me not to do it, or punish me for doing it?" To which I, once a mere atheist, am instantly placed in a position of articulating -- to another human being -- why it is wrong to bugger the beast. Me! Is this what sustained deistic belief engenders ... an abandonment of moral sense?
You may have jumped in late. I am, by no means, saying this is a generalization of atheism. I've already said this. I am stating that both sides, theists and atheists, have leaders that prey on the ideology to promote their evil deeds. I am also acknowledging that theists have just been guilty of atrocities as well. If you read the title; there is no exclusion of either side. The atheist are taking offense and arguing that communism aren't motivated by atheism; which I completely disagree with. Does that mean all atheists are communists or will eventually be? Absolutely not!
A mere truism. It is not evident at all. And it essentially violates what lies behind the scientific enterprise and/or our basic human urge to replace our mythical grasp of things with something resembling knowledge. What I stated was what follows from an understanding of moral value as being that which god dictates, by virtue of his moral authority. It's independent of any deism. This may work for some, but it presumes there will be an answer, and moreover, that the answer will be right. And we both know this just isn't the case. I mean, how many god or satan told-me-to-do-it horror stories and excuses do we need in order for us to learn that merely asking the question is not enough? We must learn to ask _good_ questions, and demand _good_ answers, not ones that fade off into religious relativism.
I question church all the time. I think it's healthy. I recommend questioning government too. And it's not about getting the right answers; but understanding what the answers actually mean. If one says "I'm an atheist and I agree that all churches must burn"; that maybe the right answers for some I guess. But there are so many that just agree and say "oh shit!" When they've already are too deep.
And I am establishing the fact that you're, in general, wrong -- late or otherwise.There are no leaders of atheism. Not even Sam Harris is such a leader, and he'd be the first to laugh at the suggestion, although many might consider him a leading thinker who is also an atheist (I do). Any human being is apparently free to take the knowledge that there exists insufficient evidence to move one to a belief in "god things" (whatever a god is alleged to be, admitting there is no clear, unambiguous description or account that all god believers share that does justice to each and every one) and then go on about his or her life and form opinions. And this is all well and good, but the fact that one belief is held while another belief is also held is not sufficient to establish one as causing the other. I quoted you four times because four times you listed beliefs that seemed far more instrumental in the actions described than the belief that there is insufficient evidence for believing in god-things.
No. And here is why you are doomed to failure: there is no basis from the atheist position that gets you to "all churches must burn." You can't get there ... from there. You need to add something that serves as the logical justification (hence my god-as-authority ethics example).
I already gave an example of the Soviet Union. There are actual government letters that specify murdering theists. Now you are just arguing to argue.
Well thanks for the enlightenment. Now that you said I'm wrong; I can move on with my life! Lol No you are wrong! I've replied 4 times on examples of a atheistic society that muttered for the sake of their ideology! Lol
Chevyrunssometimes "I believe purple is a color" Magnifier661 "I like purple too" Chevyrunssometimes "no you don't like purple because you said pink is salmon" Magnifier661 "okay then I don't like purple" Chevyrunssometimes "no you like purple because you said you like purple" Magnifier661 "okay I like purple" Chevyrunssometimes "no you don't like purple because Christians can't like purple" Magnifier661 "so what is it then? Do I like purple or don't like purple?!" Chevyrunssometimes "purple isn't a color to Christians!" Magnifier661 "okay purple isn't a color then!" Chevyrunssometimes "see you Christians just don't get it!" Lmao!!!!!!
I think you're on the wrong side of this one, chevy. When government takes action to wipe out religious institutions and to replace those with secular humanstic ones, it sure looks every bit like a religious crusade. The Russian and Chinese (see Red Guard) were violently hostile toward religion and religious institutions (and sites). The anti-religious atheist sentiments were part of the political philosophy and machinery. So ingrained, there could be no other reason for the hostility toward religion. In fact, the "they don't believe what we need them to so we'll kill them" is pretty consistent across totalitarian regimes. I find it hard to believe that "all religious people are capitalist so they must die" is the rationale for specifically targeting ALL religious people.
Finally someone that understands what I've been saying! Man!!!!! And as I've said a thousand times; this isn't atheism. It's an exploitation of the ideology. I think atheists are offended like a Christian or muslim be offended if someone said all Christians are like Jim jones or Muslims are all the Taliban.
Chevy's point is well taken though. Every atheist isn't about doing away with religion and religious institutions. Only a small subset of atheists do. If the US government went about destroying religion, you'd be talking about maybe 1 in 300 people taking part in that kind of effort. There simply isn't anything about atheism, proper, that dictates the elimination of religion. It's a simple disbelief in deity.
Well I wasn't referencing that atheistic ideology says "kill all church members". I've been saying over and over again that any ideology can pursued people to do crazy things. Just like a pastor could influence his congregation to give up all their valuables and give it to the church. Definitely agree that in the atheism 101 doctrine it doesn't say "in order to be an atheist, you must kill 10 Christians". Lol
Atheist position (as me and my friends know and live it): their exists insufficient evidence for believing in god things. Thus: Until there exists sufficient evidence for believing in god things, I will probably not form any belief in such things -- just as I am unlikely to form a belief in smortleborfs or roggenshlapers any time soon. The position would also seem to presume a theory of belief: that trustworthy beliefs are beliefs formed as a result of being compelled by the actual and not the result of mere choosing from what one can imagine. The latter always carries the provisional stamp. I think the religious lose track of this after a sufficient period of time goes by and sufficient rationalizations and "sense shelters" are established.
