- This topic is empty.
- Posts
However, Richard Dawkins argues that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by their dogmatic Marxism,[2] saying that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[3] In response to this, Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza argued that Communism was an explicitly atheist ideology.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Stalin and Mao just happened to be atheists says Richard Dawkins but when pointing out to STU that if they were two Muslims he would say that there actions were connected to their beliefs but guess what Mao and Stalin believed in the ATHEISTIC agenda and had the military power and will to execute their bloody agenda.
They would easily attack innocent believers at any time had they the numbers and force to do so.
STU supports The People's Republic of China and their official Atheistic stance. Human rights violations run rampant in China.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
Though the constitution of Democratic Kampuchea guaranteed the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion, it also provided that “Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.”[44] The leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. 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 imams were executed.[45][46] Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed because of their religion.[47]See how the sweet atheist just want peace for everyone. Killing is there way to peace. Non believers seem harmless enough until you stumble on their KILLING FIELDS
Cuba
Originally more tolerant of religion, after the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba began arresting many believers and shutting down religious schools, its prisons since the 1960s being filled with clergy.[48] [48] Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has amended its statutes to declare itself a “secular state” rather than atheistic but, as a practical matter, it continues to harshly repress believers.[48] Since the 1960s, its prisons have been filled with clergy and other faithful.[48]Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
In this argument of Dawkins he makes an inane statement, when have we ever seen something less complex create something more complex than itself.
Quote However, Richard Dawkins argues that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by their dogmatic Marxism,[2] saying that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[3] In response to this, Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza argued that Communism was an explicitly atheist ideology.[21] ” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism%5B/quote%5D
As kejonn wrote in another thread, communists are all atheists, but not all atheists are communists. Atheism is only ONE BELIEF: there are probably no gods. Communism is a complex set of beliefs that vary from person to person, concerning what people should be required to do for their society. Are we really suggesting that the atheism is a cause of the problems? Of course not, it is a symptom. I do not believe people should be stopped from believing what they want, communists must believe that.
You could also say there were many kitten lovers who were executors of state violence, so we really should include all the kittenist communists in this: kitten-loving really is evil. Don’t forget those communists who grow flowers to take when they visit their dear old mothers. Or the ones that love a freshly-baked apple pie. Those nasty communist states are really hotbeds of apple pie devouring, kitten-loving, horticultural mother-visiting evil. Nothing to do with the communism, obviously.
Did you quote Wikipedia directly there? It says “conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza” not “Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza”.
Just like to add that my writing was original…
Stuart
Quote Stalin and Mao just happened to be atheists says Richard Dawkins but when pointing out to STU that if they were two Muslims he would say that there actions were connected to their beliefs but guess what Mao and Stalin believed in the ATHEISTIC agenda and had the military power and will to execute their bloody agenda.
Of course they believed in people not having a belief system to compete with the ideology they wanted to maintain in the psyche of the people. The Islamic Republic of Iran has exactly the same attitude towards its people.What would a regime that was atheistic look like? Doesn’t it depend on the electoral system (or lack of it) of the country? In a dictatorship you would find people persecuted for god belief, and in a democracy you would have… New Zealand, pretty much. We have government that is undertaken without reference to deities. I think we should reasonably be classed as an atheistic regime, although the more appropriate term is ‘secular’.
No government-sponsored summary executions on the streets in this atheist state. No persecution on the grounds of religious belief either (apart from most kiwis thinking that JWs and evengelical types are interminable bores, but that is not really persecution).
Stuart
Quote They would easily attack innocent believers at any time had they the numbers and force to do so.
You are thinking of mohammad and his merry bunch of Medinite murderers.Stuart
Quote STU supports The People's Republic of China and their official Atheistic stance. Human rights violations run rampant in China. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
Though the constitution of Democratic Kampuchea guaranteed the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion, it also provided that “Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.”[44] The leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. 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 imams were executed.[45][46] Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed because of their religion.[47]See how the sweet atheist just want peace for everyone. Killing is there way to peace. Non believers seem harmless enough until you stumble on their KILLING FIELDS
Three examples of the fallacy of illicit minor.Sorry BD, while muslims have a book that ambigously describes the circumstances under which you may kill other people, and therefore since all muslims follow that book then all muslims are complicit in the consequences of following those insane instructions, there is no such book for atheists. Not all atheists have to agree that totalitarian human right abuses are acceptable; I might just as validly argue that because your blood is the same colour as Stalin’s blood, you applaud his slaugher of 60 million of his people.
BD is a blood-brother Stalinist sympathiser…
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 09 2010,09:05) Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
In this argument of Dawkins he makes an inane statement, when have we ever seen something less complex create something more complex than itself.
We never have seen something less complex create something more complex. That is not what he is claiming, it is your inane strawman.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 09 2010,17:59) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 09 2010,09:05) Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
In this argument of Dawkins he makes an inane statement, when have we ever seen something less complex create something more complex than itself.
We never have seen something less complex create something more complex. That is not what he is claiming, it is your inane strawman.Stuart
If that is not what he is claiming then it makes more logical sense that the complex creates the simple.Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 10 2010,09:19) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 09 2010,17:59) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 09 2010,09:05) Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
In this argument of Dawkins he makes an inane statement, when have we ever seen something less complex create something more complex than itself.
We never have seen something less complex create something more complex. That is not what he is claiming, it is your inane strawman.Stuart
If that is not what he is claiming then it makes more logical sense that the complex creates the simple.
Let's be honest BD, although you started this thread with a baseless slander as the title, you don't actually know what Dawkins stands for and you are frankly too lazy to research what he does believe.Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 09 2010,07:56) However, Richard Dawkins argues that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by their dogmatic Marxism,[2] saying that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[3] In response to this, Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza argued that Communism was an explicitly atheist ideology.[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Stalin and Mao just happened to be atheists says Richard Dawkins but when pointing out to STU that if they were two Muslims he would say that there actions were connected to their beliefs but guess what Mao and Stalin believed in the ATHEISTIC agenda and had the military power and will to execute their bloody agenda.
They would easily attack innocent believers at any time had they the numbers and force to do so.
STU supports The People's Republic of China and their official Atheistic stance. Human rights violations run rampant in China.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
Though the constitution of Democratic Kampuchea guaranteed the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion, it also provided that “Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.”[44] The leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. 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 imams were executed.[45][46] Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed because of their religion.[47]See how the sweet atheist just want peace for everyone. Killing is there way to peace. Non believers seem harmless enough until you stumble on their KILLING FIELDS
Good post.People really do evil in the name of their religions. Atheism included.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 30 2010,14:52) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 09 2010,07:56) However, Richard Dawkins argues that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by their dogmatic Marxism,[2] saying that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[3] In response to this, Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza argued that Communism was an explicitly atheist ideology.[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Stalin and Mao just happened to be atheists says Richard Dawkins but when pointing out to STU that if they were two Muslims he would say that there actions were connected to their beliefs but guess what Mao and Stalin believed in the ATHEISTIC agenda and had the military power and will to execute their bloody agenda.
They would easily attack innocent believers at any time had they the numbers and force to do so.
STU supports The People's Republic of China and their official Atheistic stance. Human rights violations run rampant in China.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
Though the constitution of Democratic Kampuchea guaranteed the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion, it also provided that “Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.”[44] The leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. 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 imams were executed.[45][46] Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed because of their religion.[47]See how the sweet atheist just want peace for everyone. Killing is there way to peace. Non believers seem harmless enough until you stumble on their KILLING FIELDS
Good post.People really do evil in the name of their religions. Atheism included.
Do you have any answers to my replies?It looks like you don't, as usual.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 09 2010,07:56) However, Richard Dawkins argues that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by their dogmatic Marxism,[2] saying that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[3] In response to this, Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza argued that Communism was an explicitly atheist ideology.[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Stalin and Mao just happened to be atheists says Richard Dawkins but when pointing out to STU that if they were two Muslims he would say that there actions were connected to their beliefs but guess what Mao and Stalin believed in the ATHEISTIC agenda and had the military power and will to execute their bloody agenda.
They would easily attack innocent believers at any time had they the numbers and force to do so.
STU supports The People's Republic of China and their official Atheistic stance. Human rights violations run rampant in China.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
Though the constitution of Democratic Kampuchea guaranteed the right to worship according to any religion and the right not to worship according to any religion, it also provided that “Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.”[44] The leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. 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 imams were executed.[45][46] Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed because of their religion.[47]See how the sweet atheist just want peace for everyone. Killing is there way to peace. Non believers seem harmless enough until you stumble on their KILLING FIELDS
Greetings B…..The actions of Mao and Stalin were not even remotely connected to atheism……The only ism in their ideology was communism and that was demonstrated by their lust for power there was no consideration of the existence of a higher authority simply because in their minds the higher authority was them….I find the argument of whether Athiests or Christians are better people to be a fallacy when it comes to determining if God exists.
1. Atheists kill people.
2. “Christians” kill people.
3. Atheists do good things.
4. “Christians” do good things.The real trick of the mind comes in how our individual brain interprets those 4 facts. We tend to see the parts we want to see. “Christians” focus their minds on #1 and #4. Atheists focus their thoughts on 2 and 3.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 09 2010,08:05) Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
In this argument of Dawkins he makes an inane statement, when have we ever seen something less complex create something more complex than itself.
I'm not sure Dawkins argues that God is less complex than the universe. I believe he argues just the opposite.I believe he says that if we reason that something as complex as the universe needs a cause or creator, then whoever this creator is must also be equally complex and must therefore equally need a cause or creator himself.
In other words, he argues that we can't say that the universe MUST have a cause, and at the same time argue that God doesn't need one. He thinks the reasoning should remain consistent.
Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2010,13:16) I find the argument of whether Athiests or Christians are better people to be a fallacy when it comes to determining if God exists. 1. Atheists kill people.
2. “Christians” kill people.
3. Atheists do good things.
4. “Christians” do good things.The real trick of the mind comes in how our individual brain interprets those 4 facts. We tend to see the parts we want to see. “Christians” focus their minds on #1 and #4. Atheists focus their thoughts on 2 and 3.
I think I would look at it more in terms of the fact that a tiny fraction of humans kill another tiny fraction of humans.When considering the stated motives for those killings, a small fraction of them are motivated by the killer's religious beliefs. “My book says that those who commit offence X are deserving of death and I see that as an instruction to act” might be immoral, but at least it has some grisly logic to it.
On the other hand, those who have been killed by atheists in the name of atheism (theodorej's point) amount to perhaps a negligible handful, and I can't see what logic there is in it at all. “I killed him because I believe there is no god” is essentially a non-sequitur.
Steven Weinberg applies: Good people do good and evil people do evil, but to make a good man do evil takes religion.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,
You have it backwards, concerning killing the innocent.
Christians don't kill, because they know there is retribution.
And Atheists do kill, because they 'think' there is no retribution.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Dec. 16 2010,15:10) Hi Stuart, You have it backwards, concerning killing the innocent.
Christians don't kill, because they know there is retribution.
And Atheists do kill, because they 'think' there is no retribution.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Fear of retribution or otherwise is not my motivation for acting ethically. I like to think I do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.Would you murder if there was no commandment not to? Of course not, this is facile thinking.
Stuart
Quote (david @ Dec. 16 2010,13:16) I find the argument of whether Athiests or Christians are better people to be a fallacy when it comes to determining if God exists. 1. Atheists kill people.
2. “Christians” kill people.
3. Atheists do good things.
4. “Christians” do good things.The real trick of the mind comes in how our individual brain interprets those 4 facts. We tend to see the parts we want to see. “Christians” focus their minds on #1 and #4. Atheists focus their thoughts on 2 and 3.
Hi David,
you should stop by this side of the tracks more often.
On many things you show good logical thinking.
Nice to see you.Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
