15 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaTo criticise atheism in Stalinist Russia would be to attempt to set up a competing power structure, something no megalomaniac would allow. You say doing something in the name of atheism, I say doing it to consolidate power - ask yourself, from what we know of Stalin, which is more likely??
Stalin did many things. Most were not in the name of atheism, but some were. For example, you DO know that it was forbidden to criticize atheism and this could lead to imprisonment (including being sent to gulags), don't you?
PS: I'm an atheist. A strong atheist, to be precise. I've said this so many times here, and yet your stereotypical views of the world keep making you label me as a Christian. Jesus wept.
...your stereotypical views of the world....
Then I apologise, but then all stereotypes have a basis in fact.
15 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzHook, line and sinker.
To criticise atheism in Stalinist Russia would be to attempt to set up a competing power structure, something no megalomaniac would allow. You say doing something in the name of atheism, I say doing it to consolidate power - ask yourself, from what we know of Stalin, which is more likely??
So you agree that atrocities done in the name of a religion cannot also be blamed on that religion?
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo, what's the point? It appears that the design of this clip is to make the "religious" appear silly. That's easy enough to do. What's missing is the real thing. God is invisible, and so is His church. True spirituality is in the mind.
This look great!
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=kSa2j6UoU78
I especially love the big hick "you start disputing my God, you got a problem".
15 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaNo.
Hook, line and sinker.
So you agree that atrocities done in the name of a religion cannot also be blamed on that religion?
Theism and atheism are two completely different beasts.
Atrocities committed in the name of religion are specifically that, atrocities committed either specifically as a result of the theology of that religion, or as a means of cementing the power and influence of that theology.
Atrocities committed "in the name of atheism" are certainly not demonstrably such. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al killed people because they were murdering megalomanics, not because they were atheists. Indeed, Hitler was not an atheist (we can assume the majority of his soldiers were religious), nor was Franco, yet both were megalomaniacs. Mussolini, in the same vein as his father, disliked the power of the church, and we can assume had few religious convictions. I DO NOT BLAME THE SECOND WORLD WAR ON RELIGION. It had other reasons. However, when religious people commit attrocities, they should be held to account. Unless you want to group the Popes of the past along with Stalin, Hilter, and Pol Pot, as petty murderers facilitated by a false theology (in itself a good enough reason to call for its abolision), I'm sure you'll appreciate the difference - the only distinction between the Popes and the others is that the Popes have the dubious excuse that God told them to do it.
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by josephwIt's time we looked at religion critically is the point. We should not give religion any concessions based upon its supposedly "special" stature.
So, what's the point? It appears that the design of this clip is to make the "religious" appear silly. That's easy enough to do. What's missing is the real thing. God is invisible, and so is His church. True spirituality is in the mind.
Religion in general, and the Christian religion in specific, are nothing more than bronze age tales to frighten people into behaving themselves. These fables are no longer necessary, and are, I believe, deeply damaging to the human psyche.
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou're again diverting and attacking a line of argument that is not my own.
No.
Theism and atheism are two completely different beasts.
Atrocities committed in the name of religion are specifically that, atrocities committed either specifically as a result of the theology of that religion, or as a means of cementing the power and influence of that theology.
Atrocities committed "in the name of atheism" are certainl ...[text shortened]... Popes and the others is that the Popes have the dubious excuse that God told them to do it.
Repeat: I'm not saying Stalin did everything he did because he was an atheist.
However, he did imprison people for openly criticizing atheism and others for refusing to let go of their religious beliefs. All these were known as religious prisoners and many were sent to gulags. Do you need me to describe what gulags were or do we agree that falls into the current Rome Statute definition of crimes against humanity?
Ergo, crimes against humanity were committed in the name of atheism. It is irrelevant if the real motive was not atheism, that even makes my point stronger. Atheism was then the rallying motive for officially justifying crimes against humanity, which is precisely equivalent to your critique of religion, i.e. it can be used as a rallying motive to officially justify crimes against humanity.
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by PalynkaOkay, I'll accept that one could potentially use atheism as a rallying cry, despite it making no sense whatsoever. Since when have people needed sense to discriminate against others.
You're again diverting and attacking a line of argument that is not my own.
Repeat: I'm not saying Stalin did everything he did because he was an atheist.
However, he did imprison people for openly criticizing atheism and others for refusing to let go of their religious beliefs. All these were known as religious prisoners and many were sent to gulags. ...[text shortened]... igion, i.e. it can be used as a rallying motive to officially justify crimes against humanity.
My point stands though that there is only one reason, the individuals own goals, for an atheist to murder people.
With theism, it's either a flawed theology, which would be better eradicated, or a flawed system, which would be better eradicated, which leads people to murder people.
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzI have no argument with your position on religion , religious zealots , fundies , organised religion , extremists using religion as an excuse to kill etc etc.
It's time we looked at religion critically is the point. We should not give religion any concessions based upon its supposedly "special" stature.
Religion in general, and the Christian religion in specific, are nothing more than bronze age tales to frighten people into behaving themselves. These fables are no longer necessary, and are, I believe, deeply damaging to the human psyche.
I have no problem with your position , why? Because Jesus was the sternest critic of the "religious" of his day. He challenged the fundies of his time and mixed with the "sinners" and prostitutes in the fields away from the churches. If he was alive now it would be Jesus making these sorts of films.
My problem is that you do not discriminate between religion and spirituality.
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe question is - Just because someone can point out those faults, does that make them any better?
I have no argument with your position on religion , religious zealots , fundies , organised religion , extremists using religion as an excuse to kill etc etc.
I have no problem with your position , why? Because Jesus was the sternest critic of the "religious" of his day. He challenged the fundies of his time and mixed with the "sinners" and prostitu ...[text shortened]... s of films.
My problem is that you do not discriminate between religion and spirituality.
Often times the only thing more self righteous than religious zealots are those who are experts at pointing out religious zealots.