• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Are you purposefully avoiding an answer to my question?

No. China and the Soviets officially and unofficially repressed and persecuted religionists. These totalitarian regimes slaughtered more persons in the last century than all religious wars in history combined, times a factor of 20 or more. Unfortunately, brutal repression is one output of atheist dictators.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I'm sorry if it seems that way, but perhaps I wasn't clear. You can claim that Mao and Pol Pat didn't act on behalf of atheism according to your definition and even say that we shouldn't label them or their action as such, but that doesn't mean that Mao and Pol Pat weren't carrying out a perceived atheist agenda - an agenda whose basis was the propositions that 'Gods do not exist', 'Religions are make-believe', and the seemingly logical corollaries to that. Is that not what is meant when people say they 'killed in the name of atheism'?

Since you do not believe that Mao and Pol Pat were justified, then on which point do they fail?
Do they fail because:

A. The proposition that 'Gods do not exist' is false.
B. It does not follow that 'Religions are made by man, provide false happiness, and / or are tools to oppress, enslave, and manipulate'.
C. It does not further follow that religion must be abolished for people to find 'real' happiness'.
D. It does not further follow that millions of people must die before that can happen.

I'm not trying to be dense here. I believe this is the basic argument for the justification of their actions. If their argument for justifying their actions is not correct, then there must be some point on which you disagree specifically. Or that there was a different justification used for their actions?

Nope, according the the standard definition of atheism.

You are deluding yourself, surly you are using the Christian agenda to label nationalism with the much misunderstood (in christian quarters) atheist.

Their agenda was nationalism with violent opposition to any who disagreed, that included athiests

Who says killed in the name of atheism? Oh you do, this mistake has been explained to you several times on this thread alone, i wonder how many more times you have ignored reality bscause it does not fit well with your accusations?

As to your selective and very limited multiple choice, i chose E, none of the above. And it seems that as far as atheism is concerned you dont need to try.

The reason i believe they were not justified in there actions is that any murder,no matters what the claimed justification can not be justified i the name of humanity. Despite the divisions you and others impose, we are all human.

The justification given was nationalism, (god bless America). More to the, the mass murders were carried out out of fear of opposition.

You also need to consider that America drove a pacifist nation into a genocidal regime.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
That the government before was corrupt... I agree. That pastors lost their lives killed by Castro? yes. That churches were bulldozed down and other pastors thrown into jail just because they were Christians? Absolutely. Not by my word but by the word of honest pastors that lived and continue to live in that regime.

I remember when our associate pastor went to Cuba. He took notes of what little food was received by the people of Cuba as well as other situations.. When he got back to the States, those pages had been ripped out of his note pad, courtesy of the government.

This is a second reply to this post. I agree that the government in Cuba is repressive, among other things. I am only trying to point out that pastors or priests henerally are not jailed because they are pastors or priests (the pope was not jailed when he visited......) but rather because they do something that is prohibited by the government.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
That had zip-all to do with atheism. But I take your attempt to lie in the name of your beliefs once again, as a demonstration that cognitive dissonance is Alive And Well among the Faithful.

It kinda has to be-- what with the reliance on internally contradictory Holey Books you all seem to have...

But more to the point? THEY DID TOLERATE CERTAIN FLAVORS OF RELIGION. Eastern Orthodox, for example THRIVED under the USSR. How about that?

China's culture includes Ancestor Worship -- which also THRIVED, and still does to this day.

It's just that these RELIGIONS are ... obviously.... not ones YOU, PERSONALLY approved of.

How HORRIBLE of them to fail to recognize YOUR authority like that! Forsooth!

Perhaps you can CURSE them like a fig tree?

In Moscow of just a few years ago, Western dignitaries were brought to see the magnificent church in the center of the city--you know the one with the famous onion dome--to see the 10,000 parishoners within. AWESOME!

1. This was the sole church tolerated by the regime in a city of 10,000,000 persons--that's right, they were limiting religion to one in 10,000 persons to put on a show for the West

2. Most of the parishoners were aged enough to be seniors, considered non-threatening to the regime

3. Many recorded how the Russian pastors were put in gulags and replaced by police state informants, so that when one responded to the gospel in these old, dead churches and was saved, one could not tell one's "pastor" without experiencing imprisonment and persecution

Not only did the Orthodox avoid "thriving" in the USSR, they managed to pull the wool over the eyes of many in the West.

I would not curse them or you, but I would pray for them and for you.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
You do not understand Marx. Religion is seen as a false perception of reality, this is an absolute. Such religious restraint is not entertained as it is false to it's core as religion is false This is true even if one sees the result as positive like say charity. Religion divides people thus is a threat to the proper perception to reality and the society created from it. People that do not abandon their religion are a threat to the new social order by holding to false idea which created the world Marx wanted to destroy and replace.

What does this have to do with atheist Marxists killing tens of millions of "dangerous" religious persons, or with Marx's demanding personal appetite for endless world conflict?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
You might as well point out that they were right handed, and then lay all those deaths on being right handed.

So you are unaware that once Stalin embraced atheism and evolution, making people organic fodder, that liberated him towards being perhaps the worst mass murderer of all time? Interesting.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
No. China and the Soviets officially and unofficially repressed and persecuted religionists. These totalitarian regimes slaughtered more persons in the last century than all religious wars in history combined, times a factor of 20 or more. Unfortunately, brutal repression is one output of atheist dictators.
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.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Okay. So what you are saying is that Mao and Pol Pat didn't actually care about atheism. So their motivations were not rooted in the belief 'Gods do not exist'. Given that we can probably argue about their motivations forever, I'll concede that as a fair point.

But regardless of their motivation, what was the justification for their actions? What reason did they give to justify the deaths?

Well, like any sociopath or psychopath? They simply didn't bother.

Look at the sociopath-in-chief currently residing in the White House: Does he ever justify what he says or does?

No. He does not even try.

He preaches empty platitudes, such as "make American great" and the like.

So, too, Mao and Pot (Stalin, Hitler and the rest) do not bother to justify what they do-- in fact, I seriously doubt it even enters any of their minds, that justification is necessary!

You and I (and most people) are Empathetic, and therefore, not sociopaths. Thus, anytime we do something Extreme? We feel it needful to justify doing such a thing.

And even then we all too often suffer Post Traumatic Stress, for the aftermath!

These horrific people that we are speaking of? Crave Power. It feeds into their massively overblown Egos.

They do whatever they want, Because They Can, and Because They Think They Deserve To.

When they gain Ultimate Power, as a Head Of State? They become monsters....

If it were not for the very Clever and Fore-thinking people who wrote the US Constitution? Imagine how much of a rampage trumpEgo would be doing Right Now!

Under Mao and Pot? There were no such limitations-- they has as close to absolute power as it was possible to have, and not be swallowed up by it.

As happened so often in History: Look at the principles in the French Revolution--- they were each, eventually removed from power by the very Engines they created.

I expect that is what happens most of the time-- History was simply re-written to seem less brutal, by the successors...
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
So you are unaware that once Stalin embraced atheism and evolution, making people organic fodder, that liberated him towards being perhaps the worst mass murderer of all time? Interesting.

You have evidence for your Fairy Tale? What's that? The same "source" that "proves" your bible is .... "historical"?

Okaaaay.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
This is a second reply to this post. I agree that the government in Cuba is repressive, among other things. I am only trying to point out that pastors or priests henerally are not jailed because they are pastors or priests (the pope was not jailed when he visited......) but rather because they do something that is prohibited by the government.

again... I respect your viewpoint. If, however, I had to choose between your viewpoint and the multiplicity of pastors in Cuba who give me a different report... I would choose the pastors who live there.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Your pastor was allowed to travel to Cuba and was not imprisoned or killed. That tends to refute your claim. As to the notebook pages, I have no idea what was written on them, and neither do you. Neither do you know who tore the pages out. In any case, tearing pages from a notebook does not equate to imprisonment and is irrelevant.

It depends on "when" and "what" you are talking about.

Your veiwpoint about an American in Cuba doesn't take into account international reprecussion vs. a native Cuba which refutes your viewpoint.

As far as the notebook, that position is ridiculous. As rediculous as saying all of Clinton's erased emails were personal because you and I don't know what was on them.

However, since it was an associate pastor of mine, why would I doubt him?

As far as "imprisonment", those who were imprisoned have a different viewpoint than you that, in my view, never lived there. (I could be wrong, because I don't know you, but your viewpoints give that indication".

After all, with you position, Genghis Kahn never existed because you weren't there and I wasn't either. (If I go by your statements)
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
So you are unaware that once Stalin embraced atheism and evolution, making people organic fodder, that liberated him towards being perhaps the worst mass murderer of all time? Interesting.

First, Stalin and communist Russia rejected evolution. They replaced it with Lysenkoism which is similar to Larmarckism.

Second, atheism in no way condones nor encourages atrocities. If the only thing keeping Stalin from murdering people was his religious beliefs then he had serious mental issues that has nothing to do with atheism. If you lack an inner morality then you are a psychopath.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
The latest example of the Iron Law of RF : The frequency by which a poster mentions logical fallacies will be inversely proportional to their ability to apply them correctly.

Superficial knowledge of the names of a few fallacies is often an impediment to thought, not an aid.

You are currently batting 0.000.

There is no ad hom, as 'you don't understand how language works' is linked to an explanation of why you clearly don't understand how language works.



Can't beat getting 'schooled' on a question of subjective preference...

AFAIK, your entire argument has been: my definition of atheism is the only valid one because me and some other atheists prefer it and those that disagree are objectively wrong for some reason I can't/won't explain.

Have I missed anything out?

Can you explain the mechanism by which someone using a normal word, with a normal meaning, in a normal context, in a way most people can understand can be considered objectively 'wrong'?

Otherwise it's just you repeating "I'm right. I'm right" rather than having an actual reasoned discussion, which is a waste of time.

$64 dollar insults. Nice. Not a single sensible or rational argument in the lot.

Ain't you cute? I've watched you repeat your same failures with other posters-- pretty much everyone here who bothers to reply to your blather.

If the majority of others are systematically destroying your posts-- maybe you should reconsider?

No? Well I thought as much----
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
In Moscow of just a few years ago, Western dignitaries were brought to see the magnificent church in the center of the city--you know the one with the famous onion dome--to see the 10,000 parishoners within. AWESOME!

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.
1. This was the sole church tolerated by the regime in a city of 10,000,000 persons--that's right, they were limiting religion to one in 10,000 persons to put on a show for the West

2. Most of the parishoners were aged enough to be seniors, considered non-threatening to the regime

3. Many recorded how the Russian pastors were put in gulags and replaced by police state informants, so that when one responded to the gospel in these old, dead churches and was saved, one could not tell one's "pastor" without experiencing imprisonment and persecution

Not only did the Orthodox avoid "thriving" in the USSR, they managed to pull the wool over the eyes of many in the West.

I would not curse them or you, but I would pray for them and for you.

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.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
So you are unaware that once Stalin embraced atheism and evolution, making people organic fodder, that liberated him towards being perhaps the worst mass murderer of all time? Interesting.

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.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
What does this have to do with atheist Marxists killing tens of millions of "dangerous" religious persons, or with Marx's demanding personal appetite for endless world conflict?

Where do you think Marxists got the idea? From Marx...... It is an ideology which justifies murdering people because their beliefs are part of world Marxist want to replace. Their beliefs lead to class, us vs them, you vs me, believer vs unbeliever. It was such an absolute ideology that it offered pretty much convert or die.
 
$64 dollar insults. Nice. Not a single sensible or rational argument in the lot.

Ain't you cute? I've watched you repeat your same failures with other posters-- pretty much everyone here who bothers to reply to your blather.

If the majority of others are systematically destroying your posts-- maybe you should reconsider?

No? Well I thought as much----

:facepalm:

While I disagree with the 'other posters', at least they actually make an attempt to argue their case rather than naively thinking that forcefully claiming they are right constitutes a 'schooling'.

I find their reasoning flawed (as they do mine), but at least we actually use reasoning and argumentation. You generally don't even make arguments, just claims.

That puts them significantly above your level. Perhaps they could 'school' you also :grinning:

Unless you want to 'systematically destroy my post' by answering this simple question that is fundamental to your claim, I'm not going to waste any more time in this non-discussion:

Can you explain the mechanism by which someone using a normal word, with a normal meaning, in a normal context, in a way most people can understand can be considered objectively 'wrong'?

I'm guessing the answer is "no, but I'm going to deflect from that with a bit of random babbling so my ego can claim I schooled him". Maybe you could prove me wrong on this though, we all live in hope...
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
No. China and the Soviets officially and unofficially repressed and persecuted religionists. These totalitarian regimes slaughtered more persons in the last century than all religious wars in history combined, times a factor of 20 or more. Unfortunately, brutal repression is one output of atheist dictators.

It seems to be correct, please.
Regards
 
Top