The amount of attacks against religion in these HubPages Religion & Beliefs forums is akin to Communist Russia between 1925-1947 with the League of the Militant Godless (aka the Union of Belligerent Atheists). Because these aggressive types just make up a small minority of society it is very clear they are organized with their attacks against religion in these forums. Don't be deceived, these same aggressive types are responsible for just about 100 million needless deaths in Marxist countries during the twentieth century.
Wrong again (Q).
Quote from Society of the Godless
You (and anyone like you), Dawkins and the League of the Militant Godless are like three peas in the same pod.
Communists, you and Dawkins are not just militant against Christianity but all religions. Yet like it has already been stated in this thread, your militant atheism is like a very aggressive religion in itself. Can anyone say McCarthyism. With communism's track record, it's needed.
It's well known that Communism and Christianity are of similar natures in which the godhead in Christianity is replaced by the a dictator in Communism.
So, now that you've turned to lying, have you working this out with your god and does he approve of your lying?
Considering that all religions have brought little more than ignorance, destruction and death to our world, it would appear the logical course of action.
Once again, you are lying and you know it. You also demonstrate the bigotry and hatred your religion has taught you. Sad indeed.
Christianity the pillars of which are not hatred or bigotry, please lets have a civil discussion, at the very least do not espouse unfounded allegations, show some intilect and perspective. Emotional alegations have no place in this format, or any other social interaction, we are civilized afterall
Actually, what I really find reprehensible with your accusation is the fact that you compare the torture and murder of human beings to the criticisms and mockery of your bronze age ideology.
THIS, in light of the centuries of torture and murder Christians doled out to human beings.
At this point, I would very much like to tell you what I really think about you and your accusation, however I usually bite my lip first rather than stooping down to your level of vile and wretched nature.
Yes ! my lips are swollen of so much biting!
Can you explain why some Christians like to paint themselves as eternal victims when they almost never are?
I don't know about the whole Russian thing or anything like that but I did find this... after seeing another comment about Dawkings urging militant atheist.
I had to look because I didn't believe you but it is true. He does 'urge' a militant atheism. He also urges atheist and 'non-theist' to "stop being so damned respectful". He calls his atheist audience 'elite' ask for their money about five times.
From your link:
"The session was titled "The Design of Life," and the TED audience was probably expecting remarks about evolution's role in our history from biologist Richard Dawkins. Instead, he launched into a full-on appeal for atheists to make public their beliefs and to aggressively fight the incursion of religion into politics and education (quoting Douglas Adams in the bargain). Scientists and intellectuals hold very different beliefs about God from the American public, he says, yet they are cowed by the overall political environment."
I don't believe you watched the whole thing because it is a half hour long...
I have seen that video before along with a number of other videos, along with attending his seminars, reading his books and spending some time one on one with him. I completely understand his position on religion and atheism.
He is correct in that we shouldn't be showing any respect whatsoever to religious ideologies. He never claims to be disrespectful to people. Big difference.
And, it's not Dawkings, its Dawkins.
Yeah oopps, Dawkins. So you don't have any respect for people of religions? And you believe that issuing creeds of disrespect is going to solve the problem?
Ah, you see I think your getting some misinformation here. I never said anything (and neither did Dawkins) about disrespecting people, only the ideologies, which are two very distinct concepts.
What Dawkins, and other so-called 'militant' atheists are stating is that religions don't deserve the respect they currently have, especially when faith-based agendas are being pushed through in schools, politics and our everyday lives.
Hey whatever, I watched the video and that is not what he said. You can try to fill me up with foo foo bs about what he 'meant' to say and play the same card that some religions play but I would rather see it for what it is then try to persuade myself of what 'he really meant to say'.
* just like religion
It's highly unfortunate that you place your entire opinion of a man (whose name you don't know) on one video and call it a religion.
Aren't you demonstrating the same belief principles as theists? In other words, you don't do the necessary homework.
It's the same as theists making claims that Einstein was a theist because they totally misunderstand his statements.
If you would like to get a better understanding of him, watch the "Growing up in the Universe" series, they are free to watch on YouTube. Highly recommended viewing.
And there you go... the same reasoning that religions use.
Both are one in the same with different names.
You must be a religionist. Please tell me how someone is 'intellectually dishonest'.
"Intellectual dishonesty" can be summed up thusly:
* the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
* the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
Or your opinion against my opinion... both are pretty honest to me but you seem more afraid to move away from both sides.
Afraid you wont find a place to fit in?
Not really, I'm just making assertions that you're presenting your opinions based on misinformation or information you already know but are conveniently forgetting. All I did was to offer you the opportunity to do some more research into Dawkins before continuing with your position.
Not really. "Fitting in" isn't really as important as understanding.
Sadly - I guess you are returning to Jesus - as is to be expected when tough times hit. Nevertheless - you have inspired me to add this to my growing video collection. It is especially ironic as the term "militant atheism" was poking fun at people like make money.
Dawkins at his best and funniest.
http://video.markpknowles.com/richard-d … nt-atheism
Nope, don't follow that either. Like I said, F**k'em both!
Well - I can see you are fed up with them both.
So - why don't you leave them alone?
Me? I can't for the moment. I think religion is the bane of our existence and would love to see something better.
But - atheism does offer ethical approaches and reasoning that no one seems to be interested in listening to.
I will listen just don't say anything about theist or atheist just leave all that garbage out of it but of course it is a pretty tough thing to do since both sides will insist on one or the other.
Will do, I think I will adopt a new motto...
Science doesn't need atheism or theism.
You must be talking about private schools? there is no God or faith based agendas in our public shools.
Now I'm interested. Let me put down the evolutionary science book our local schools are teaching. I might learn something from you.
Are you saying that theists are NOT trying to push the Creationism agenda into public schools?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_a … _education
I'm sorry, I thought you said that it was there and you are trying to get it out.
thanks for confirming what I said.
example- biggest problem with you guys is you can't read, followed closely by dislexia.
It would appear, evidently, that what you thought I said and what I actually said were two different things.
I'm sure you probably just misread it and are not trying to put words in my mouth.
The religion agenda is won in education via disproportionate funding. Private schools recieving public money and in the ratio where public schooling is now hardly an option.
Thank you for posting that Sandra. It was major cnn news about 4 days ago.
there are many Dawkins "praisers" in here that take all his advise as doctorine.
He uses the same rhetoric that those 'evil' religionist like Hilter used.
It seems that Americans can't understand British irony
Maybe that's why Mr. Dawkins asks if they understand his quaint British accent
Actually at first I thought he was joking but when I finally finished watching the video I realized he really is serious.
maybe you have hearing problems ?
Or you don't know what irony means
Nope, don't seem so but sorry I don't like your leader anymore. Hope this doesn't come between us.
Hitler came into this one rather soon!
Thanks Sandra. That basically proves my point. Here's a quote from Dawkin's own web site.
What a farce.
Um....did your spiritual leader tell you to drink the Kool-Aid this morning? lol
gee it seemsmost of the forums are about religion and it gets kinda boring dont ya think
I agree that the anti-religion comments on Hubpages are often over the top, so I can see why you'd be bothered by it, but to compare this to the Soviet Union is absolutely shameful. I am not defending the tone of a lot of the comments, really I'm not, honest. However, anyone living in a democracy (as you do) should be ashamed of himself for even suggesting that you go through the horror that millions have suffered at the hands of Soviet, Chinese, Korean, and Cambodian Communists, as well of course as the Nazis (and, yes the Spanish Inquisition too, of course).
The point is that YOU HAVE IT CUSHY. You live in a country that allows debate of all sorts. Kiss the ground you walk on. Comparing the "uncomfortable feelings" you have to undergo (understandably -- it is uncomfortable to be insulted), to what people in totalitarian dictatorships have to undergo is disrespectful to those people, to put it mildly, and disrespectful to the great system of which you are, in fact, a part in the West.
You are severely deluded if you think that 100 million people died in the name of atheism. How can you say this thread isn't an attack on atheism? You make a direct correlation between atheism and their aggressive "types" and the deaths of 100 million people. I don't know how else you could possibly classify what you wrote...
This thread is not an attack on atheists seeing most atheists would not hang out in religion forums for the sole purpose of attacking every thread and post about religion.
Gregg if you do not think that just about 100 million people have died by the hands of marxist atheist regimes in the 20th century then read back through this thread. Read and learn.
I will concede that atheist dictators killed millions of people. I still think it's a stretch to state that it was done in the name of atheism. I would say that atheism was used as a rallying propaganda tool to unify a force against religious peoples. I strongly believe that these dictators goals were not to push their atheistic agendas on everyone, but to use it as an excuse to eliminate the people that were opposing their rule.
By your logic this thread isn't an attack on atheists because they don't come to this forum to attack all religious threads? That doesn't make any sense. It is an attack on atheism. When you state on a public religion and BELIEFS (atheism falls under this category in case you're confused) forum that people on said forum are using the same tactics employed by people that killed millions, you are attacking them. You are comparing them to murders.
Christians come in for a lot of abuse, I think the reason for this is the typical "holier than thou" attitude. I don't really care that you think I'm going to hell and you shouldn't really care that I don't...
How about we all have our own belief systems and debate them, there's no need to get your knickers in a knot, as they say. I'm all for debate and I don't think anything anyone says here could bother me either way. I don't see why it should bother you. You aren't your beliefs, stop taking it so personally.
And now let's begin counting the number of deaths Christians have been responsible over the past 2,000 years..... (btw, I'm pretty sure "100 million" death is a gross exaggeration. Where did you get your figures?)
You're also misusing the term "militant" here. As it is applicable to modern atheists/agnostics it simply mean "steadfast in their beliefs" (as most atheists, or at least secular humanists, are largely pacifists). "Militant," as it applied to Marxists, were literally military minded (read: violent) in their opposition of religion.
akin to communist russia...really? I'd like to see the working out for that conclusion.
I haven't noticed all that many attacks. I have, however, noticed a few lively discussions. I think lively discussions are healthy. I don't consider myself to be Godless but I think the strength of Christianity lies in the fact that at least in Western countries issues dealing with religion and belief can be aired without resorting to violence, verbal and otherwise.
I know what you are saying, but don't worry so. They're harmless to you and me. What is death anyway to us? You have your spirit always. Love them and be silent. If one posts in here, be prepared for the fight. I am against fight of that sort. I see no harm in them doing us all a favor in drawing out so many fools. Have a nice day.
It is always destructive and harmful when anyone is intolerant and hateful to those who have different beliefs/values/physical racial or cultural backgrounds. It doesn't matter if it comes from Marxist countries, political groups, religious groups, the crusades, the spanish inquisition (No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition!). Thing is there is no group like this that has not had some tarnish, some wacko's who take it to the extreme and are willing to do untold harm and destruction in the name of what they believe. No group of people can claim this sort of moral high ground and its just as well because pride comes before the fall.
Why should the blind follow the blind?
They are doing well by not seeing the religious darkness as the light.
They will see well enough when the true light comes.
Dawkins recently stated that atheists should become more militant. that very day, I saw many of his cronies get "grrr" in here.
I know. It is interesting that the same things they complain about are the things that they partake in.
Yes I know. It's is very frustrating but I think a pretty clear indication of who or what to stay away from is anyone or 'group' of people that says... 'stop being respectful'.
I am sure I will get my share of ridicule for calling it like it is but shite, Dawkings is a dictator, he just doesn't have any guns of his own
yeah, you like how he asks for money? its a religion alright. only far more evil and hypocritical.
Yes, I can see it now no matter what Mark says about it. It really is a 'religion' it follows all the same basic principles of any religion.
* a conviction of the truth
* a book or books that influence his conviction
* a nice demeanor to disguise the need to *fight the good fight*
* a group of followers
* he takes an idea (evolution in this case) and points his finger to the opposing side for all the bad things done
* he asks for money to support his idea
* calls other who don't follow, in other words, stupid and uses biased statistics to support his claims.
* he calls his followers *elite*
and all this time I just thought he was a humble biologist who just really wanted others to understand the process of evolution. Apparently, he a very dark agenda.
not yet. he's not really the tough guy that he wants to be. he's kinda like the kid that grew up blaming farts on everyone else and giggling it out in the corner of the room. Now he wants to see some militant movement. I would love to see a youtube video of him shooting a handgun. that would look natural I'm sure.
The first time somebody went militant, he would embrace them. that is factual.
It is as I said - religion causes nothing but conflict. Sorry you feel the need to attack scientific knowledge and get upset when those of us who prefer actual facts as opposed to religious dogma speak out against it.
"For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing."
But doing something about it turns it into a "religion," and making fun of the term "militant atheism," is a call to arms.
Sad. Real sad. Unfortunately - Dawkins forgot the atheist's rule number one.
Do not use irony in front of the believers - they do not do irony.
You are sad to see your leader go militant?
Like I said - Sorry you guys do not do irony. Oh well.......
Thankfully - your ridiculous beliefs will eventually generate what you are praying for.
Which I guess is what you want.
I actually find it incredibly ironic that you call into the same brainwashed way of thinking that relionist do. But he did call it that, he did 'urge' people to "stop being so damn respectful" and he does continuously refer back to his statement he made in a joking manor in which he 'urges' militant atheist and he totally slanders Darwin's own personal creed to be respectful to atheist and theist alike.
I have nothing against Darwin and I dislike religion so much so that I see the very things that I hate about religion being done under the ruse of non-theism.
Call it what you want but if it looks like a duck...
"What Dawkins, and other so-called 'militant' atheists are stating is that religions don't deserve the respect they currently have, especially when faith-based agendas are being pushed through in schools, politics and our everyday lives."
You deny that you are here every day (except when you are banned) advocating faith-based agendas?
Religion causes nothing but conflict. That is why you are here.
Well done. So, where in that statement did I say that Creationism was already in schools? I clearly stated: "faith-based agendas are being pushed through in schools" which does imply or claim that creationism is already in schools.
and I thought it suggests the other. you looked through a science book lately?
Maybe you better explain your accusation to me, I really have no idea what you're on about.
Does everything have to be spelled out to you (Q)?
Sooner than later was clearly saying that creation and faith in God is not being taught in schools in the US anymore but has been replaced by the unproven theory of evolution in the school science books that is being pushed through to brainwash young minds, which the minority of militant atheists support.
No, I don't need everything to be spelled out for me, but clearly you do.
First of all, I never said creation was being taught in school, but you apparently did not figure that one out. I said that theists were pushing their agenda of creationism to be taught in schools. Do you understand now?
Secondly, the theory of evolution is something you clearly have no idea about so it's not a topic you should be commenting on as it only makes you look the fool. Clearly, from the staggering ignorance of your post, it would serve you well to try and read another book other than the bible.
yeah, trafic through your pages from his work.
Just go to the sorce slitheren.
Forty seven minus 5.
http://video.markpknowles.com/julia-swe … -go-of-god
No offense meant, but after reading through all the posts, I feel as though I just stepped in dog poo again. I must stay out of these posts. All in all it wasn't too bad, no real bad mouthing. But it is depressing. Peace anyway.
wouldn't play. too bad. I bet it was good.
I know! will explain what happened?
The farce that I was referring to was that Richard Dawkin's crew actually think that Communist Atheism is an enlightenment.
1 John 2:18 "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour."
Just another religionist with their nose out of joint because others will not accept their version of some psychotic biblical god. Quite normal really!
How does socit have 5 fans for spamming?
Well, 4 considering he joined his own fan club. lol
For sure thetruthhurts2009 and Presigo. It's clearly obvious in these forums.
wow ! It is unbelievable how the world sits idly by as this hatred is spewed. If it were a mosque or temple of Scientology the world community would be up in arms. We must pray for these chinese christians as they face uninhibitated oppression.
Seems rather paltry in comparison to the atrocities Christians have performed over the centuries.
Do you need another history lesson?
Well the facts are quite simple.
50 million killed by Joseph Stalin
11 million killed by Adolf Hitler who used evolution to justify his killings, and burn bibles.
2 million killed by Pol Pot
40 million killed by Moa
Plus the millions of other Christians martyred and persecuted annually
All of the above used evolutionary thinking to “cleanse” the human race and thought removing God would speed up evolution and solve the worlds problems(sound familiar), but does it ever work? No, because God is the solution not the problem. You buy into old "Christians and Jews are the cause of all wars" tripe which is a blatant LIE and you know it. Nero thought of it first and look what happened to him.
Thank you for providing your misinformed opinion. I await the history lesson you promised.
And don't forget to use a religionists website to do so!
Why do you have so much negative energy? Do you wake up wishing for Jesus to arrive and kill the sinners?
I have looked those up, some time ago, in fact, the first time I had heard those arguments from theists. I think you are the thousandth theist I've read using the same old tired, misinformed arguments since then.
That's it? No refutation facts, just "you're wrong because I say you're wrong" oh brother!
If truth is misinformed, why not enlighten him to what really happened? Name calling and such tactics donot help. It is so easy to say, "You are wrong," then leave it at that.
Find the information from a neutral site and post it.
Absolutely not, I would rather detract statements than go down that rathole again for the umpteenth time.
Are you trying to tell me that this is the very first time those old tired arguments were ever presented here? Has this forum been living under a rock, so to speak?
So according to your own words, you do not care for truth. You simply want to keep stirring things up.
If you are going to prove someone wrong, then you must present the evidence.
That's quite funny and places the cart firmly before the horse. Had thetruthhurts2009 done his homework, he would have found that his Christian propagandae are exactly that, but instead he posted the same nonsense that was refuted long ago. It is he who is stirring things up, SirDent.
No, when people like thetruthhurts2009 are posting just to "stir things up" then it should be viewed as such. I've spent hours dealing with that Christian propaganda just like so many others who've had to deal with it and don't wish to pursue it any longer.
You are free to believe in his nonsense, but I doubt you're that ignorant.
Here's another history lesson (Q).
Quote from this web site http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM
"The results were shocking: according to these first figures, independent of war and other kinds of conflict, governments probably have murdered 119,400,000 people, Marxist governments about 95,200,000 of them. By comparison, the battle-killed in all foreign and domestic wars in this (20th) century total 35,700,000."
I keep waiting for these so-called history lessons but have yet to receive one. The following was no exception, merely one mans opinions and beliefs based on his own personal research. Hardly, a history lesson.
No, not merely one man's "opinion." He is Dr R J Rummel and his research is used by hundreds of political scientists around the country (me being one of them). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rummel
His research on atheist marxist regimes is used in textbooks across the country as well as in Western Europe.
He is also an atheist.
Thanks for the verification of this site by Rummel that I posted Allan.
And, yet the link you provide shows a lot of criticism for his work? He even went around claiming he was a Nobel candidate and had to retract his claim. Where does it state he's an atheist?
Q: The criticism is concerning his advocacy of DPT, an issue under debate in the West. DPT stands for democratic peace theory and its applications for substantive foreign policy, this is a theory in Poli Sci that states that demo's dont go to war with each other. As far as the Nobel Prize is concerned he based that on what he was told by a member on the Nobel committee, hardly the "the criticism" you make it out to be.
As far as him being an atheist simply look it up, he goes on record in several interviews.
And, your claim is that all those deaths were in the name of atheism, yes?
honestly, how does a human being come to terms with oppression by stating its insignificance in comparison to others. This is how hatred boils, it must be interrupted or the result is our demise
No, what is meant is that all your theories and ideas are old hat and boring.
Hi SirDent, I think we are going to have to learn to just ignore some of them in here, like I suggested in Bibowen's thread.
You came on my forum page and Aggressively attacked me. My topic is the Christian influence on the Holocaust that is about to take place in Uganda. You and your friend Bibowen accused me of making things up, or Making Outlandish comments. This is from an article written by a gay man in Uganda. I hope you will take his words seriously. He could be Murder any day now. "Both opponents and supporters agree that the impetus for the a more hardline law came in March during a seminar in Kampala to "expose the truth behind homosexuality and the homosexual agenda".
The main speakers were three US evangelists: Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge. Lively is a noted anti-gay activist and president of Defend the Family International, a conservative Christian association, while Schmierer is an author who works with "homosexual recovery groups". Brundidge is a "sexual reorientation coach" at the International Healing Foundation.
The seminar was organised by Stephen Langa, a Ugandan electrician turned pastor who runs the Family Life Network in Kampala and has been spreading the message that gays are targeting schoolchildren for "conversion". "They give money to children to recruit schoolmates – once you have two children, the whole school is gone," he said in an interview. Asked if there had been any court case to prove this was happening, he replied: "No, that's why this law is needed."
After the conference Langa arranged for a petition signed by thousands of concerned parents to be delivered to parliament in April. Within a few months the bill had been drawn up.
Make Money, I'm not absolute sure...but this kinda looks like Christian Influence on the policies and laws of Uganda.
Taken from Friendlyword's thread titled "The US Christian Right promotes a Ugandan Holocaust."
Like smoking cigarettes you'd have to want to quit first.
Anyone who does not connect the role of atheism within the rise of communism is simply ignorant of the historical record.
Every time a regime has adopted atheism as official or sponsored policy the blood has flowed. Every...single...time.
Anyone who believes that this connection is "misinformed" (such as Q and others) is simply unaware of the historical record/evidence. Whatever your argument may be about how atheism is defined within this political apparatus let us have no disagreement about the historical record.
If you adopt atheism as official policy, then the blood flows.
So what you are saying is. If we believe in god - no one gets killed? Or at least - only worthless heathens.
Sorry your beliefs have been proven garbage. The simple, proven fact is your god does not exist. You must be very angry.
How about we sit down and decide on a code of ethics without it?
What do you think?
"So what you are saying is. If we believe in god - no one gets killed? Or at least - only worthless heathens."--really Mark, did I say that? Or did you want me to say that?
I must be very angry? Good grief no, why would I be angry? Simply because I disagree with you? I have debates much more intense in various settings, never do I get angry simply because another person differs with my conclusions.
Unfortunately, this is your domain as you not only post on how angry you are when this happens but you write long tirades in your hubs about how upset/offended you are. The emotional aspect of debate and how it affects one are in your corner I am afraid.
You must be very angry to attack us atheists in this fashion and basically lie in everything you say. You have not made any conclusions.
You are funny though. Not angry?
Does the blood flow when god is no longer official policy.? Does this also not mean that the blood did not flow when god was official policy? Oh wait - that would be a logical conclusion and the blood did flow before which means you are lying.
Intellectual dishonesty is probably what you would call it.
I just call it lying. Sorry your beliefs have been proven garbage. Do you think you are going to persuade anyone that the invisible super being exists?
Unlikely. Sorry dude. I would be angry if I were you also.
Lie in everything I say? Please elaborate instead of making generalized accusations. No, not angry, have I ever lost my temper, wrote tirades about how offended I was? Of course not, however those requirments are filled by you time and again. Why on earth you get so upset when people disagree with you is difficult to understand. You do not live in a tower Mark. People disagree, you need to get used to this. Ok, so we see things differently, so what Mark? Is it worth getting upset time and again? Let it go, state your piece and move on.
I get into debates in academic settings, with friends, non-friends, etc. So what? Ok so they disagree, must one get angry about a difference in opinion/beliefs?
Sigh. Did I state that Mark? Or do you desperately want me to state that? For someone who is crying about lying you sure put words in other's mouths. Debate in a rational manner please.
And once again you point to anger, why? Because you interpret differences of opinion through the conduit of anger. You naturally assume that I would be angry because that is the first reaction you have when another individual disagrees with you. In fact I am not sure that you could type a series of posts without mentioning the word "angry." Mark, you need to recognize that your position/responses are based on emotional responses. A thousand posts in the religious forum, about a subject that you do not even think exists (which is odd as you talk more about God than most theists here), long tirades about how offended you are, etc.
Ask yourself why you post so much here.
As far as "my beliefs being proven to be garbage" please show where this has occured. You state this a lot to a plethora of individuals like a well oiled mantra but I have yet to see you provide any evidential criteria for this.
You are on fire. I like your feistiness. I would like to argue with you on something. Do you believe you have a logical belief? If so, why and how is it logical?
You mean because Russia became atheist and adopted communism and communism spread then you believe all communist must be atheist when communism is buried in the roots of religion.
A 1 ruler or political force that rules an entire peoples? Sounds much more religious then not.
I consider, although Russia claimed to be atheistic, that communism was the 'disease' that spread.
Communism sounds great if you have 'faith' in your ruler to give you all the things that you could need and never go hungry. But we see the same thing with 'god'.
It's an unfortunate comparison but suggest that atheism isn't the problem but faith in doing god's will or just believing you are god, is the problem.
Making the distinction won't come easily for some of you, just as some infamous folks on hubpages believes that Adolf Hitler was an evolutionist even though he clearly states in his own words that he believed in religion and domination of inferior beings and a christian extremist.
The same goes for those who does not understand that communism is built on religious ideals.
Complete bs. Check out the principles of communism and what it has to say about religions:
"What will be its attitude to existing religions?
All religions so far have been the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance"
And, along with religions go every other "expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples" including the economy, culture, and most everything else, NOT JUST RELIGION. See now?
Then, you are free to go through this extensive list of organizations that have adopted atheism, officially, and point out every single one in which blood has flowed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_se … anizations
Ugh. Please, I teach dialectical marxism as well as other political philosophies. First of all, it is apparent that you do not know the difference between regimes and "organizations." What I stated was that "Every time a regime has adopted atheism as official or sponsored policy the blood has flowed." Do you know the difference between regime and organization Q?
Let me help you.
regime: form of government: a system or style of government
particular government: the government of a particular country, especially one that is considered to be oppressive.
organization: group: a group of people identified by a shared interest or purpose, e.g. a business
Which one makes the laws Q?
Even prominent atheists in the past have connected the two (atheism and marxism), such as what the well known atheist Emmett F. Fields wrote when he stated:
"Let us consider very carefully what the connection is between Atheism and Communism in Russia. There can be no doubt but that Atheism is the reason for the success of Communism. Atheism is the force that brought the Russian nation up from being one of the most backward, primitive and religious nations in Europe in 1917, to the point of being one of the most advanced, scientific and technological, nations in the world today, Whether we like it or not, we must admit that Communist Russia is a powerful modern force, and a very dangerous potential enemy. Communism is an external threat to our nation, and to our very world, that is of great concern to all Americans, Atheists and Christians alike.
It must be admitted that Atheism is the engine and the thrust behind Communism that has allowed it to move forward into the modern world in such a short time. Atheism is the engine and the thrust, but it is not the steering wheel. The dominant, controlling ideology in Russia is the economic-political dictatorship known as Communism. Even the Christians, if they could be taught to hate a little less, and think a little more, would have to admit that.
Atheism is, has been, and will continue to be, the force for progress throughout the Communist world, it is the powerful engine that powers an evil ideology."
(Taken from the largest atheist site on the web: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … heism.html)
Let us look at the architects of the marxist revolution.
Lenin: His order to Felix Dzerzhinsky, 1 May 1919 (when he assumed power): “...it is needed to get done with the priests and religion as soon as possible. Arrest the priests as the enemies of revolution and saboteurs, execute them without mercy everywhere you spot them. As many as you can! Churches should be shut down. The cathedrals have to be sealed and used as warehouses. "
Mao issued direct orders concerning the churches in China when he took power, etc.
Do I really need to go through all this?
No, let me help you, instead. Here is the definition from my dictionary of regime:
Regime: The organization that is the governing authority of a political unit.
Yes, and what you fail to understand, as an alleged teacher, is that marxism is not centered around atheism, at all. But, since YOU'RE the teacher here, shouldn't you know that?
That has got to be on of the most misinformed claims about the Soviet Union I've seen. The Soviet Union was most certainly not a scientifically and technologically advanced society by any stretch of the imagination. Complete nonsense.
A very large load of misinformed crap.
I lived in the Soviet Union for a year on a student exchange program. Atheism was entirely irrelevant to their way of life. Christians still practiced Christianity and were left to do so although the churches were all turned into museums but they did gather in their homes and worshipped Christ.
Atheism and religion were just a very small part of a much larger machine, a machine that was badly broken but still managee to create the facade that evidently fooled people like the good Mr. Fields.
Yes, you do, because you have taken a molehill and made it into a mountain. You've very conveniently left out a tremendous amount of information regarding the state of the Soviets and have focused exclusively on one small part.
I would say that is intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.
Unfortunately, the "definition" that you supplied is indeed found in the free online dictionary, under the THESAURUS section. The defintion of regime, using the dictionary that you referenced defines regime as such:
a. A form of government: a fascist regime.
b. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
2. A prevailing social system or pattern.
3. The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
4. A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.
http://188.8.131.52/search?q=cache:Ao … &gl=us
Regardless of this point, I find it astonishing that you equate organizations with regimes. Tell me Q, name one country, just one that refers to its governing system of power as an organization. You are simply trying to worm away from this. Was Nazi germany run by a regime or an organization? This is laughable. There are chess organizations, charitable funding organizations, etc, not chess regimes or a March of Dimes regime. No one is this ignorant. You gave me a list of organizations that do not govern the population (I'm still trying to figure that one out).
Now let me get this straight so everyone can read it, you supplied me with this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_se … anizations
I want you to tell me that these are regimes.
Really Q? Did I say that? Of course not. What I stated was that where atheism was established as official/sponsored policy the blood flowed. Thats what I stated. Marxism is centered on the proletariat and the struggles entailed in freeing the working class, atheism happens to be part of it. This is why certain countries that espouse Marxist doctrine or something akin to it (like Venezuala) do not have mass murder on their hands because they did not adopt atheism as state policy. Please pay attention to what is written and what you want to be written.
Do you actually read what you claim you read Q? He is talking about Russia, not the Soviet Union. Secondly, the article was written decades ago. He didnt say Russia was the most advanced but was one of the top tier. Thirdly I suggest you do a little research into the matter before making these comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Sci … technology
So was I (Moscow). I speak Russian, hell my wife is Russian. When were you there? For this discussion obviously we are not talking about a period in the last 25 years; you would have known that if you read my post where I ended the regime's atheism at Andropov.
No generalized accusations. Provide evidential criteria to support your view. And this time pay attention to what I wrote, not what you wanted me to write. Unfortunately the only dishonesty supplied here is by you. Inserting comments, deliberately mis-interpreting articles to represent something you find it easier to argue with (such as your insistence about Til's referencing the Soviet Union in a quoted section that states no such thing) and your seeming inability to understand the differences between a "regime" and a "organization."
Actually, it was the first definition in the dictionary.
... includes the definition of organization.
Yes, the organization of the Nazi party.
Nonetheless, let's move on with the main points and shelf this for later if you wish.
I don't recall any regimes there, but we'll get to that, too.
Ah, that's better, we're back to your main claims again. Let's just move past the regime/organiation thing and focus on your claim above.
Go back to the lists I gave you in which "atheism was established as official/sponsored policy" and please show me where "the blood flowed".
Pure speculation based on the mountain out of molehill you've created. Your claims are specious at best.
So what. Never heard of the Catholic Church?
no question that the Cathlic Church through the centuries have been involved in horrible actions. I am not for the forcible rule by Catholic authorities either.
Atheism is not the cause of totalitarianism, is my point. I think it is fair to say that British society since the 1970s has been more-or-less "atheistic" (on the whole) -- however it has a robust free culture nevertheless. On the other hand, we have the Taliban
You know if you guys would actually do a little research i would not have to do this.
Once again, there has never been a regime which had atheism as official policy that did not engage in blood-letting. We all know about Mao, Stalin, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Chernenko, Andropov, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Il Jong (who currently has the largest gulag system in the world with the hisghest number of imprisoned Christians, dissenters, etc in the world). We all know abut this. The above were atheists who controlled over one billion people. We know their views on religious belief, we know the persecutions, etc.
Challenge me on this and I will provide enough stats and evidence to make your head spin. Now some of you may be saying "well sure the major regimes were like that but how the smaller atheist states." Well let us take a look at a couple shall we?
Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania (atheist) sixty thousand deaths.
Let us look at this small example of an atheist in power, whose crimes paled in comparison to his larger atheist brethern in power.
Ceausescu hated the mere sight of a cross:
According to Dr. Nicholas Dima's book, "Journey to Freedom", Ceausescu hated Christian crosses, crucifixes, and blessings. While visiting Venezuela, he requested that a crucifix in his room be removed before he would stay there. And Edward Behr said, in "Kiss the Hand You Cannot Bite: The Rise and Fall of the Ceausescus", that the dictator walked out of a dinner in New Orleans because a priest insisted on saying a prayer before the meal.
Ceausescu hated churches:
Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, who ran Romania's spy bureau until he defected to the West in 1978, wrote a book called "Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu's Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption". In it, he claimed that Ceausescu had dozens of churches in Bucharest demolished, declaring himself "overjoyed at getting rid of musty old churches and synagogues." And Dima notes that, in addition to the destruction of churches, Ceausescu also ordered that numerous cemeteries be dug up and the corpses removed...
He also advocated the death penalty for anyone owning an unregistered typewriter.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?nod … 0Ceausescu
Enver Hoxha (atheist) of Albania: atheist and mass murderer (among his many "distinctions" was to proudly proclaim his nation in 1967 to be the first atheist state in history and immediately start killing and imprisoning his own people for their beliefs).
Individuals caught with Bibles, icons, or other religious objects faced long prison sentences. These parents were afraid to pass on their faith, for fear that their children would tell others. Officials tried to entrap practicing Christians and Muslims during religious fasts, such as Lent and Ramadan, by distributing dairy products and other forbidden foods in school and at work, and then publicly denouncing those who refused the food. Clergy who conducted secret services were incarcerated. When Albania finally abandoned its atheist state policy only thirty priests remained alive. Tens of thousands were "purged."
Mátyás Rákosi and Janos Kadar (athiests) of Hungary: 600,000 "purged." Shut down anything that resembled dissent, called one of the worst dictatorships in Europe (and that is against some stiff competition).
Georgi Dimitrov (atheist) of Bulgaria, famous for setting up over 100 concentration camps in a country of only eight million people.
I am tired of typing, there are countless examples. Argue whatever you want but lets not have any disagreement about regimes that had atheism as policy and what they were responsible for.....
Ok, let's look at your alleged research.
We also know they did not fly banners of "Atheism" as their primary agendas, but instead replaced religion with another bad ideology. But, they didn't just focus on religion in order for them to succeed with this ideology, a fact you fail to acknowledge and one that easily challenges your research.
Your stats are fallacious in that they only focus on one small aspect and ignore everything else.
And, he did it all in the name of atheism? Or, were there other reasons?
So what? You would do the same if you were told to say an Islamic prayer.
And again, this was all done while flying an enormous banner of atheism? Get a grip.
You call that a stat for atheism? Or, is that a joke?
Hoxha did a great many things that were considered atrocities, his take on religions are explained and are just one small part of his political career. Here's his reasoning for religions:
"Albania, being the most predominantly Muslim nation in Europe due to Turkish influence in the region, had, like the Ottoman Empire, merged religion with ethnicity. In the Ottoman Empire, Muslims were viewed as "Turks," Eastern Orthodox as Greeks and Catholics as "Latins." Hoxha believed this was a serious issue, feeling that it both gave further legitimacy to the Greek separatists in North Epirus and also divided the nation in general. The Agrarian Reform Law of 1945 confiscated much of the church's property in the country. Catholics were the earliest religious community to be targeted, since the Vatican was seen as being an agent of Fascism and anti-Communism. In 1946 the Jesuit Order and in 1947 the Franciscans were banned. Decree No. 743 (On Religion) sought a national church and forbade religious leaders from associating with foreign powers."
Notice you said "Shut down anything that resembled dissent" - no need for further comment here.
Your examples are rather meaningless as they don't demonstrate the entire picture, you merely focused on one small aspect and have blown it out of proportion to support your agenda.
Done and done.
PLEASE ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I WROTE. What I stated (for the fifth time: "Once again, there has never been a regime which had atheism as official policy that did not engage in blood-letting." That is my central and only thesis.
It focuses on what I stated (I am beginning to wonder if you simply do not read my posts).
"Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania (atheist) sixty thousand deaths.
Let us look at this small example of an atheist in power, whose crimes paled in comparison to his larger atheist brethern in power.
Ceausescu hated the mere sight of a cross:
According to Dr. Nicholas Dima's book, "Journey to Freedom", Ceausescu hated Christian crosses, crucifixes, and blessings. While visiting Venezuela, he requested that a crucifix in his room be removed before he would stay there. And Edward Behr said, in "Kiss the Hand You Cannot Bite: The Rise and Fall of the Ceausescus", that the dictator walked out of a dinner in New Orleans because a priest insisted on saying a prayer before the meal."
Yet another isn a series of examples on how you simply do not read the comment. He was NOT ASKED to say a prayer. Ugh.
"Ceausescu hated churches:
Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, who ran Romania's spy bureau until he defected to the West in 1978, wrote a book called "Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu's Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption". In it, he claimed that Ceausescu had dozens of churches in Bucharest demolished, declaring himself "overjoyed at getting rid of musty old churches and synagogues." And Dima notes that, in addition to the destruction of churches, Ceausescu also ordered that numerous cemeteries be dug up and the corpses removed... "
Get a grip? Explain to me why he demolished the churches then. Maybe he didnt like the roofing? Use your head Q, it is obvious why he didnt like churches.
Exactly! Like I stated, when atheism is state policy the blood flows. It doesnt matter who dies, political dissent, religious belief, owning a typewriter (in Nico's case). Once again pay attention to what I wrote. I never stated the purges only affected believers and your insistence that I did does not change what is factual (I have never seen an individual attempt to put words in my mouth as much as you have).
Exactly! I agree! The repression is obvious (what point you are trying to make is less so).
For the last time, here is my statement and my proposition: "When atheism is state policy repression and the flow of blood will commence."
You have not been able to supply a single shred of evidence to dispute this.
And, by providing a huge list of organizations that actually do have atheism as their official policy and where no "blood-letting" has ever been found, your thesis is moot.
I read the comment, it was irrelevant as is your thesis.
So what? Demolished churches do not equal "blood-letting". Get a grip.
No, I did no such thing. Get a grip.
You haven't demonstrated this one iota. And, I've provided a lengthy list of organizations that most certainly have atheism as their primary policy, and no blood has flowed.
We're done here, your thesis is moot.
Of course you think we are done here. You have not supplied one iota of evidence to dispute what I stated. Not only that you bizarrely mentioned a list of organizations as proof of your disassociated claim that they are not responsible for bloodshed.
I did not mention organizations, I am still puzzled as to why you do not understand this. I mentioned regimes. I did not mention organizations. You obviously mentioned organizations because of your inability to debate what is known about regimes that have atheism as policy. No one mentioned organizations but you. Is this clear?
So we have two options here in understanding your inability to differentiate the clear definitions between regimes and organizations.
1- You are ignorant about the matter and simply do not understand the words. I do not believe this and neither does anyone else here.
2- You simply do not want to concede the point and tried to introduce a variable that I clearly did not mention. You failed.
This is very simple, I mentioned regimes such as North Korea, Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hoxha's Albanian regime etc. You countered bizarrely with organizations such as the Gay and Lesbian organization of Great Britain. Then oddly enough in another post you mentioned that concerning the list you "don't recall any regimes there." Which is strange because you state in the next post that you provided "a huge list of organizations that actually do have atheism as their official policy and where no "blood-letting" has ever been found."
Very odd as once again, I didnt mention organizations. I mentioned regimes. Yuo simply tried to give the impression that I stated this, which unfortunately is a habit of yours.
What you have stated is moot. But, I supposed you'll never understand that.
It's part of a simple test to demonstrate that your thesis is moot.
A regime is an organization, by definition.
I'm not puzzled why you continue this line of fallacious belief.
One defines the other.
Clear as bell, and just as fallacious.
I used a dictionary and found one to define the other. Simple really.
One would be silly to concede to your beliefs.
Yes, you did, and you also claimed millions of murders in the name of atheism, which you never demonstrated. You simply made the claim and never once made a connection between atheism and the murders. Of course, millions of those people could have been murdered for any number of reasons, but you made the claim of atheism. See now?
Exactly. It's a simple test that places your thesis squarely in the moot pile.
When I lived in the Soviet Union for a good part of a year, I found a tremendous amount of practicing theists, openly worshipping their gods. Of course, the churches were all turned into museums and there was a state law about groups of people congregating, not for just worshipping but for any reason.
So, here we have millions of people openly practicing their faith yet none of them were put up against the wall and shot. Based on your so-called logic, the blood should have flowed. But, it didn't, at all.
Now, we have all you so-called honest theists making claims that millions died because of atheism. Yet, not one of you made any connections whatsoever that they died as a result of atheism.
So, lets get back to your so-called thesis.
In science, we observe and make a prediction so we can test to see if the observation holds.
What you're doing is exactly the same as a crackpot, you make an observation, come to a conclusion and then search for evidence to pigeonhole into your conclusion, depite facts to the contrary.
Hence, your thesis (correction; assertion) is moot.
This is useless, you are acting childish. You claim regimes are the same as organizations. This is amazing. Not one person here on this forum will claim that they are the same. Just you. I play chess on a professional level Q. When I go to the local chess club do I tell people that this organization is a regime? Do I say, "Hey lets go to the Chess regime?" Is the Boy Scouts of America (which lists itself as a organization) considered a regime? I have changed my mind about one thing; because of your insistence that they are the same I have to say that you really are that ignorant.
Let us look at the facts one more time, to show just how vain, insecure and silly you have become in order to prevent yourself from "losing face."
You provided a list of organizations such as the Gay and Lesbian organization. I asked you which of these organizations were a regime. Your exact quote was that there "was no regimes there." Now, in this latest post (tailored again to try to prevent a "loss of face") you claim that all of those organizations are now regimes. You cannot even keep up with your changing responses.
In Iceland there is an organization that believes in elves (13 kinds no less). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Elf_School
According to you that is a regime. Again two options: You are astoundingly ignorant or you have an insecurity complex of Kafkaesque proportions.
And as several others have pointed out, you twist words, claim I stated things that I didnt and are unable to even answer simple questions.
I asked you to name a single regime that adopted atheism as policy that didnt have blood on its hands. You did not, could not and have refused to answer the question. I provided research (by several atheists no less), links, historical incidents, memoirs, biographies, etc. you provided the following evidential criteria:
"get a grip."
Thats it. Not one piece of evidence.
Look at my statement for the last time Q: ""When atheism is state policy repression and the flow of blood will commence."
Provide proof to the contrary, not childish rants of "get a grip."
You think if you say it over and over and over and over it will become true?
When theism is state policy the blood flow commences. Odd how you religionist always want to shift the burden of proof.
Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin were secretly Catholics.
Please prove otherwise.
Provide the evidence for this. Or was it so secret that nobody knows.
I am going to take this as a joke.
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
You are lying, I made no such claim.
Argument from Authority.
You are lying again.
And, as I mentioned before, you are making assertions by coming to a conclusion and pigeonholing evidence in a vain attempt to support your conclusion.
You provided nothing that supported your assertions.
A fallacious claim with no evidence. Moot.
Provide proof to the contrary of your fallacious claims?
Get a grip, pal. Stop lying and stop insulting.
Mirroring, projecting, or just like the guy's style?
Ditto. I also like the use of the word, "moot."
12 hours ago in this thread you stated the following: "A regime is an organization..." Look it up.
You cannot even lie correctly.
It is apparent you are not even aware of what you are writing.
You then you mention "tafftard" about a dozen times. I dont even know what that means. Maybe I should ask a neighboring teenager what your juvenile banter means.
Unfortunately your responses read like "My day at the zoo."
I think we are done here. I proved my point.
That is true, by definition. Look it up.
I haven't lied at all
By all means, do so, all it is a response in kind to your continous insults.
Your responses are delusions.
You did no such thing.
Again, I have to explain why you're wrong.
Firstly, you made claims that a "regime" that takes atheism as it's policy, blood flows. A 'regime' by definition is an organization.
Organization: the functionaries of a political party along with the offices, committees, etc., that they fill.
But, that is really irrelevant with your claim and I'll get back to that.
Secondly, you offered a number of names, not regimes, but instead names of mass murderers and despots who have created a regime (organization) in which everything within that society has to change in order for the despot to have total control, and that includes changing who people worship and obey. Communism, for example, having it's roots in religious dogma, is a system in which the gods worshipped in religion are replaced by the proletariat. As well, many other aspects of the society have to change too, the economy, ownership, employment, everything. NOT just religion. You failied to mention this and focused entirely on atheism.
Thirdly, you claimed millions of people died in that regime. You made no connection whatsoever that all of those people died as a result of atheism, but made the claim anyways. Many of those people could have died as a result of selling goods in the black market or any number of state laws created under that organizaion. You failed to mention this and focused entirely on atheism.
So, in order to test your assertion, I offered a number of other organizations that did in fact take their policy of atheism as one of their primary concerns in which not one organization had blood flowing as a result. You offered nothing but your false argument about regimes and organizations, which is really quite irrelevant.
But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll ask two questions.
1. Is it ONLY "regimes" that take up the policy of atheism, in which blood flows and people die as a result?
2. Do any other organizations other than regimes that take up atheism as its policy have blood flowing and people die as a result?
If you answer in the affirmative to question 1, then your assertion is moot simply because you made no connection whatsoever to the deaths and atheism and you failed to acknowledge those deaths could have been for reasons that had nothing to do with atheism. If you say no, then you can answer question 2 and provide other organizations that take atheism as its policy where the blood flows and people die as a result.
I already took your logic to the next level and provided a list of organizations that do in fact take atheism as their policy and no blood flows, people don't die as a result. You failed to acknowledge that your assertion does not comply with that list.
As a result of that which you failed to acknowledge and that which you make claims, we find people making utterly assinine comments like that from Make Money:
...if you do not think that just about 100 million people have died by the hands of marxist atheist regimes in the 20th century then read back through this thread. Read and learn."
For sure, you are very knowledgeable on the subject matter Allan.
It just boggles the mind that (Q), Mark and other militant atheists try to erase from history the enormous amount of bloodletting by regimes that have adopted atheism into their policy, especially when it is so widely known throughout the world. It probably has something to do with them being Dawkins disciples. Are you a Dd too earney?
Like Mark and some others here, I read across many diverse subjects and sources, unlike religionists like yourself who are slimy about sourcing and the show their hate by mis quoting peoples names. If you called me earney to my face I would personally drop you!
No, he isnt.
That is a lie purpetrated by theists who have yet to make any connections whatsoever and who conveniently and blissfully ignore the facts.
It is the intellectual dishonesty of theists, exactly.
It's pretty clear who won the debate above - set the parameters, had the historical background information, refused to be sidetracked by semantic 'tricks,' and wasn't drawn into the underlying theme of most of this religious forum rot. That is: Atheism vs. any sort of theism or even moderate views about any theistic thought or philosophy...or even support and/or tolerance of the individual's right to lean towards theism - or atheism for that matter, as a matter of individual choice.
How some can not be just a little embarrassed, and instead just keep posting as if they didn't sound and look a bit silly is beyond me.
Entertaining, though. Thanks to the participants.
I agree, Allan should be embarrassed by making false assertions.
How utterly juvenile Q. Do you really think that he was talking about me Q or are you incapable of comprehending what is written? No wonder you left out Star's first paragraph from the same post. You are so juvenile as to actually do in your reply here what star accused you off (semantic tricks).
You are simply very insecure.
You can stop with the peurile insults anytime, Allan. It only demonstrates your lack of integrity.
Appreciate your views on tolerance, . And imagine I take the reference to me as complimentary.
Can anyone here tell me what the difference between a 'christianist' or 'religionist' is as opposed to a Christian or a theist?
I will take that question. Chrisianists and religionists are easy to spot. They are the ones telling everyone else they are going to hell or are sinners.
Fair enough. But why do I constantly see even those with moderate theistic views...or even those who claim nothing, but maybe show support for theism or a plurality of opinions (different than support of extremist/fundamental religionists) attacked roundly as well here?
I don't see much of that, the only time I see Mark or other "non believers" get pissed is when some loony tune religionists are giving us "the truth" or "the word."
The atheists and non-believers are not here to debate,but to hate.
And how would you debate with some loon who is trying to ram 2000 year old psychotic scripture down the neck of others?
I realy sayin good night yaul but this got my atention so I will add before I shut this down. I'll debate with anyone as long as we both use the book that I got for reference. You don't got one ??? too bad. I win> Yea for MY TEAM>
Well, I personally get why fundamentalism isn't a healthy outlook and don't appreciate it, either. And yeah, usually those espousing those kind of views are pretty hard to debate.
Still, there are reasonable and/or skeptical (using the word as it relates to separating belief from science) theists of all kinds in the world.
When I think about it, there are many forums threads espousing beliefs about some psychotic god who is going to kill off the non believers, yet the only anti religious threads I have seen posted in forums have been in reply to an attack on non believers thinly disguised in one of those "Are you still beating your wife" type questions, where a god is assumed in to the question or title itself. Anyone care to comment?
I asked if anyone wanted to comment. If I need you to bark I'll pull your chain!
I imagine that you do not beat your wife, but you might beat your dog, that wouldn't be good.
I gather from your comment that you do beat your wife. I would never beat any animal, not even you!
Well, I admit to being turned off by both groups in question. However, I've seen some rational people post here whose arguments have been good--those such as Paraglider, Quillagrapher, Allan Bogle on this thread, and even Mohistmisra...for his respect and study of all world religions (though I think his ESL skills get a little in the way).
I would like to think that I respond to the person. I admire and respect paraglider, a good mind, but not in to religion or god. Quillgrapher is a gentleman. Allan bogle has made many great comments, and Mohit is a fine source of ecclesiastics and other religious history. He also knows the quoran. All fine with me too!
Everbody has got a diffrent definition but from my prospective there is not much diffrence between a ( worldly viewe) Christian and a religionioust. And then ya got those that not only believe in him (that don't count for much) and then ya got those that when we go fishing , Jesus comes with us. Ya know ? he always catches tha most fish. Go figure??
What is the point you are attempting to make here? Surely you must know that Asians are not monotheistic and the Khmer Rouge was in no way atheistic, theistic or otherwise. It simply has no bearing.
But - when theism IS state policy such as during the European colonization of Africa, the Americas and Australia - the blood flowed to the point of all but wiping out entire cultures.
So - what is your point exactly?
Article 20 from the Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979): "Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden."
From the U.S. library of Congress under the heading of "Society under Angkar":
The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks, regarded by the regime as social parasites, were defrocked and forced into labor brigades. Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails. Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying or expressing religious sentiments in other ways were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities also were persecuted. 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 leaders were executed.
48% of Christians in Cambodia were specifically killed because of their religion: http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/commun … nism_2.htm
I also suggest that you look up Cambodia under Wikipedia's page on state atheism.
Youk Chhang, director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia who is responsible for the nation-wide documentation of his countries atrocities: "Concretely, the position of this scheme was not to believe in religion whatsoever. The monks were forcibly defrocked, and pagodas became deposits for cells of detention. Cathedrals and mosques were the same, and their believers were accused as enemies and died by oppression.”
Dr Andrew Forbes, expert on Asian affairs, Senior Associate Member at Oxford: "Thus the Khmer Rouge dictatorship which ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 sought to establish a classless, atheistic society moving forward "in great leaping bounds".....
http://www.cpamedia.com/politics/extrem … s_taliban/
Because specific religious minorities were targeted the United Nations has termed the massacre a genocide (Adam Jones, Genocide, a Comprehensive Introcution, London, 2006).
There is a reason that Pol Pot is mentioned in Wikipedia under the heading of "cambodian atheists."
Once outlawed by the atheist Khmer Rouge, religion has made a comeback among the radical revolutionaries who brutally transformed Cambodia into a nation of killing fields. Buddhist shrines were destroyed and Christian adherents persecuted as a matter of policy during the Khmer Rouge's paranoid reign."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_ … 2Ae01.html
Did state that atheists are murderers? No. Many atheists are good moral people. What I did state was that once atheism is implemented as a regime's policy then the blood flows. Please pay attention to what I wrote.
You can come up with any conclusion you want but let us not disagree over the fact that when atheism is put into policy by a regime the blood flows. No exceptions.
Do you want more links? I literally have hundreds.
I think what Make Money's been trying to do is not to compare his own discomfort with those in the Soviet gulags, but pointing out that some posters here are utilizing some of the same tactics that also happened to be employed in the Soviets' attempts to quash all religious freedom.
What religious freedom do you think is being quashed by me pointing out that your religion is irrational rubbish?
It's not just your statement of your own opinion. It's the way you do it. People have a right to not be bullied on account of their beliefs. You're not just stating your opinion. You're being a troll and a bully.
How is that religious freedom? You believe whatever you wish. And are free to do so. Do you seriously think anyone is attempting to prevent you from believing whatever you like?
I am not being a troll or a bully. Look at who started this thread and the ongoing attack against people who do not believe in god.
You can't have it both ways. Readers of this site who are not religious are constantly being insulted by being told they are not worthy to spend eternity in God's presence, and so on. Or that we will literally burn for all time. And I damn well defend every last Christian hubber's right to publish that rude stuff. Similarly, Mark has the right to respond to it how he wants.
This is EXACTLY why the comparison between Communist states and what goes on here is so outlandish. In a real Stalinist/Maoist/etc state, the first time you posted something like that would be your last. Period.
You SHOULD have the right to preach to us, to tell us what you think of gay marriage, etc., etc.. Yes, please do. It is an expression of freedom.
But the minute anyone says a person has no right to ridicule such postings we are all on very dangerous turf -- this whole debate proves the idiocy of the statement suggesting America is becoming a Marxist state in fact: rubbish!
...In totalitarian states they don't have Hubpages; they have the secret police.
That is exactly what I mean. The tactics of Mark, (Q), earnestshub and some of the other militant atheists in these forums are parallel to the League of the Militant Godless (aka the Union of Belligerent Atheists) in Communist Russia between 1925-1947.
Mark this thread is not an attack on atheists. There are many atheists that would not even think of hanging out in religion forums for the sole purpose of attacking every thread and post about religion, like yourself and a few others that come in here do.
The very first post that I made in these forums over 15 months ago was attacked by you Mark. There was a time when we could have a religious discussion in here with only a few attacks. But in the last few months I bet I could count with one hand the amount of religious discussions that were not continually harassed. In fact the majority of new threads started these days in here are an attack on one religion or an other.
Sandra posted this on the first page of this thread with the video titled "Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms".
Mark I know you are a follower of Richard Dawkins because you have quoted him many times in here. But just because Richard Dawkins is urging you to be disrespectful and militant against religion it does not mean that you have the right to do it. And it does not mean that it is legal.
More than once, you Mark and others in here have stated that you can not wait until there is no more religion.
Well Mark (when I am speaking to Mark I am referring to all the militant atheists that come to these forums for the sole purpose of discriminating against religion) maybe you do not realize that there are United Nations Resolutions specifically written to combat the discrimination against religion like you people are carrying out. Two Resolutions in fact. I'll just post a bit of each Resolution.
From the 36th session of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55 (Source).
"Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief"
From the 48th session of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 128 (Source).
"Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance"
In light of these discriminatory actions against religion that have been carrying on for so long in these forums I am wondering whether the HubPages administration even knows about these United Nations Resolutions.
I, for one, would be quite happy to see you totally embarrassed if you tried to argue that with the Hubpages admins. It is silly in the extreme.
Piffle. Their decisions are monetary based. That's why what is tolerated IS tolerated.
Yeah, this thread is probably making them a lot of money...
lol. OH, MY.
Hey! Nice eye candy, though. Though I wouldn't know, , you caught me on one of my straight lesbian days...or was it lesbian lesbian days? I forget.
An astute observation, which begs the question, do believers who profit from hubs written about their gods have their gods permission to do so?
I'm sure once they rose from the floor after rolling around on it laughing hysterically from the silliness of Make Money's premise, they may very well then consider the bottom line, too.
Freedom of speech does not cover defamation of character, libel, or harassment. But I'm also dealing with some things that should not necessarily be legislated, like good manners and common sense. If you don't like being insulted, prove you're above such behavior.
And it's not as if even the majority of believers go around telling non-believers they aren't "worthy" or garbage like that anyway. It is a tendency among some people to use the misbehavior of the minority to justify their prejudices against the whole group.
Do I get tired of being insulted and bullied on the basis of what other people imagine my beliefs are? Absolutely. Do I think it borders on harassment to appear on the Christian forums for the sole purpose of repeatedly insulting Christians? Yes, I rather do, which is why I don't behave in similar fashion on the atheist forum.
Yes, all of what you have said here above seems acceptable to me. I'd agree with it in general I think
This thread was started with the sole intention of defaming and attacking atheists. You were well aware that there are a number of atheists engaged in the discussion and chose to enter the discussion anyway.
Why would a christian start a thread attacking atheism in the first place?
And this is not a "christian" forum. It is a "religion and beliefs" forum.
But - I see you are now being "persecuted for your beliefs." which seems to be what all good Christians desire above all else.
Perhaps if you complained to hubpages they would make sure only Christians were allowed in these forums. But then who would persecute you?
I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this way. I have often answered a question on the religion forums only to have a nonbeliever throw gas and strike a match. If I had judged someone elses beliefs or tried to convert anyone I could see it. But the nonbeliever responses are like kids with rocks - just mean and a good mark of immaturity.
Good call Valerie, Holly
Oh no. Lots of believer think the way you do. Make Money especially has tried to have any non believers ejected on many occasions.
Interesting that anyone who does not believe the stuff you believe is "mean." This entire thread is an attack on atheism. Can you not read?
Actually the thread began with makemoney's post about fellow believers being attacked. Hell I was "attacked" by an atheist for defending the research of (ironically) an atheist (RJ Rummel).
Regardless, many here are guilty of being uncivil toward others. If everyone is civil then this problem will for the most part vanish.
People differ, they disagree.
It happens. All the time. No big deal.
Insinuating I am illiterate only gives proof to Valerie's observation.
The point I am making is that when a religion thread asks for opinions both should be free to respond. The nonbeliever tends to not only state their thoughts, but proceeds to specifically denigrate and ridicule a christian response. You have a right to post your opinion just as I do. But something is seriously wrong when you have the right to bully mine.
I have no doubt you understand the dynamics. Holly
Yes. Well stated, Valerie. The laws concerning internet slander and defamation are just now being being formulated - ie, I doubt few here are aware of what is actually illegal. Meaning no-name trolling individuals or others could possibly be prosecuted for damages if they seek or manage to defame people using their real names and photos online.
Europe is a little ahead of America as far a defining laws concerning internet harassment and defamation.
I've just been reading up on Richard Dawkins, whom many atheists here on Hubpages appear to base both their 'reasoning' and style upon (similar, I'd say, in the way many American political posters base their voice on Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh). Dawkins does indeed refer to himself as a militant atheist....intent on raising consciousness towards what he sees as inevitable and part of our evolution and the proof that those who are of atheistic belief have "independent, rational minds." Although the two points I hit here seem as if they could possible mutually exclude each other.
He appears to be a legitimate academic, but I would point out that his background is in ethology. The same doubts I know where voiced later on about Kinsey's contribution to the study of human sexuality as an entomologist I would apply to Dawkins' take on philosophy and religion...criticisms, I might add, of traditions that go back centuries into human history and to which many great thinkers of all cultures have added to (ie, he is intolerant of even Buddhist beliefs).
Anyway. What does away with it for me entirely is that he aligns himself with the evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary sociologists. It is amazingly reductionist (and he has been criticized for such by prominent scientists working within more relevant fields). I personally equate evolutionary psychologists with the worst pseudo academics out there interested in selling their book merchandise (and frankly, Dawkins website does have those signs about it, too...I love the fact he uses the .net rather than the .com, and really the whole tone in which it is written. I think he needs a better marketer.)
So, in using the rationality and skepticism available to me (lol, which he is a big proponent of), I would have to honestly answer that I have my doubts about the validity of his world view for me personally...even though I have read through his ideas and understand for the most part, his criticism of religion. It does not add very much to my own quest or formulation of beliefs (in short, it doesn't do anything for me). The acquisition of which I always thought was the essence of spirituality and free thought. ....you'd never know that by the newly religious "free thinking" atheists on this forum intent on proselytizing and ridicule.
That is to also say that I believe the cult of scientistic belief to be another myth, and at the very very best, only a way of seeing that glimpses part of the picture.
You guys sure are funny.
Make Money - there are a lot of believers who would not consider starting a thread specifically to attack atheists.
I am wondering though.
Are you guys more scared of gay male atheists or lesbians who have had an abortion?
Humanists come in theist and non-theist (I'd imagine) varieties, you know.
I.e, I think suggesting I, for one (and many others, no doubt), would be 'scared' of gay males or lesbians who have had an abortion is intellectually dishonest.
Really? How sad - I can smell the fear from here. I was just trying to judge what is more scary for you.
Not that attacking atheists and comparing them to mass murderers because they do not share your ridiculous beliefs is not "intellectually dishonest."
And people who hide behind fake user ID just to push their ridiculous beliefs and attack other from behind them? Well - you can imagine the level of respect I would have for them, Star Witness.
I would actually call that lying. But - I understand Jesus says that is OK if it is for god.
I won't waste the time others have trying to de-brief or educate, . They did a good job X 2, I'm afraid.
Nor am a interested in proselytizing like you are. If you actually read anything I said as "pushing" my beliefs or attacking others' beliefs, you simply have paranoid tendencies, perhaps, or some other cognitive problem.
For all you know, I could be a gay lesbian who has had an abortion.
"That is to also say that I believe the cult of scientistic belief to be another myth, and at the very very best, only a way of seeing that glimpses part of the picture.":
Can any one say "Intellectual dishonesty?"
Are there any straight lesbians?
Na, that's OK. I'm really here just to flirt, anyway. But I haven't seen another intellectual bisexual lesbian here in a while, so think I'll leave.
Gregg Biancci says, 'dont take it so personally' lol!
Nice one gregg, you idealist you loL!
It's always strange to me that religious people become so offended when the ideas they believe in are challenged. Beliefs are just that, and anyone is entitled to challenge and discard ideas any time without the assumption that it is attacking the person.
Ideas themselves such as beliefs in deities, do not deserve respect: people do. So criticising ideas for being irrational, illogical, counter-productive, etc, is perfectly acceptable.
In the case of religious ideas, they undermine a rational approach to the real world by postulating cases where the known physical laws (which we teach our children to understand and use) can be put aside on the whim of a supernatural being. Such undermining of the developing rational abilities in our children is something we should all be very concerned about. And simply saying that morality forms an important part of religion is no excuse.
In any case, morality stands perfectly solid quite independently of any religious beliefs. We don't need religion to be moral people.
Militant atheism is little more than insisting on rational thinking when we are making judgements about how the world is, and how people can and should be expected to behave. No supernatural stuff, just people thinking things through, reasoning and developing knowledge and understanding. Now what is particularly militant about that?
All Dawkins did was to stay to people that they shouldn't, by default, put up with the assumption that most people are religious. Those of us who don't believe in deities should assert our rights to be treated with the same respect demanded by religious people. We don't want religion pushed on us, not in schools, not in public institutions, not through the state. Sounds fairly reasonable. What's there to object to?
So - what you are saying is - you hate god?
I believe most are objecting to the disrespect on both sides of the table here on Hubpages, mainly. Which is different than being offended by ideas.
And intellectually speaking, I find his ideas mainly based in materialism and reductionist. That doesn't necessarily mesh with my world view.
"Go forth and multiply."
Pretty materialistic wouldn't you say? Offensive to some of us actually - as we can see the society created by these "simple" rules to live by.
Doesn't get more reductionist than, "God did it."
I gather we now call this "intellectual dishonesty."
There is intellectual dishonesty on both sides of the coin. Belief in theism (or not) is not a prerequisite.
Not to mention, most of this has to do with the responder's sophistication level...ie, I wouldn't even call the typical fundamentalist's answer that "God did it," intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't rate that high on Maslow's hierarchy, ie.
Believe this is where knowledge of empathy sometimes (indeed sometimes) comes into play.
Just misread this forum title as "The League of the Militant Goddess" and rushed over in eager anticipation, LOL!
Well, I'll leave you folks to your debates.
For the 100th time I did not mention organizations. YOU DID. Not once, in any of my posts here have I stated organizations as part of my premise. Not one. And no amount of endless crying on your part to try to convince yourself other wise is going to work. Go ahead, search all my posts. As several here have noticed, you are desperately trying to include another variable that was not and still not part of my premise. How many people have to accuse you of being dishonest before you realize this? You take losing a debate (or the appearance of such) personally and to keep from “losing face” you simply invent comments and attribute them to others. When half a dozen posts from other posters accuse you of this and other “semantic tricks” it is time to recognize that this is going to be a problem. It is ok to disagree with me, I have no problem with that, but when you take it so personally that you simply start lying then this is where you are going to embarrass yourself. And trying to extricate your self further in this manner will just make it worse.
Here is a very simple question Q.
The United States Chess Federation claims it is an organization. So does the Boy Scouts of America. Are they regimes Q? In Iceland there is an organization that believes in elves (13 kinds no less). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Elf_School
Is that regime Q? According to you it is. Or maybe not as in other posts you claim that these organizations are not regimes (I have trouble keeping up with your changing answers from day to day).
I want you to answer this so we can get this out of the way and everyone here can see what your response is. You have refused to answer this except by replying with “tafftard.”
Now let me provide an example of you simply lying. You claimed that by me stating “regimes” that this bizarrely includes organizations, primarily from the list you provided. Yet when I asked 72 hours ago which organizations on that list were regimes, you stated that there were NOT any regimes there. As you are now stating that organizations on that list are regimes I will now provide the link where your answer lies:
You clearly stated that these were not regimes. Now you bizarrely state that these organizations are regimes when not 72 hours ago you stated they were not.
As I stated before you cannot even lie correctly. The last time I asked you to explain this you answered with a half dozen “tafftards” (whatever that is).
I asked you point blank if these were regimes. You stated no. Now you are bizarrely telling me that organizations such as the “secular student alliance” and the “Gay and Lesbian Association” are Regimes. I have to admit I find it very humorous that these organizations that feature atheists are now referred by you as regimes (an atheist colleague of mind found it highly insulting and wondered how on earth you came to that conclusion).
Here is an idea, how about emailing them and asking them if they are a regime? Or I could do it. I can imagine the response we would get.
Here is the crux of the matter. I provided links, statistics (from other atheist researchers no less), memoirs, accounts, quotes, historical events, Wikipedia pages, etc.
You provided the following:
1-A list of organizations that you admitted are not regimes (which is just simply bizarre as I never mentioned organizations in my premise to begin with).
2- A half dozen instances of you muttering “tafftard.”
That is why you're a bold faced liar. A regime is an organization by definition. Of course, I keep telling you that is also irrelevant to your premise, which I see you've completely ignored my questions and explanation in favor of chasing semantics. Clearly, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Argument from authority - your posts are filled with fallacies.
And, you are desparately lying in order not to face the fallacious consequences of your posts.
As many as you want, it is an argument from authority, a fallacy. Do you even know what a fallacy is, Allan? You must, as you use them repeatedly.
Funny stuff, Allan.
Argument from authority, again? When will you stop with the fallacies.
You didn't respond to my post, which demonstrated your assertions to be meaningless drivel, so I have no intention of acknowledging more drivel.
Are you so stupid and blind to ask such a ridiculous question after the dictionary and I carefully explained that to you? Perhaps I'm using too big of words for you to grasp?
That is yet another bold faced lie.
Another lie. I have not changed anything.
And as I explained before, the tafftards are simply a response in kind to your insults. You insult me, I simply respond in kind. See now?
Another lie, I never said that.
Finally, you said something correct.
That is a lie, I never said that.
That is a lie, I never said those organizastions were regimes. I am seriously considering that you have a reading comprehension problem.
Another lie. My tafftards were in kind responses to your insults.
You are a liar and a fraud, Allan. I already explained why you're wrong and you completely ignored it in favor of lying about what I said.
Clearly, you're not here to discuss anything, but are only here to lie.
This exchange is becoming funnier as it goes. (And a little bit obsessive.) So, Q, is that "Q" as in Star Trek? Spacey! Really, is this all over the fact there is no God?
Alan, have you met Ron Montgomery of the political forum? Kind of a tongue-in-cheek version of yourself.
lol OK. Do you kind of see "militant" is somewhat being proven by this exchange alone?
Not really. What I've seen is little more than insults, lies and deceit from Allan.
LOL. It is funny. I tried to get him to answer a single question but as he has repeatedly stated, he will refuse to answer them. Obviously.
If only my debates in a academic setting where this easy.
I have not made it in the Poli forums, in fact I thik I only posted a single comment there a month ago or so. I get so much of it in my daily life that it is tiring to just even read about it...
by Chuck Field4 years ago
It’s no secret that Atheism is growing across the world and across the U.S. As we atheists become a more powerful and vocal minority, it seems that I hear more and more backlash portraying us as being angry...
by janesix4 years ago
I have come to the conclusion that religion does, in fact, rot your brain. Most "believers" of any faith, including the fake "pagan" and "New Age" religions are not believers at all. They...
by Person of Interest3 years ago
Well, sports fans. I generally avoid the R&P forums. But I just couldn't pass this one up.USPS discriminates against atheists.http://now.msn.com/atheist-shoes-says-u … t-atheistsLooks like the real deal to...
by Chuck4 years ago
As anyone who has read my writing knows, I'm not a fan of religion. I'm also not a fan of wannabe trolls, masquerading as atheists, preaching their nonsense louder than most Christians.You don't believe in God? That's...
by paarsurrey5 years ago
Mick Menous wrote:Now I do know for a fact that it was Christianity that did start The Crusades, Witch Hunting, and The Inquisition which resulted in the deaths of so many people, but that was a VERY LONG time...
by Mark Knowles6 years ago
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence....
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.