Militant Atheism

[outhouse]

Pol Pot

Raised Christian

 

[outhouse]

Mao

Raised Buddhist

 

[outhouse]

Communism is atheism's problem.

How is a political embarrassment, and problem for non theist?


It is politic problem, because politics used atheism as a tool to control people. Atheism did not control the political decisions



Try again

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It makes no more sense to talk about "forms of atheism" than it does to talk about "forms of non-smoking". Some non-smokers use the time and money they would've spent smoking to volunteer; others use it to commit crime. The one "form of non-smoker" has nothing to do with the other.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487
http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-types-atheists-and-non-believers-america
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
There are many types of atheism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He was also a born and raised theist.

Raised Christian

Raised Buddhist

What they were is irrelevant. What they were is, and what they were were statist and militant atheists. But, it does show that how the system is set up isn't as important as whose setting it up.

 

[outhouse]

What they were is irrelevant.

Disagree. Its the foundation of who the persons was.

1. Were these people atheists?
2. If so, was their atheism causally instrumental in these people carrying out such atrocities?
3. Are these atrocities different in any particular and important way to those carried out by religious predecessors?

 

[outhouse]

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/...atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

By contrast to all this, the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and to Pol Pot’s fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism. In all of these cases, the situation was more complex – as, to be fair, also applies to some of the persecutions and atrocities in which religious movements, organizations, and leaders have been deeply implicated over the centuries.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Disagree. Its the foundation of who the persons was.

In that sense, very few people could actually call themselves an atheist, or any real adherent of any philosophy or religion. Just because I was a Christian doesn't mean I am now, and it doesn't mean my decisions are made in regards to Christian ideology.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By contrast to all this, the Soviet Union was undeniably an atheist state, and the same applies to Maoist China and to Pol Pot’s fanatical Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in the 1970s. That does not, however, show that the atrocities committed by these totalitarian dictatorships were the result of atheist beliefs, carried out in the name of atheism, or caused primarily by the atheistic aspects of the relevant forms of communism. In all of these cases, the situation was more complex – as, to be fair, also applies to some of the persecutions and atrocities in which religious movements, organizations, and leaders have been deeply implicated over the centuries.

You do realize that theists use the same sort of argument to try to defend their beliefs against it's own evil doings, right?

 

[outhouse]

In that sense, very few people could actually call themselves an atheist, or any real adherent of any philosophy or religion. Just because I was a Christian doesn't mean I am now, and it doesn't mean my decisions are made in regards to Christian ideology.

I understand atheism is not innocent here, but these communist tactics are weak theistic attacks, using political motivated tragedies to attack people with different opinions.

 

[outhouse]

You do realize that theists use the same sort of argument to try to defend their beliefs against it's own evil doings, right?

Doesn't matter.

These examples are for he most part political, and the people that used atheism for their political agenda.

Its behavior of bad people regardless of faith or lack of.

It was not their lack of belief in a god that caused these tragedies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we as atheists are going to spend most of our time debating people's most deeply held beliefs and criticising them, eventually- it ours turn. Communism is atheism's problem. it's that simple.

No, it isn't. Communism is communists' problem, whether they're theists or atheists.

atheism doesn't come in a single shape or size and yeah and it isn't an automatic relationship between communism and atheism. there are alot of ways to become an atheist. But communism is still atheist and it was used to justify some really aweful things. Stalin was an atheist. Mao was an athiest. Pol Pot was an atheist.

And Hitler was a vegetarian. Should this be a problem for modern vegetarians?

If we want to blame religion for a load of stuff they did, theists get the right to do it to us to. if we want to criticise religious people for having beliefs that don't measure up to the facts, they get to do it to us as well.

But atheism isn't a thing that makes an "us". There is no commonality between "people who aren't theists". It's as disparate a group as "people who don't speak Chinese".

Skepticism and Free Thought work both ways. We get to be sceptical of them, and they do of us. We question they're faith, and so why shouldn't we question our reason? it's not a reflection on us when we get it wrong. But it is a reflection on us when we prefer to ignore the truth.

Go ahead - question my reasons for my positions... but don't assume that I share the positions or problems of some other guy just because he and I both don't believe in any gods (or don't smoke, or don't speak Chinese).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487
http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-types-atheists-and-non-believers-america
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
There are many types of atheism.

Indeed: there's as many "types of atheism" as there are atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't it implied by Atheism that religion is harmful?

You tell us. Start with the premise "I don't believe in any gods" and give us a chain of valid reasoning that doesn't rely on any other premises and ends with "therefore, I should consider religion harmful."

Good luck.

 

[Nakosis]

You tell us. Start with the premise "I don't believe in any gods" and give us a chain of valid reasoning that doesn't rely on any other premises and ends with "therefore, I should consider religion harmful."

Good luck.

That's already been done via Karl Marx. He saw religion as suppressing the greatness of man. Religion is oppression like slavery. If you don't free your fellowman from oppression, allowing each person to become the greatest possible being they could be, what kind of human are you? (that's a rhetorical question)

""The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being." - Karl Marx

The question for you would be rather you see religion as a good healthy pursuit. If yes then why don't you pursue it? If no then, if you don't see religion as healthy, why don't you have any concern for your fellowman?

A third choice would be to have no opinion about religion, which would mean that you'd be equally fine with a theocracy.

There's another option but I don't want to dilute the response yet.

 

[Nakosis]

This is from the 1959 court case which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools.

"Your petitioners are atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment."

Sounds a bit like Marx.
Wouldn't an Atheist want his fellowman to also find a life of fulfillment?

Why worry about separation of church and state if there is nothing wrong with religion?

Certainly there is no necessary reason an atheist has to care about his fellowman. Let all them folks remain slaves to their religions beliefs. So there are caring atheists who fight against the slavery of their fellowman and those which don't care about anyone else being suppressed by it as long as they are left alone.

Lets say for the sake of argument that a person is an atheist and happens to care about his fellowman. This is the logical position of Marx isn't it?

 

[Ouroboros]

He was also a born and raised theist.

How can someone be "born" theist if everyone by default is atheist? You mean his family and parents where theists, but not that he was actually born a theist. Right?

 

[outhouse]

You mean his family and parents where theists, but not that he was actually born a theist. Right?

Correct.

Good catch. I meant born into theism. Brain does not always communicate well with the typing fingers

 

[Nakosis]

After 13 pages, the freethinkers are still in denial. Good luck with your scepticism.

I think Karl Marx's reasoning was used, probably against his intents, to justify atrocity. I can see his reasoning being used to justify action against religion, not necessarily violence. Just maybe the actions we see atheists taking now. Legal, protests, putting up billboards etc.

I also see the potential of Marx's words to resonate with fellow atheists. No doubt why they were used in a political manner. Like Christians using the gospels to go to war over the "Holy Lands".

I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate here. I personally don't agree with Marx.

However I also believe that people, even though they like to think themselves independent thinkers, they really aren't that independent. People who hear something that supports what they already believe long enough, the thinking start to get programmed in. The logic becomes reasonable.

We are still dealing with this subconscious brain which is larger, more powerful than the consciousness we possess. It has a lot to do with what we accept as reasonable.

Consciously we are independent, subconsciously, maybe not so much.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Doesn't matter.

It does matter, because it's the same "no true Christian/Muslim/Etc." would use to defend their own group against the bad things people did in its name. The Crusades, for example, many Christians will argue that it was somehow different, somehow not applicable, and not something that represents their religion. The most frequently used phrase is "no true (or real) Christian would do this."
Stalin was an atheist. In terms of his views of the supernatural, however, it seems to be entirely irrelevant, except that it does show that people do not need religion to do great acts of violence.