Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment.
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 91 of 245 (548886)
03-02-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rahvin
03-01-2010 11:31 AM


I really, really despise your insipid mindless middle nonsense.
What does "middle nonsense" consist of???
Stalin wasn't out to kill Christians like some Roman emperor throwing them to the lions. He was killing off anyone loyal to the opposition, in any form that might take. It's not even clear that Stalin himself was an Atheist, as he had some strong ties to Orthodoxy.
You are right to say that Stalin's goal was a political purge, however, Stalin was very much against religion because it heavily conflicted with Marxist ideology. And yes, he attended the seminary in his youth but grew to despise it, possibly more than you despise my "insipid mindless middle nonsense."
And to suggest that anti-religion mass murders have been worse than religiously-motivated purges is blatantly stupid.
It's not a matter of being "worse" in linear terms, but rather the amount killed in relatively much shorter period of time. I am simply illustrating that to indict religion as being a cause for violence is foolish when juxtaposing the opposite. The problem is not religion or irrelegion as it were, but the condition of the human heart itself.
Propaganda exists with many faces and people invent all sorts of justifications for why their aims should continue under the threat of sword.
The Holocaust was religiously motivated, and there is frankly no way to argue otherwise if you read even just a few excerpts from Mein Kampf (a stomach turning exercise, but then, nobody ever claimed history was pretty).
The Holocause was less religiously motivated than it was eugenically, socially and racially motivated, since homosexuals, the mentally retarded, gypsy, and Jew were swept up in a tide of pro-cacausian fervor.
The Inquisition was quite obviously religiously motivated. There is no possible way to contest this.
No doubt about it.
The Salem Witch Trials were the same.
It's really silly to use the Salem Witch Trials since it was localized and about 25 people died versus Nazi-Germany's concentration camps or the Soviet Union's gulags which killed, imprisoned, or persecuted millions.
It's true that there are "whackos" of every political and religious (and irreligious) persuasion. Sociopathic behavior is rooted in the individual, and the rest is just the trappings.
That really is all I'm saying, so I don't see the need to be so defensive as if you fall in to that category by proxy because you're an atheist.
My point is there is nothing inherently wrong with being religious or irrelegious, since there are good-natured people of both persuasions who have never hurt a soul.
But some philosophies do lend themselves to work as motivations or jsutifications of abhorrent behavior more than others. Atheism isn't even a philosophy in and of itself - it's simply an absence of any belief in deities. It's rather difficult to jump from "there are no gods" to "we should kill all the Jews."
It is not always simply an absence of belief. As illustrated by China, Germany, and Russia, religion is antagonistic towards despotism because it offers people outside of the regime that the despots want to control.
Christianity, however, has been used to justify all manner of atrocities - including killing Jews, who after all killed Jesus remember, or taking blacks as slaves, because after all they were the seed of Ham, or destroying Native American cultures, since they're just filthy heathens anyway, or shunning the use of condoms in the middle of the African AIDS epidemic.
I'm not religious, so I don't have any affection towards any religion. Like you said people use religious justifications to enact their loathing for something. I am simply saying that is also done in reverse as well. The religious persecution that exists in China, even to this day, is frightening. Christians and Falun Gong practioners are routinely persecuted and there is even growing evidence that Christians, Falun Gong, and prisoners organs have been harvested with the government's knowledge and consent.
Why these individuals? Because they're expendable blights on mankind in the eyes of the PRC.
quote:
My advice to you is not to turn this in to an "Us versus Them" thing. That would only further perpetuate ignorance.
Indeed. You've already perpetuated more than enough on your own.
How is that so if I am being objective and you and Hooah seem to be only pointing the finger in one direction?

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 03-01-2010 11:31 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taz, posted 03-02-2010 11:02 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 99 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2010 12:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 226 by Taz, posted 03-17-2010 9:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 92 of 245 (548891)
03-02-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
03-02-2010 8:36 AM


Re: What Use To Be
The school kiddies, in America's past, were exposed to a whole lot more Bible for a long time than what they are today, embracing Biblical beliefs. Those were the days of America's incline. These are the days of America's decline.
And so you correlate the two? Do you have any evidence for that?
Are there, just possibly, any other factors that might be involved? Increasing population? Increasing diversity of population? Increasing education and wealth? Maturing of the social structure? Massively increased communication ability. Anything at all?
It is beginning to look like you are so self-blinded by your religious dogma that you can't see beyond it's boundaries.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2010 8:36 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2010 10:29 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 245 (548897)
03-02-2010 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Coyote
03-02-2010 9:59 AM


Re: What Use To Be
Coyote writes:
Are there, just possibly, any other factors that might be involved? Increasing population? Increasing diversity of population? Increasing education and wealth? Maturing of the social structure? Massively increased communication ability. Anything at all?
Populations have been on the increase all along, as well as diversity of population. The others, as well have been steadily on the increase. Not until the 1960s did the paranoia begin relative to leftist secular humanist demands for exclusive secularization of the schools and public arena. It was in the 1960's and early 70s that we went off gold and silver into exclusive paper, cheap clad coinage, numbers and marks, etc. It was in the 1960s when Jews marched into the old walled city of Jerusalem and out marched the gentiles as per Jesus's prediction that the end/decline of the gentile nations would happen. Lo and behold, here we are, well into the decline as secularism rises and Biblical principles decline in America's culture. I've lived through and observed it all happen/happening.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2010 9:59 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2010 10:38 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 245 (548898)
03-02-2010 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Theodoric
03-01-2010 4:36 PM


Re: WTF?
These guys were totalitarian thugs, they were not attempting to make a utopian society.
Yes, they very much were trying to create a utopian society where class wars would be put to an end. The problem is their utopian dream ended up being a dystopian nightmare.
They were not specifically seeking a religion-free society.
No, you are right. That was not their only goal, rather suppressing religion was one facet of achieving their societal goals.
They were trying to eliminate any other potential rivals. That religion was one of their potential rivals does mean that they were more against it than anything else. They destroyed any organizations not controlled by themselves. For example, trade unions, independent media, independent universities.
I am not contesting any of that. I am simply pointing out that the freedom of religion was in jeopardy and many were persecuted under the pretense of their utopian society, which included no religion. Religion was viewed by the heads of state as a dangerous relic of the past that conflicted with deepest tenets of their beliefs.
You make it sound like their main motive was destroying religion.
If you extrapolated that I was stating this was their only motivation, then that is your failing and not mine. You assume that must have been what I meant when all I stated was that anti-religious factions have persecuted religion in the same manner that religion has persecuted anyone outside of its sphere of influence.
You seem to agree so I am unclear on what precisely it is that you are objecting to.
BTW, I sure hope you were trying to include Hitler in you list.
Absolutely Hitler is included.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2010 4:36 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2010 3:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 95 of 245 (548899)
03-02-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
03-02-2010 10:29 AM


Re: What Use To Be
It was in the 1960s when Jews marched into the old walled city of Jerusalem and out marched the gentiles
Please explain what you mean by this? There was a mass exodus of christians from jerusalem after the 1967 war?
I have been to the old city. There is a pretty vibrant christian population and presence there. Also, a strong islamic and jewish presence. I am not being pro or con Israle here. I just want to know what the hell you are talking about. Or at least what you think you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2010 10:29 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2010 12:43 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 96 of 245 (548903)
03-02-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Hyroglyphx
03-02-2010 9:30 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:
...because it heavily conflicted with Marxist ideology.
Have you seriously studied Marxist ideology? How Russia became a communist country was anything but Marxistly ideal. Hint: Both Russia and China went directly from feudalistic-like societies directly to dictatorship. They named it communism, but it had little to do with it.
And again, all those purges weren't a result of atheism vs religion. They were all religion vs religion. Instead of praying to a cross, the people had to pray to portraits of their great leaders. Everything about those regimes resemble theocratic rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-02-2010 9:30 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by hooah212002, posted 03-02-2010 11:05 AM Taz has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 97 of 245 (548905)
03-02-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taz
03-02-2010 11:02 AM


Everything about those regimes resemble theocratic rule.
Apparently, anything not-christianity is atheism.
Buddhist? =Atheist
Muslim? =Atheist
Hindu? =Atheist
Commy Basterd? =Atheist
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taz, posted 03-02-2010 11:02 AM Taz has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 98 of 245 (548906)
03-02-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Taz
03-01-2010 7:24 PM


Those dictators initiated their purges for political reasons, not because of some atheistic doctrine.
Politics and ideology are inextricably linked. The "policies" of a political platform directly come from their ideologies. I assume you would agree that Bush's policies stem from his politics which are heavily influenced by his religion, would you not?
If that it the case, exactly what difference is there between Chinese oppression of religion? Merely political? What "political" aversion exists in religion? Unless of course it politically conflicts with your ideology.
First, they proclaimed themselves to have a monopoly on truth.
So did most forms of communism, so what is your point? Are you disagreeing that anti-religionist regimes have existed, and still exist in many places, and that they aren't persecuting religion?
They then indoctrinated the school children to view them as religious icons. I have a friend who grew up in Vietnam. He told me that when he was in grade school there the children were made to recite the communist pledge (pray) to a picture of Ho Chi Minh. School children in Soviet Russia also (prayed) to a picture of Stalin and Lenin. School children in China also (prayed) to a picture of Mao. Sound familiar?
You're making my point for me. So what are you objecting to about what I'm saying?
And when they began to feel threatened by some political group or persons, they began their purges... you know, sort of like the inquisitions and the salem witch trials.
Exactly!!!
They had nothing to do with atheism or human reason. To claim so shows the kind of naive thinking found in either school children or republicans.
You are thinking too broadly here. Using "human reason" or "atheism" is not on trial here. I very clearly spoke about "anti-religion" (see the contrast?) Yes, by the very nature of things in order to be anti-religion one has to be an atheist, HOWEVER, being an atheist doesn't automatically make you anti-religion.
I am not, repeat, NOT saying that all atheists are indictable. I am simply pointing out an historical FACT -- that there is blood on the hands of many anti-religion regimes in history. So it is idiotic to try and indict religion alone (under some giant umbrella no less) as being the sole perpetrator of human misery. NOTHING about what I've stated is inaccurate. That you can't even be objective about it points to a blinding bias on your part.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 03-01-2010 7:24 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2010 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 99 of 245 (548909)
03-02-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Hyroglyphx
03-02-2010 9:30 AM


The Mindless Middle
quote:
I really, really despise your insipid mindless middle nonsense.
What does "middle nonsense" consist of???
It's "mindless middle" nonsense, actually.
The Mindless Middle refers to the strong tendency to seek the "middle ground" in any given dispute and attribute to it a higher likelihood of accuracy than "either side," and label this conclusion as "objectivity." You'll note that at no point is such an assessment actually based on an analysis of facts, but is rather determined by making a compromise of sorts from all sides of any dispute.
You do this...a lot. You're not alone. It's unfortunately common in hotly contested issues (you're unlikely to see the Mindless middle at work when it comes to whether the Earth is flat or an ovoid sphere, for instance, but it pops up as "teach the controversy" and similar arguments commonly in the EvC debate).
In this case, you've made a statement to paint atheism in the same historically negative light as religion in terms of crimes agaisnt humanity - a sort of massive scale to quoque fallacy.
Objectivity does not mean maintaining absolute neutrality towards each side and seeking the "truth" from all sides. It does not mean trying to find any "middle ground."
Objectivity means impassionately following the facts, regardless of where they lead, unswerved by any emotional bias - including the emotional sense of "fairness" that instinctually urges us to seek compromise. In some cases, one side is simply wrong.
quote:
Stalin wasn't out to kill Christians like some Roman emperor throwing them to the lions. He was killing off anyone loyal to the opposition, in any form that might take. It's not even clear that Stalin himself was an Atheist, as he had some strong ties to Orthodoxy.
You are right to say that Stalin's goal was a political purge, however, Stalin was very much against religion because it heavily conflicted with Marxist ideology. And yes, he attended the seminary in his youth but grew to despise it, possibly more than you despise my "insipid mindless middle nonsense."
The Marxist philosophy in question (that religion is the opiate of the masses, and that religious persuits detract from work that benefits the state) is, in fact, identical to Stalin's political motivation: he wanted the competition out. Remember, for all intents and purposes, Stalin was the state.
The relevant fact here is that this purge cannot be attributed to atheism. It was a political purge, spawned of political ideology. How do we know this? There is no atheistic ideology or philosophy whatsoever. It's ratehr difficult to say that the teachigns of atheism led to a purge of the faithful when atheism has, in fact, no teachings at all.
quote:
And to suggest that anti-religion mass murders have been worse than religiously-motivated purges is blatantly stupid.
It's not a matter of being "worse" in linear terms, but rather the amount killed in relatively much shorter period of time. I am simply illustrating that to indict religion as being a cause for violence is foolish when juxtaposing the opposite. The problem is not religion or irrelegion as it were, but the condition of the human heart itself.
Then the Holocaust trumps all, since Stalin's purges are irrelevant (being politically driven, not atheistically).
Propaganda exists with many faces and people invent all sorts of justifications for why their aims should continue under the threat of sword.
Undisputed. Crazies will be crazies, they just use whatever is avialable to justify theur craziness.
However, it is true that some religions (curiously, not all of them) do lend themselves to justification of sociopathic behavior than others. Certain facets of modern Christian fundamentalism, for example, very easily lend themselves to the killing of abortion doctors, while various other belief systems are less suited to be used as justification for such an act. In some cases, the zealous teachings of a religion can actually create a sociopath (see modern suicide bombers).
Atheism itself has no teachings, and so it's not possible to honestly state that it can somehow be used in a similar way to validate the delusions of a sociopathic whackjob. There's no central philosophy. Remember how many fundamentalists believe that, without a belief in God, people would run amok raping and pillaging and killing? Remember how they're wrong? That's because simply not believing in deities carries no motivation for any specific action (the closest would simply be a disinclination to participate in worship services or pray, for obvious reasons).
quote:
The Holocaust was religiously motivated, and there is frankly no way to argue otherwise if you read even just a few excerpts from Mein Kampf (a stomach turning exercise, but then, nobody ever claimed history was pretty).
The Holocause was less religiously motivated than it was eugenically, socially and racially motivated, since homosexuals, the mentally retarded, gypsy, and Jew were swept up in a tide of pro-cacausian fervor.
Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler wrote it before his political rise to power, and it gives a (rather uncomfortable) startling look into his motivations for the Holocaust.
Here are some quotes:
quote:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
quote:
"The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schonerer's opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality."
quote:
"Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image."
quote:
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."
quote:
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."
quote:
"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
There's plenty more, but I think that's more than enough.
Hitler's motivations for the Holocaust were religiously motivated - and were hardly new. He drew very heavily from none other than Martin Luther - the ferociously antisemitic father of all Protestantism (which makes it all the more ironic that Hitler so favored Catholicism). His vision of racial and moral purity were driven by an interpretation of Christian dogma that today almost any Christian would find abhorrent and twisted, but which was immensely popular at the time (and still exists, though thankfully in greatly diminished form).
Homosexuals, the handicapped, gypsies, Jews, blacks, and anyone else of insufficient Aryan purity (including adherence to the Nazi version of Christian morality) was included in the Holocaust, and this was religiously motivated. Hitler considered Christianity to be the "true Aryan religion," and drew his vision of racial purity from Biblical teachings (in much the same way Buz does today when he says that the races were created separately and should thus remain; thankfully, Buz and those like him don;t often cross over into the "kill the other races" arena in the modern age).
quote:
The Salem Witch Trials were the same.
It's really silly to use the Salem Witch Trials since it was localized and about 25 people died versus Nazi-Germany's concentration camps or the Soviet Union's gulags which killed, imprisoned, or persecuted millions.
Perhaps, if we're talking about rapid mass murder. I simply included it as yet another case of obviously religiously motivated crimes against humanity.
quote:
It's true that there are "whackos" of every political and religious (and irreligious) persuasion. Sociopathic behavior is rooted in the individual, and the rest is just the trappings.
That really is all I'm saying, so I don't see the need to be so defensive as if you fall in to that category by proxy because you're an atheist.
It's not defensiveness - it's annoyance at your Mindless Middle conclusions. "You do it too" is only valid if, in fact, you can show actual facts that show that atheism inspired mass atrocities on the scale of those inspired by religion. You never did so - you simply made the unsupported statement that atheistic atrocities have dwarfed religious atrocities in teh mdoern age, a statement which is outright false when actual facts are brought into play.
My point is there is nothing inherently wrong with being religious or irrelegious, since there are good-natured people of both persuasions who have never hurt a soul.
You'll find no arguemnt from me there. There is nothing inherently wrong with being religious, except that it suggests a lack of objectivity. However, I would never suggest that anyone believe anything other than what their conscience dictates. I may find certain beleifs to be reprehensible or silly or even stupid or monstrous, but I respect the right of every person to reach their own conclusions on what to believe based on what facts are available to them.
quote:
But some philosophies do lend themselves to work as motivations or jsutifications of abhorrent behavior more than others. Atheism isn't even a philosophy in and of itself - it's simply an absence of any belief in deities. It's rather difficult to jump from "there are no gods" to "we should kill all the Jews."
It is not always simply an absence of belief. As illustrated by China, Germany, and Russia, religion is antagonistic towards despotism because it offers people outside of the regime that the despots want to control.
Religion is in no way antagonistic towards despotism - see Saudi Arabia, Iran, recently the Taliban, etc.
Stalin and Mao took Marx's suggestion that religion can work to the detriment of the state by either distraction or outright opposition. Other tyrannical states habe used religion to serve their purposes. The greatest example may in fact be North Korea, where Kim Jung Il is worshipped as a living God.
quote:
Christianity, however, has been used to justify all manner of atrocities - including killing Jews, who after all killed Jesus remember, or taking blacks as slaves, because after all they were the seed of Ham, or destroying Native American cultures, since they're just filthy heathens anyway, or shunning the use of condoms in the middle of the African AIDS epidemic.
I'm not religious, so I don't have any affection towards any religion.
Which unfortunately does not guarantee your objectivity.
Like you said people use religious justifications to enact their loathing for something. I am simply saying that is also done in reverse as well.
Name a single atheistic teaching that can be used to jsutify anything. Just one. Any teaching. At all.
The religious persecution that exists in China, even to this day, is frightening. Christians and Falun Gong practioners are routinely persecuted and there is even growing evidence that Christians, Falun Gong, and prisoners organs have been harvested with the government's knowledge and consent.
And as I've said, I do not dispute that China is not exactly a role model for human rights. I simply dispute the attribution of those abuses to atheism, because atheism itself has absolutely no teachings or philosophy on which to base any action, good or bad. China's abuses are committed for purely political reasons. Religion is persecuted for political reasons. It has nothign to do with atheism, and everything to do with unchallenged state control of the population.
You could jsut as easily attribute China's atrocities to internet censorship, since it has the same role in Chinese rule as atheism. A means to an end is not the same as a motivation; enforced atheism is simply a means toward the end of eliminating competition for the hearts and minds of the population, and is motivated by a political doctrine of complete state control.
Why these individuals? Because they're expendable blights on mankind in the eyes of the PRC.
Correction: because they are competition in the eyes of the PRC.
quote:
My advice to you is not to turn this in to an "Us versus Them" thing. That would only further perpetuate ignorance.
Indeed. You've already perpetuated more than enough on your own.
How is that so if I am being objective and you and Hooah seem to be only pointing the finger in one direction?
Here is where you truly demonstrate teh Mindless Middle: you are not being objective at all. Pointing in "one direction" does not in any way mean that someone is not being objective.
In a discussion on the shape of the Earth, an objective analysis of facts will lead to all "fingers" pointing in the direction of a rough ovoid sphere, and none pointing towards a flat circle.
You aren't being objective, Hyro. You rarely are. Instead, you're seeking a compromise between "both sides." You believe that "both sides"have some "truth" to them, and so you conclude that reality is somewhere "in the middle." Your accusation that atheism is "just as bad" as religion when ti comes to atrocities is based solely on trying to find some middle ground that appeals to your inner sense of fairness...but is not in any way based on an objective analysis of fact.
PS - I can't claim credit for the term Mindless Middle. I first heard it from Mike Wong, of CreationTheory.org.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-02-2010 9:30 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by dronestar, posted 03-02-2010 12:33 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2010 10:59 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 100 of 245 (548910)
03-02-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
03-02-2010 11:13 AM


Your premise is flawed
Anti-religious does not equate to atheism. As shown by Stalin and the French Revolution, as two examples. For both I will grant they were anti-established religion, but it is very difficult to equate that to atheism.
Also, your logic fails here. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.
This is an interesting way for an atheist state that is trying to eliminate all religions to act.
Although all religions were persecuted[31], the regime's efforts to eradicate religion, however, varied over the years with respect to particular religions, and were affected by higher state interests. Official policies and practices not only varied with time but also in their application from one nationality and one religion to another. Although all Soviet leaders had the same long-range goal of developing a cohesive Soviet people, they pursued different policies to achieve it. For the Soviet regime, the questions of nationality and religion were always closely linked. Not surprisingly, therefore, the attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others.
Source

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-02-2010 11:13 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2010 1:07 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2010 12:23 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 101 of 245 (548911)
03-02-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Rahvin
03-02-2010 12:06 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
Wow. Please excuse the interruption, but that was an excellent post Rahvin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2010 12:06 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 245 (548912)
03-02-2010 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Theodoric
03-02-2010 10:38 AM


Re: What Use To Be
Theodoric writes:
Please explain what you mean by this? There was a mass exodus of christians from jerusalem after the 1967 war?
I have been to the old city. There is a pretty vibrant christian population and presence there. Also, a strong islamic and jewish presence. I am not being pro or con Israle here. I just want to know what the hell you are talking about. Or at least what you think you are talking about.
I'll let Wiki explain that Jordan occupied it and it was called, Transjordan. FYI, Jordan is Gentile.
That there is a significant non-Jewish element in Jerusalem is no different than the fact that there are a significant number of emigrants, legal and otherwise in the US of A. Occupation perse depends on who rules and who dominates the region. Any Gentiles living in Jerusalem must abide by the laws of the governing Jews.
There are 10,000 US citizens living in Chile. That doesn't mean Chileans do not occupy their nation which they govern.
The West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) for a period of nearly two decades (1948—1967) starting from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In 1950, with British approval, and despite Arab League opposition, Jordan extended its jurisdiction over the West Bank. The inhabitants of the West Bank became citizens of Jordan.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2010 10:38 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2010 1:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 103 of 245 (548913)
03-02-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
03-02-2010 12:43 PM


Re: What Use To Be
Why didn't you use the term moslem or arabic? Why gentile? Some sort of antisemitic thing? No one uses the word gentile except Jews and anti-semitics. Oh and Mormons.
This is a wingnut dog whistle word. The average person thinks of christian when hearing gentile. Some dictionaries even define as
a person who is not Jewish, esp. a Christian.
Random House 2010
Remember gentile also means non-Mormon to Mormons. So your word is a very very poor choice. But it definitely was a dog whistle.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2010 12:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 245 (548914)
03-02-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Theodoric
03-02-2010 12:12 PM


Re: Establishment Of Athiesm
Theodoric writes:
Anti-religious does not equate to atheism. As shown by Stalin and the French Revolution, as two examples. For both I will grant they were anti-established religion, but it is very difficult to equate that to atheism.
No matter how you dress it up, it equates to the abolishment of religion and the establishment of athiestic values. Stalin espoused Marxism and Lenninism, both of which sought to abolish religion.
The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion (Karl Marx)
I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above. (Karl Marx)
The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain, till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me. (Karl Marx)
With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the fact of the world and see the collapse of this pygmy giant. Then will I wander god-like and victorious through the ruins of the world. And giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator. (Karl Marx)
Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism. (attributed to Vladimir I. Lenin)
Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism. (V.I. Lenin)
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel. (V.I. Lenin)
We do not fight against believers and not even clergymen. WE FIGHT AGAINST GOD to snatch believers from Him. (Vechernaia Moskva, a Soviet newspaper)
Let us drive out the Capitalists from the earth, and God from Heaven! (early Soviet slogan)
The official journal of the Soviet Academy of Pedagogical Sciences published a government directive Atheistic Education in the School as a resource on how to separate God from human society. The opening paragraph is revealing: The Soviet school, as an instrument for the Communist education of the rising generation, can, as a matter of principle, take up no other attitude towards religion than one of irreconcilable opposition; for Communist education has as its philosophical basis Marxism, and Marxism is irreconcilably hostile to religion. ‘Marxism is materialism,’ says V. I. Lenin; ‘as such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as the materialism of the Encyclopedaists of the eighteenth century or the materialism of Feuerbach.’ Another excerpt reads: ‘Religion’, Marx said, is nourished not on heaven but on earth, and with the annihilation of that perverted reality, of which capitalism is the theory, religion will perish of its own accord.’
The World has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice. (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)
Was Stalin an atheist? - FreeThoughtPedia

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2010 12:12 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 03-02-2010 1:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 106 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2010 1:24 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 03-02-2010 1:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 109 by Species8472, posted 03-02-2010 1:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 105 of 245 (548915)
03-02-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
03-02-2010 1:07 PM


Re: Establishment Of Athiesm
Stalin espoused Marxism and Lenninism, both of which sought to abolish religion.
It could just as easily be argued that Stalin was trying to assume religious status as the Godhead of the State. Stalin wasn't trying to abolish religion. He was trying to abolish his religious competitors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 03-02-2010 1:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024