Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism

[BilliardsBall]

Stalin was trained as an Eastern Orthodox Priest. He never really recanted. I suspect that god or no-god simply did not enter into his thoughts one way or another-- that's the way of Egotists and Sociopaths.

Look at the trumpEgo: He does not care one way or another, about religion. He uses it and discards it, on a whim-- so long as it continues to feed his Ego, and Power? He cares little either way.

It simply does not matter to these people one way or another.

Naturally, you see that as the Highest Of Insult, that your belief simply does not matter in the slightest to these Men Of Power.

Which could explain your attitude about them.... in fact, that explains a great deal about theists...

What they hate the most, is that their theism simply isn't even on the thought horizon of people, so irrelevant it has become.

So you are unfamiliar with Stalin's statements regarding men not being spiritual, and therefore, he could slaughter them like cattle...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course! Those in Power had total control of this Puppet of their Power Structure.

This is hardly surprising-- they were very Jealous of their Power, after all.


Ain't that cute. YOU are the ALL POWERFUL AUTHORITY of what is Valid Religion and what Is Not.

I wonder what god thinks of your new position of Authority? Or would he condemn you for Hubris?

Not only did Eastern Orthodox thrive? It was large and healthy enough, that when the U.S.S.R eventually fell, it rose back to full power in a very short time.

It seems that those wily Russians were quietly attending Eastern Orthodox in spite of their government's attempts to control it.

Feel free to respond to what I actually wrote, where I demonstrated how Russia suppressed the church.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you even realize that you are still avoiding an answer to my question?

How or when or why did any of that happen in the name of atheism?

Can it be that you are so confused about atheism that you sincerely believe that it is implied or implicit? Because it is neither.

A bunch of atheists slaughtered 100 million people because their atheism helped inform them that people have no implicit value. That is killing in the spirit of atheism, not the name of atheism,(although the totalitarians were seeking a worldwide Communist takeover, to help advance atheism), so stop splitting hairs, please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A bunch of atheists slaughtered 100 million people because their atheism helped inform them that people have no implicit value. That is killing in the spirit of atheism, not the name of atheism,(although the totalitarians were seeking a worldwide Communist takeover, to help advance atheism), so stop splitting hairs, please.

Oh boy! By these standards the dead from countless wars is killing in the spirit of Christianity. Upwards of eighty million in WWII alone can be attributed to the most infamous Christian ever.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Correlation does not equal causation.

That is correct. However, many of the more brutal repressions were done to foster atheistic Communism worldwide, and were tolerable since people were not in God's image, but fodder for revolution and repression.

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you for your answer. However, if I understand you correctly the main point of your reply is that people were so caught up in loyalty to and pride in their own nation... that they killed millions of people that were part of their nation. Well, I must say that I find that answer too confusing to consider it worth much credence.

Your prerogative to be confused, its easy enough to understand though. Opposition to dictatorial nationalism is not tolerated, whether that opposition comes from branches of religion, atheism, colour, birth right, it doesn't matter to the dictator.

 

[ChristineM]

So you are unfamiliar with Stalin's statements regarding men not being spiritual, and therefore, he could slaughter them like cattle...

So you are unfamiliar with Stalin reopening the seminary in Moscow and over 20000 churches, donating millions to the church, stating "surely jesus existed" and who's funeral was officiated by not one, not two but 3 church leaders including a patriarch.

Sounds like he church in Russia loved him even if you didnt

 

[ChristineM]

That is correct. However, many of the more brutal repressions were done to foster atheistic Communism worldwide, and were tolerable since people were not in God's image, but fodder for revolution and repression.

Atheism is not communism.

Fyi, during the purges in russia, as a percentage, more atheists were killed than Christians.

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheism is not communism.

Fyi, during the purges in russia, as a percentage, more atheists were killed than Christians.

Haven't the fanatic the "so called Islamists" killed more Muslims than the non-Muslims?
So, Quran/Islam/Muhammad should not be blamed for the violence the fanatics do, there is no teachings in Quran/Islam/Muhammad to kill innocent humans for nothing. It should be easy to understand. Right, please?
Regards

 

[ChristineM]

Haven't the fanatic the "so called Islamists" killed more Muslims than the non-Muslims?
So, Quran/Islam/Muhammad should noted be blamed for the violence the fanatics do, there is no teachings in Quran/Islam/Muhammad to kill innocent humans for nothing. It should be easy to understand. Right, please?
Regards

May be fanatic but definitely Muslim and yes they have killed more Muslims than non Muslim's. Their interpretation of the Qur'an justifies their slaughters. Pretty much like extreme branches of just about any religion can justify slaughter of anyone who does not believe precisely as they do.


As for no teachings
Those who believe, fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Satan. So fight you against the friends of Satan. Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Satan.- Qur'an 4:76

I.e. the quran states all non Muslims are Satanist's and should be fought.

 

[Augustus]

The problem there is that one of those definitions is a subset of the other. What all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in gods. A subset of them also assert as fact that gods don't exist, the remainder being agnostic on the subject. What use is a definition of atheist that leaves out many atheists? Wouldn't that be analogous to defining bird as a flying animal that perches in trees and sings? Such a definition excludes ostriches and penguins for example.

The reasoning here is somewhat tautological. If you subscribe to 'disbelief', it misses out no atheists.

The choice is between thinking of atheism as a philosophical position one takes regarding the question 'god/s exist', or thinking it describes a state. Is atheism that requires you to 'opt-in' to be an atheist or is it something that requires you to 'opt-out' before you can't be considered an atheist?

If you think it is a philosophical position, then obviously those who have not adopted such a position are not atheists.

(Disbelief doesn't necessarily require a specific belief that gods don't exist and certainly not a belief it is fact, just a conscious awareness you don't believe they exist. That's assuming you think the difference between the 2 positions reflects a cognitive reality rather than simply being a grammatical construction)

 

[paarsurrey]

May be fanatic but definitely Muslim and yes they have killed more Muslims than non Muslim's. Their interpretation of the Qur'an justifies their slaughters. Pretty much like extreme branches of just about any religion can justify slaughter of anyone who does not believe precisely as they do.


As for no teachings
Those who believe, fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Satan. So fight you against the friends of Satan. Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Satan.- Qur'an 4:76

I.e. the quran states all non Muslims are Satanist's and should be fought.

Those who believe, fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Satan. So fight you against the friends of Satan. Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Satan.- Qur'an 4:76

Please understand and quote the above verse of the Quran with its context verse, some verse preceding the verse and some verses following it. Most sentences are understood out of its context sentences. Right, please?
I believe one has not read/studied any such verse of Quran from the context verses and that is the reason why "Islam is the most misunderstood religion in contemporary society". Please
Regards

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There is no standardization of Atheism, there are as many kinds of Atheism people as their numbers, so if some of them are peaceful, then there are others who are full of hatred, one can't deny and shut one's eye from them.

There is only one kind of atheism: a lack of belief in deities. Anything outside of that lack of belief is not atheism.

 

[ChristineM]

Those who believe, fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Satan. So fight you against the friends of Satan. Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Satan.- Qur'an 4:76

Please understand and quote the above verse of the Quran with its context verse, some verse preceding the verse and some verses following it. Most sentences are understood out of its context sentences. Right, please?
I believe one has not read/studied any such verse of Quran from the context verses and that is the reason why "Islam is the most misunderstood religion in contemporary society". Please
Regards

i understand, do extremist's? They are free to interpret as they want to, and they do, getting their justification from cherry picking the Qur'an.

My point was that you said "there is no teachings in Quran/Islam/Muhammad to kill innocent humans for nothing". The verse i quoted shows otherwise.

Yes i have read some of the Qur'an but never studied it

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

'atheist ideology' is a phrase in which the word 'atheist' is used as an adjective to modify the word 'ideology' which is a noun. Since your ideology is 'secular humanism', then may I presume that you would regard 'secular humanism' as an 'atheist ideology'?

Secular humanism is one ideology or worldview that an atheist can hold. Referring to atheist ideology suggests that atheism can be an ideology itself. Atheists can hold any number of worldviews that don't include gods. Probably most people into astrology are atheists if they think the stars guide their lives. Secular humanists are continually grouped with Stalinists and other kinds of brutal authoritarian ideologies and regimes as the title of this thread illustrates yet again. It's all dishonestly conflated together under atheism by theists who can't promote or defend their own ideology, and so attack the alternative just as the creationist cannot promote creationism except to try to cripple its alternatives, abiogenesis and biological evolution..

there are still people who do believe that for the world to be a better place millions of people with their religious beliefs are going to have to die.

But most also do not want to kill them. Christianity in the West is waning as atheism is growing, and this is due to older Christians dying of natural causes, not converting, and their non-Christian grandchildren who prefer atheism, New Age alternatves, Wicca, paganism, dharmic religions and the like replacing them.

 

[Augustus]

Fyi, during the purges in russia, as a percentage, more atheists were killed than Christians.

Well the purges were primarily focused on the Soviet Communist Party whose members were all supposed to be atheists.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well the purges were primarily focused on the Soviet Communist Party whose members were all supposed to be atheists.

It is a good point.
Regards

 

[Ponder This]

Secular humanism is one ideology or worldview that an atheist can hold. Referring to atheist ideology suggests that atheism can be an ideology itself. Atheists can hold any number of worldviews that don't include gods. Probably most people into astrology are atheists if they think the stars guide their lives. Secular humanists are continually grouped with Stalinists and other kinds of brutal authoritarian ideologies and regimes as the title of this thread illustrates yet again. It's all dishonestly conflated together under atheism by theists who can't promote or defend their own ideology, and so attack the alternative just as the creationist cannot promote creationism except to try to cripple its alternatives, abiogenesis and biological evolution..



But most also do not want to kill them. Christianity in the West is waning as atheism is growing, and this is due to older Christians dying of natural causes, not converting, and their non-Christian grandchildren who prefer atheism, New Age alternatves, Wicca, paganism, dharmic religions and the like replacing them.

Thank you for a well written coherent response.
I think it's fair to say that atheists can have a variety of ideologies.

And I think we've hit upon something significant: that while many people believe that the religious and god believing people will have to die for the masses to achieve 'real happiness', for the most part they balk at doing the deed themselves. There is a moral hang-up about the part where you hasten 'utopia' through murder.

So far, I haven't had any atheists post on this forum that the fundamental communist argument was in any way incorrect, even those that seem to very adamantly declare that atheism is 'lack of belief' have not posted saying that the flaw in the argument is the proposition 'Gods do not exist'. Not has anyone said that any of the statement following do not follow:
Religion is false, offers false happiness, is a tool of oppression, enslavement, and manipulation.
Religion will have to be abolished before people can find 'real happiness'.
And millions of people will have to die for that to happen.

The only objection is that they don't support murder.

Some want to say it's not about the fundamental proposed argument. It's about some other force acting, but that's a dodge. It avoids them having to really offer their opinion on the logic.

It seems that they agree with Sam Harris that communism and fascism were correct in their criticisms of religion. And like Sam Harris they have an issue with making the leap from what logically follows to taking action based on the irrefutable argument (the criticism of religion) in the form of murder.

So yeah, there's a complaint among the atheists that they've been lumped in with ideas or actions that they don't support. But when you actually question them about the logic. The irrefutable necessity that millions must die, they do the natural human thing and evade evade evade, refuse to answer, engage in ad hominem, and plead that they are merely being unfairly grouped with bad people by theists.

And maybe some of the things they are saying are true, but I'm not here to here to dispute those things.

 

[Ponder This]

Personal labels don't have ideologies, atheist is just a position on belief. While there are many secular humanists out there that are also atheists, atheism still is just the position of the lack of belief or the reservation of it.

Is someone who is a christian adhere strictly to Christisan doctrine? of course not.

There is no established creed that all atheists follow.

That's fair. there isn't one ideology that atheists indisputably favor. So therefore, a claim that the killings were done in the name of atheism cannot be truly said to be supported by all atheists everywhere, just like killings in the name of Christianity cannot be truly said to be supported by all Christians everywhere.

However, as far as I've determined, there are not any atheists on this thread who objected to the fundamental argument that justifies the murders. They appear to agree with the logic, but disagree with the actions. In other words, it seems as if atheists agree that millions of people will have to die... they just don't agree with murdering them. Is that a fair statement?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Which is completely irrelevant to whether something is correct or 'wrong'. She is just as right or wrong as I am on this point. Which is it?

Come on though, get over yourself at least and have a modicum of self-awreness, look at your interactions with all types on this thread and it is exactly what you are whining about in others. You also seem to have forgotten that you initiated the conversation and its tone (and also repeatedly misrepresented what I was saying and imagining ad homs). Half of your emotional outbursts have been directed against things you are imagining.

People generally respond to how other's interact with them. When you initiate conversations in a self-righteous and patronising manner, it is likely I will respond in turn. So don't be so precious and whine about someone treating you as you treat them or you may be seen as hypocritical.

Go back and check if you think this is 'cognitive dissonance' or whatever.

Can you quote the personal insults btw, just to objectively prove they are not in your imagination, as I don't remember any. (and no, saying 'you don't understand how language work' in a post which explains the difference between how language works and your argument is not an ad hom).

Ain't you just the cutest thing?