Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....

HavingCrack

Hitler, Stalin and Mao's atheism or lack of it (I've heard arguments for all three) had little impact on their regimes to be fair. However Pol Pot carried out massacures of Christians, Muslims and Buddhists because of their religion which he felt needed to be eradicated. So you could argue that Pol Pot was influence by his atheism?!

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I think we should have a road safety program to try and limit road deaths.

and limit WACO christians and Islamists. But not to limit fundamentalist atheists?

This is my problem with your arguments, you seem to have no issue with Christianity despite its atrocities.

And you evidence to support that bald assertion is....?

You only seem interested in proving atheism is worse as a way of deflecting from the atrocities of Christianity.

Look are you saying I seem to have no issue with christoan atrocities
OR

Are you saying I actually have no issues with atrocities by so called Christians ?

What ever you think about atheists no atheist here is actually an anti-theist Communist,

So what? I might be an atheist myself. i make no claim to basing anything I say on a personal belief but on objective evidence the sort that atheists and scientists ask for.

But Ill take issue with that claim anyway since atheists did ridicule and attack Christianity
in particular as well as belief in general until one of the mods pulled them up on it with a comment like "this is not After Hours" .

nor are they trying to excuse anti-theist regimes by trying to find regimes that were even worse, which is what you appear to be doing with Christianity.

"Appear" is a bit like "seem" isn't it? Are you saying I AM doing that with respect to Christianity or that I SEEM or APPEAR to be doing it?

Note as well I referred to "Christian regimes" and "atheistic regimes" and not "Christianity" or "Atheism".

Turtwig

I'm sorry I haven't got time to reply to every post here but this one can be responded to briefly.

ISAW wrote: »

.
Christians don't subscribe to every possible negative consequence of christian regimes but that won't stop fundamentalist atheists from going on about witch-hunts the Crusades and Inquisitions.

In my experience, most of the time the stuff about Crusades is mentioned in response to this Age Old Atheists are mass killers argument. Most of people on this board aren't fundamentalist atheist. Definitely not Wicknight and Monosharp who you've been debating with. So why not address this thread in the light of there been little or no fundamentalist atheists present?

Look up my definition of "atheistic" i.e. promoting atheism as a core value.

You're definition is wrong. An atheistic scientist doesn't have to promote atheism all he has to do is be an atheist. Same goes for the mechanic who's an atheist and so on.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)


"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin

As much as I'd love to quote Ken Ham to prove that Christianity is contingent on a literal interpretation of Genesis I won't. So Why don't you just put away the straws and deal with question that was posed to you. How does subscribing to one simple idea e.g Lack a belief in God, equate to a political regime. Surely, more ideas have to become involved?

lmaopml

I agree with you Malty, I think you meet 'people' who are bad all over the place, they don't have to subscribe to a worldview to be dictators, murderers and control freaks...

It seems mad to be debating over bad Atheists and bad Christians and bad, whoever people to me. Let's just learn from the past and move on...

There isn't anybody perfect.

I think the response from Christians was to the charge made in Dawkins book as to the evil of 'belief' etc. and the counter charge made by normal everyday faithful... which was clearly demonstrated by my fellow Christians...Unfounded and built on quick sand, both charges are. I know a lot of people really like him,both religious and non religious, but he was wrong on this score..

Bad people come under every banner sometimes...

..the beauty of knowing this is moving forward and trying to live together in peace and with a little knowledge as to whether a regime is dangerous to our freedom.





It's what we do with our worldview that counts...

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

and limit WACO christians and Islamists. But not to limit fundamentalist atheists?

Ah so finally the truth comes out.

Can you show me anywhere where I have ever claimed to support, or suggested I support, Stalinist Communism? Or the ideas any other form of repressive totalitarian regime?

You want to use the atrocities of Stalin or Mao as justification to limit atheist and expressions of atheism by tarring them all with the same brush.

Ah sure we can't have atheists in power, I've never see an atheist in power who didn't murder a million people, I've never seen an atheist government that didn't persecute religious people, sure we can't have that sort of stuff round these parts.

Your agenda is disgusting. Phone Glenn Beck he wants his debating style back :rolleyes:

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

You want to use the atrocities of Stalin or Mao as justification to limit atheist and expressions of atheism by tarring them all with the same brush.

Ah sure we can't have atheists in power, I've never see an atheist in power who didn't murder a million people, I've never seen an atheist government that didn't persecute religious people, sure we can't have that sort of stuff round these parts.

Your agenda is disgusting.

Sorry for chopping your post, but I don't agree that anybodies agenda is 'disgusting'! I see people fighting their corner with equal demonstrative merit....So a big long speel to say 'people are bad'...wow!

The 'tarring them all with the same brush' rings a bell, we cannot be reponsible for those before, what we 'can' do is make it better by letting go and understanding we have so much more in common than not....

..and really living our 'choice', especially if it's free choice and educated choice...

I'm not concerned in the least that 'educated choice' poses a problem, I would really welcome it..

ISAW

HavingCrack wrote: »

Hitler, Stalin and Mao's atheism or lack of it (I've heard arguments for all three) had little impact on their regimes to be fair. However Pol Pot carried out massacures of Christians, Muslims and Buddhists because of their religion which he felt needed to be eradicated. So you could argue that Pol Pot was influence by his atheism?!

Hitler was ruled out in about page three of this debate!
Theosophy could be regarded as atheistic but I wouldnt.

As for the Russian example:

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)


"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

In my experience, most of the time the stuff about Crusades is mentioned in response to this Age Old Atheists are mass killers argument.

In your experience all swans may be white. Until you encounter a black one. You just did! In my experience religion is attacked before anyone referring to atheistic regimes as the worlds greatest killer.

Most of people on this board aren't fundamentalist atheist. Definitely not Wicknight and Monosharp who you've been debating with. So why not address this thread in the light of there been little or no fundamentalist atheists present?

Most aren't fundamentalist Christians or Islamists either. Doesn't stop atheists saying they are a threat to society though does it?
If God doesn't exist, which is what Stalin and Mao Tse Tung believed, then everyone makes whatever morals he/she wants. - relativism as expressed by wickednight. That is why it's ok to link atheism with genocide, since atheism delinks man from an Absolute Moral Giver. Atheism says that man by himself determines what is right and what is wrong. He doesn't need God or any overarching moral code. Well, thank to that, we got Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others.

The implications of atheism is relativism. Relativism is preached by atheists. then when they are confronted with this they retreat into "atheism is not more than not believing in God" That's the modern revisionist definition of atheism. Traditionally and philosophically atheism is the affirmation of the non-existence of God.

You're definition is wrong. An atheistic scientist doesn't have to promote atheism all he has to do is be an atheist. Same goes for the mechanic who's an atheist and so on.

The USA takes home the majority of Nobel Prizes each year, and that nation is almost 80% God believer. So all they have to do is be Christian?

How does subscribing to one simple idea e.g Lack a belief in God, equate to a political regime. Surely, more ideas have to become involved?

so you are back to the "atheism is only a lack of belief in God" argument above?

I referred to "atheistic regimes" to get around this problem. I referred to regimes run by proselytising atheists. Just as regimes run by proselytising Christians were also responsible for deaths.

And if you think that atheists here are harmless look at how the thread went. If began with "Hitler was a Christian" when that was dismissed before they raised the crusades and inquisition I raised the "more deaths due to atheistic regimes" argument. And what happened they still brought up the crusades and Inquisition! And It was claimed I denied the Crusades and Inquisitions when I didn't! Then a load of makey uppy figures emerged like 100 million killed by Christianity in America or 75 Million elsewhere.

And there was liberal pokes at Christian beliefs like "your God had to die to save your from him killing you" and similar comments. The office bully isn't Stalinism but given enough power they may become Stalinist if they have no moral compass. I don't believe this of Wickednight and Monosharp in particular because they seem to me to be honest. If however one begins attacking religion and proselysing atheism, one in on the way. Also if one mixes with others of a similar mindset a whole series of philosophical atheistic beliefs eventually seem to emerge.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah so finally the truth comes out.

Can you show me anywhere where I have ever claimed to support, or suggested I support, Stalinist Communism? Or the ideas any other form of repressive totalitarian regime?

You support moral relativism don't you?

You want to use the atrocities of Stalin or Mao as justification to limit atheist and expressions of atheism by tarring them all with the same brush.

Yep. All atheistic regimes that promoted atheism I tar with the brush of mass murderers.
THe USA is not such a regime and never was. Albania only became such a regime when it became communist after WWII. Secular regmes didn't push atheism and dint mass murder people like the French terror and other Godless regimes.

Ah sure we can't have atheists in power, I've never see an atheist in power who didn't murder a million people, I've never seen an atheist government that didn't persecute religious people, sure we can't have that sort of stuff round these parts.

We can't have atheists in power that promote atheism over other things because that resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. We CAN have religions in power but they sometimes may let the power go to their head so we need controls on them.
REligions in power however killed a thousand times less people compared to atheists and only did it in short periods over two millennia. I wonder what that was? Atheistic regimes got going straight away and the slaughter and dint stop till they were put out of power.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

But Ill take issue with that claim anyway since atheists did ridicule and attack Christianity
in particular as well as belief in general until one of the mods pulled them up on it with a comment like "this is not After Hours" .

Unless you're talking about a post that I can't find by searching (which may indeed be the case*), he said that in a different thread and he said it to you: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66062236&postcount=495


*and if it is the case I would appreciate it if you would simply tell me so. Having been reading for many years I feel confident that I will be able to discern from the context of your post if I am wrong. While I'm sure that the bold and capital declarations of wrongness complete with exclamation marks are helpful to some who are new to reading, they are unnecessary to someone of my literary experience

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

As for the Russian example:

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

.....

Wow thats so amazing. :rolleyes:

"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." - Hitler, Mein Kamp

Oh look, Hitler was Christian, that must mean that <sarcasm>all the people the Nazi's killed were because of Christianity. </sarcasm>

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." - Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

“May God Almighty give our work His blessing, strengthen our purpose, and endow us with wisdom and the trust of our people, for we are fighting not for ourselves but for Germany.”- Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Berlin, February 1, 1933

Oh my god, like, I've just like, totally proved that, like, Christianity was central to Nazism! :rolleyes:

Or Goebbels if you prefer;

Christ cannot have been a Jew. I do not need to prove this with science or scholarship. It is so!
-Joseph Goebbels, Michael: Ein deutsches Schicksl in Tagebuchblattern (Munich, 1929)

When today a clique accuses us of having anti-Christian opinions, I believe that the first Christian, Christ himself, would discover more of his teaching in our actions than in this theological hair-splitting.
-Joseph Goebbels, Evangelisches Zentralarchiv in Berlin, 2 March 1934: Hamburg

When we call for the unification of the Protestant Church, we do so because we do not see how, in a time when the whole Reich is unifying itself, twenty-eight Landeskirchen can persist.... In the interpretation of the Gospel one may hold the command of God higher than human commands. In the interpretation of political realities, we consider ourselves to be God's instrument.
-Joseph Goebbels, Hannover Kurier, 29 March 1935

Or Hermann Göring

God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save Germany.
-Hermann Göring (Hitler's Elite, Shocking Profiles of the Reich's Most Notorious Henchmen," Berkley Books, 1990)

Turtwig

ISAW wrote: »

The USA takes home the majority of Nobel Prizes each year, and that nation is almost 80% God believer. So all they have to do is be Christian?

Just a small aside but on the US National Academy of Sciences there's only one Christian. More to point : How many Christians have won nobel prizes in the sciences. Memory tells me three, but I'm open to correction.

In response to an earlier post by me about atheism being a simple idea. You replied with the assertion that Monotheism was just as simple. Which is true, but only when mono theism is solely involved. Christianity, with it's three God's in one, doctrine of sin, etc. is anything but simple.

In my experience religion is attacked before anyone referring to atheistic regimes as the worlds greatest killer.

Attacked or criticised there is a difference you know? Secondly some of the religious criticism is constructive and, believe it or not, valid. The idea that atheism is responsible for anti religious sentiment is ridiculously naive. At the very least you should be using the term anti-theism.

Most aren't fundamentalist Christians or Islamists either. Doesn't stop atheists saying they are a threat to society though does it?

I think you would agree that many moderate Muslims and Christians find their fundamentalists counterparts to be a threat to our way of life.

If God doesn't exist, which is what Stalin and Mao Tse Tung believed, then everyone makes whatever morals he/she wants. - relativism as expressed by wickednight. That is why it's ok to link atheism with genocide, since atheism delinks man from an Absolute Moral Giver. Atheism says that man by himself determines what is right and what is wrong. He doesn't need God or any overarching moral code. Well, thank to that, we got Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others.

Yet again you have shown how poorly you understand atheism. Atheism says nothing about morals. There are atheists who believe in supernatural entities, just not deities. They are atheists who believe that if there was a creator then the laws of morality and such could have existed pre-creator and that the creator simply adapted them because He/She/It knew them instinctively. There are atheists who believe that morality is meaningless. There could be atheists that believe that all morality is defined by a rock on the shores of some distant planet out there in the universe. The point is nothing outside of whether a person believes in God has anything to do with atheism. Yes many atheists are relativists, but that doesn't mean that atheism itself is contingent on moral relativism.

We can't have atheists in power that promote atheism over other things because that resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. We CAN have religions in power but they sometimes may let the power go to their head so we need controls on them.

If a red haired child burns himself and two others when using a frying pan, does that mean we should never allow all red heads to use a frying pan? Seeing as you love talking extremes on people. I'm doing the same to you : You don't ever want an atheist to be in a position of power? So you'll admit that you don't want everyone to have same the freedom and privileges? Thanks.

Oh and seen as you're still persisting in quoting in Lenin. I guess it's time for me to say that Ken Ham who's a Christian says that Christianity requires a 6000 year old Earth. Seeing as he said so, I think, it serves as a valid definition for the type of Christianity I'll argue against you in future. I mean, by your logic, if a prominent subscriber to the idea says something about what he believes that idea means then that means all subscribers to that idea follow suit.

(Maybe atheists ignore Stalin in the same way that you ignore Ken Ham? Just a suggestion. )

Turtwig

lmaopml wrote: »

It's what we do with our worldview that counts...

Yep. Wholeheartedly agree. There's no point in believing in the lessons taught by Jesus if you don't act like he taught you. Likewise there's no point in believing that you can be the most moral and ethical atheist in the world if you don't act like one. Beliefs are lovely and romantic, but it's our actions that count.

With regards to Dawkins's book this is an odd one for me. On one hand having read the book, I wasn't the biggest fan of it. On the other, the simple fact that he made me aware of atheism (as I was essentially a closet one) has given me a lot of self confidence and even though I come from a devout Catholic family, I don't feel as awkward or troubled over it any more. Needless to say I'm grateful he decided to raise consciousness but I'm not too impressed by the book.:)

It seems mad to be debating over bad Atheists and bad Christians and bad, whoever people to me. Let's just learn from the past and move on...

There isn't anybody perfect.

Quoted for the truth.:)

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

You don't ever want an atheist to be in a position of power? So you'll admit that you don't want everyone to have same the freedom and privileges? Thanks.

Sounds to me like exactly the type of oppression he's opposing. Personally I'd like the person in charge to be chosen on an individual basis rather than picking someone because they associate themselves with a group whose nut bag fundamentalists haven't murdered quite as many as the nut bag fundamentalists who associated themselves with another group. Really I'd rather we didn't have a nut bag fundamentalist mass murderer in charge at all and then it wouldn't matter which group they associated themselves with, that is unless you make the ridiculous assumption that everyone who associates themselves with that group is a nut bag fundamentalist mass murderer or will become so once they get into power while going to great pains to point out that you're totally different to the nut bag fundamentalists in your own group.

And I would definitely like to keep out of power anyone who thinks it's reasonable to believe that an entire class of people should be kept out of power based solely on their religious (lack of) belief.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Unless you're talking about a post that I can't find by searching (which may indeed be the case*), he said that in a different thread and he said it to you: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66062236&postcount=495

Yes he stated that in a different thread in which almost the same people were posting at the same time as they posted this one. I accept the correction. By the way all i posted was that democracy and modern jurisprudence was a gift from Christian and other believers and that is hardly offensive. What i was replying to was something from you and other posters ridiculing Christianity.

But fair enough that particular example was elsewhere. How about in the last page or so in this discussion where another poster claimed everyone here hates me and Christians killed 75 million people?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Wow thats so amazing. :rolleyes:

"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." - Hitler, Mein Kamp

Hitler was dealt withj on page es 3to 6 of this discussion. Please don't rehearse it again!
It only supports my point about being told something and then raising it again fifty pages later!

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sounds to me like exactly the type of oppression he's opposing.

I don't want atheistic regimes in power but i don't want any fundamentalist regime in power. It just so happens atheistic ones were the worst of them.

Personally I'd like the person in charge to be chosen on an individual basis rather than picking someone because they associate themselves with a group whose nut bag fundamentalists haven't murdered quite as many as the nut bag fundamentalists who associated themselves with another group.

Personally I'd feel safer with a regime wh killed a thousand times less people but i would prefer no regime at all. Christians sometimes ruled without oppression. Atheistic regimes never did.

Really I'd rather we didn't have a nut bag fundamentalist mass murderer in charge at all

I agree. but how is it the worst ones were atheist?

and then it wouldn't matter which group they associated themselves with,

Well lat us say Germans when put i power killed a thousand times more people than Italians. Would you not think that the groups there aer different and there might be something about German culture is causing this?

that is unless you make the ridiculous assumption that everyone who associates themselves with that group is a nut bag fundamentalist mass murderer or will become so once they get into power while going to great pains to point out that you're totally different to the nut bag fundamentalists in your own group.

I didnt say all atheists are fundamentalists. What I said was fundamentalist atheists were more dangerous in history then other fundamentalist movements.

And I would definitely like to keep out of power anyone who thinks it's reasonable to believe that an entire class of people should be kept out of power based solely on their religious (lack of) belief.

Based on their belief in fundamentalist atheism. Just as I would not like fundamentalist Islam in power. And I don't want to be in power I an anti authoritarian. But my personal position does not matter here.

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

Just a small aside but on the US National Academy of Sciences there's only one Christian. More to point : How many Christians have won nobel prizes in the sciences. Memory tells me three, but I'm open to correction.

I would think ther is a mixture. But i have been over this before. If a higher proportion of scientists are atheist this does not mean scientific thinking causes atheism. There might be lot of Jewish Science prize winners. That does not mean being aJew makes you better at science.

I wonder how many atheists won the Peace Prize? do it mean atheists are more equipped for war than peace?

In response to an earlier post by me about atheism being a simple idea. You replied with the assertion that Monotheism was just as simple. Which is true, but only when mono theism is solely involved. Christianity, with it's three God's in one, doctrine of sin, etc. is anything but simple.

Christianity believed in ONE God.
Which doctrine of sin?

Attacked or criticised there is a difference you know? Secondly some of the religious criticism is constructive and, believe it or not, valid. The idea that atheism is responsible for anti religious sentiment is ridiculously naive. At the very least you should be using the term anti-theism.

Sadly all atheist believing movements which got into power were anti theist as far as I know.
The philosophical and entymological roots of atheism is anti theist. But I'm willing to accept the modern atheist isn't necessarily anti religion. I welcome criticism if it is honest and constructive.

I think you would agree that many moderate Muslims and Christians find their fundamentalists counterparts to be a threat to our way of life.

i totally agree. But like clerical sexual abuse it is hyped out of all proportion. Muslims condemn Islamic. Islamism is hardly a threat to the world.

Yet again you have shown how poorly you understand atheism. Atheism says nothing about morals. There are atheists who believe in supernatural entities, just not deities.

Yet again you show your ignorance of what I have clearly defined.
Please refer to my reference on "nones" who constitute about 15 per cent of the US population and to "atheist" which are about one per cent!

They are atheists who believe that if there was a creator then the laws of morality and such could have existed pre-creator and that the creator simply adapted them because He/She/It knew them instinctively.

The sort of atheists who actually invent God so they can blame god for all their wrongdoings? LOL. See if God as a creator of the laws of the universe is a big enough
concept without havng to add other pre God, gods that created somne higher level of laws.
Why not cut out all the turtles all the way down with Occam's razor?

Yes many atheists are relativists, but that doesn't mean that atheism itself is contingent on moral relativism.

I dint claim it did. I calmed someone here has categorized themselves as a moral relativist atheist. It doesn't mean all atheists are fundamentalist either but some do classify themselves as such.

If a red haired child burns himself and two others when using a frying pan, does that mean we should never allow all red heads to use a frying pan? Seeing as you love talking extremes on people. I'm doing the same to you : You don't ever want an atheist to be in a position of power? So you'll admit that you don't want everyone to have same the freedom and privileges? Thanks.

I have sat on several national level boards with atheists. I never thought I didn't want them in power. But they didn't bring their atheism to bear on anything we did. If they promoted any policy in favour of atheism there would have been problems. The experience of society is also that if you allow nazi to take over organisations that it is not wise. Some countries see it fit to ban nazis from speaking. I am all for them being allowed to speak but I am against what they want. I am not a nazi.

Oh and seen as you're still persisting in quoting in Lenin. I guess it's time for me to say that Ken Ham who's a Christian says that Christianity requires a 6000 year old Earth.

LOL! A fundie Christian is to be taken seriously but the father of atheistic communism isn't?

Seeing as he said so, I think, it serves as a valid definition for the type of Christianity I'll argue against you in future. I mean, by your logic, if a prominent subscriber to the idea says something about what he believes that idea means then that means all subscribers to that idea follow suit.

Leninism was the ideological basis of Soviet socialism, specifically its Russian realisation in the Soviet Union.

(Maybe atheists ignore Stalin in the same way that you ignore Ken Ham? Just a suggestion. )

Leninism was the ideological basis of Soviet socialism, specifically its Russian realisation in the Soviet Union.

FACT! Not just a suggestion. Ken Ham? How many divisions has he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

lmaopml

I agree with you ISAW, I don't want any kind of fundamentalist regime in power either. I think if nothing else we have to move forward and hold with pride those who have done 'good'..and recognise those who have been off the mark, take it on the chin as a huge congregation, and move on....There isn't a single banner that doesn't have to face those very same questions and come to a realisation..when we are really truthful..

As a Christian, I think it's best to let them go....there is no better decision made than one made freely..

I love free choice, it's the 'best' choice..

...and 'education' may have a lot to answer for on this island, but 'twits' it did 'not' turn out...

We 'must' find our own way....'freely'...

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

I would think ther is a mixture. But i have been over this before. If a higher proportion of scientists are atheist this does not mean scientific thinking causes atheism. There might be lot of Jewish Science prize winners. That does not mean being aJew makes you better at science.

Oh so a higher proportion of scientists being atheist means nothing but a higher proportion of mass murderers being atheist does ? :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

monosharp wrote: »

Oh so a higher proportion of scientists being atheist means nothing but a higher proportion of mass murderers being atheist does ? :rolleyes:

It's not even that there were a higher proportion of atheists. In the context of the whole of history there were very few fundamentalist totalitarian communist atheistic leaders who oppressed the religious, it's just that the few there were killed more. If we're looking at pure numbers it seems that a religious person is more likely to be a fundamentalist murderous nut bag but if they are they may not kill as many, that is assuming they for some reason aren't given access to any modern technology.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Oh so a higher proportion of scientists being atheist means nothing but a higher proportion of mass murderers being atheist does ? :rolleyes:

It isn't the mass murderers it is the regime. And fundamentalist militant atheists are a tiny number of people indeed a minority even of atheists who are only about one per cent of the US population. In other words there may be more of the traditional criminal "mass murderer" variety outside atheistic regimes but the regimes killed hundreds of millions.

When non atheists get together they do good science when atheists get together they also do good science. There isn't a "better" atheistic science. And atheism isn't central to the science they do like atheism was to Stalinism and Maoism!

so a higher proportion of atheists getting Nobel science prizes means nothing in relation to atheism creating better scientists because atheism was not central to the science done, but a high proportion of dead bodies by atheistic regimes where atheism was announced as central to their mission does suggest something I would say.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

... that is assuming they for some reason aren't given access to any modern technology.

But as I have stated - even without modern technology pre twentieth century godless Chinese regimes without bombs and bullets killed about a hundred million people.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't the mass murderers it is the regime. And fundamentalist militant atheists are a tiny number of people indeed a minority even of atheists who are only about one per cent of the US population. In other words there may be more of the traditional criminal "mass murderer" variety outside atheistic regimes but the regimes killed hundreds of millions.

And you have completely failed to show any evidence that this had anything to do with Atheism.

These are facts ISAW. A Communist state, as defined by Lenin, has many requirements, some of those requirements are the complete dissolution of many things which existed under the previous system.

Communism required the destruction of the Romanov dynasty, it was completely incompatible with the ideals of communism. The idea of 'royalty' of 'divine right' is incompatible with communism.

Communism required the destruction of loyalty to anything but the state, this is especially relevant for the idea of Royalty and for the idea of a religion with a head separate from the state such as Catholicism. Catholicism, with the Pope as its head, is completely incompatible with the communist state defined by Lenin. This was not just communist but can be seen in many other countries, Catholics in the USA ,during the civil war and earlier, for example were seen as untrustworthy because of their perceived loyalty to the Pope.

Communism is an ideology where every person is equal, there is no bourgeoisie and no proletariat. Such an idea is completely in compatible with most religions where you have priests/preaches whatever that are seen as 'close' to god. They are seen as having something that ordinary people do not have, they are seen as having powers above normal people. This is incompatible with Communism.

Couple this with the fact that the Russian church was immensely rich at a time when half the population of Russia was starving. This occurred at a time where the churches were rich institutions, where priests were authority figures in their communities. All of this is incompatible with religion.

Communist regimes killed hundreds of millions of people, communism which was incompatible with religion, incompatible with the idea of 'class' incompatible with the idea of an all-knowing supernatural being which required our worship.

It had absolutely nothing to do with atheism, it had everything to do with the incompatibility of communism with the status quo, which included religion.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

And you have completely failed to show any evidence that this had anything to do with Atheism.

But as i pointed out i didt set out to prove atheism or Christianity are better philosophies. I only set out to show that states run by atheistic philosophies were always totalitarian contributed little if anything to human civilization and killed hundreds of millions wheras those run by Christianity could be benign and contributed a great deal to civilization.

These are facts ISAW. A Communist state, as defined by Lenin, has many requirements, some of those requirements are the complete dissolution of many things which existed under the previous system.

And the Western Roman Empire had a level of authoritarianism which the Eastern one didn't and that was subsumed into the Roman and Orthodox branches of Christianity. whether it was the Roman or Greek outlook or something else which caused the Crusades I do not stipulate, only the fact that Christians went to war and slaughtered non Christians. Many would say these people were not "true" Christians. I don't debate it. I accept that the regime did what they did with a central goal of "spreading Christianity" just as other regimes did it for the "spreading of atheism".

So the separation of the belief and the actions of the regime holding that vbelief are not necessary!
But the argument doesn't hold anyway! When you say atheism can't be separated from Leninism as a causal factor I have show you it most certainly can. Atheistic regimes
existed in France and china before Lenin was born and persecuted religious believers.

Communism required the destruction of the Romanov dynasty, it was completely incompatible with the ideals of communism. The idea of 'royalty' of 'divine right' is incompatible with communism.

So what? I wasn't arguing only about the persecution of a Royal family - ten people or so, or an aristocracy - ten thousand or so. I was pointing out that a regime "spreading atheism" in Russia killed 50 million or so. i accept all death was not fo believers and not done to only spread atheism but again so what? All deaths during the crusades were not done to "spread Christianity"

Communism required the destruction of loyalty to anything but the state, this is especially relevant for the idea of Royalty and for the idea of a religion with a head separate from the state such as Catholicism. Catholicism, with the Pope as its head, is completely incompatible with the communist state defined by Lenin. This was not just communist but can be seen in many other countries, Catholics in the USA ,during the civil war and earlier, for example were seen as untrustworthy because of their perceived loyalty to the Pope.

But the Orthodox church would have agreed with this element of communism. their tradition was one of council among leaders rather then dictat from a Pope. Stalin persecuted them non the less and only relented when the Nazis invaded and he needed people to fight them. when the Nazis were defeated they went back to persecuting the Christians.

Communism is an ideology where every person is equal, there is no bourgeoisie and no proletariat.

So is Christianity! In fact almost all of Marx's ideas can be found in Christian social teaching.

Such an idea is completely in compatible with most religions where you have priests/preaches whatever that are seen as 'close' to god.

That would be a completely incorrect view of Chriatianity. Preists are not seen as holier than others or closer to God. they are just seen as someone with a special job connected with sacraments. Just as married people are also considered as special people with a special sacrament which priests can't get. It does not mean married people are closer to God either by virtue of marriage, although they may be. Again I direct you to the Orthodox where there always have been married priests. In the Roman tradition it is a consequence of politics and not necessarily one of being "holier" or closer to God.

They are seen as having something that ordinary people do not have, they are seen as having powers above normal people. This is incompatible with Communism.

Married people are also seen as having something priests don't have. Families have been the central unit of society since time immemorial. But the Russian communists didnt abolish marriage. Pol Pot did abolish marriage and the family however.

Couple this with the fact that the Russian church was immensely rich at a time when half the population of Russia was starving.

But it wasn't the Russian Orthodox church which suffered the above it was the Ukranian and Georgian ones. i.e. it was not ecclesiastical it was political.

This occurred at a time where the churches were rich institutions, where priests were authority figures in their communities. All of this is incompatible with religion.

As St Francis of Assisi ( 1181-1226) Pointed out?

Communist regimes killed hundreds of millions of people,

Atheistic communist regimes did. Other communist regimes and other Christian communities didn't kill anyone but other atheistic regimes slaughtered all around them.

communism which was incompatible with religion,

It isn't! It is practiced in monasticism to this day!

incompatible with the idea of 'class'

As some elements of Christianity are also. "We are all equal in the eyes of God"

incompatible with the idea of an all-knowing supernatural being which required our worship.

Aha! that would be "atheistic" communism then! And not the non lethal variety?

It had absolutely nothing to do with atheism,

Except for the "incompatible with the idea of an all-knowing supernatural being which required our worship" bit?

it had everything to do with the incompatibility of communism with the status quo, which included religion.

Francis of Assisi changed the status quo and didn't have to abandon religion to do so. Revolution or change therefore does not require rejection of God and execution of all that oppose atheism.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

But as I have stated - even without modern technology pre twentieth century godless Chinese regimes without bombs and bullets killed about a hundred million people.

The 19th century still had an awful lot more technology than the 14th

edit: are you talking about this:

ISAW wrote: »

In fact other pre 20th century non Christian atheistic regimes such as in China (hardly Christian) were also "mega murderers"
As Rummel calls them.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM
During the last century in over some fifteen years the Teiping Rebellion possibly cost "tens of millions" of lives,36 maybe even as many as 40,000,000.[reference 37]

And if so, is this description of the leader and goal of the Taiping rebellion accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion#History_of_the_Rebellion

The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan, against the ruling Qing Dynasty
....
The rebels attempted social reforms and the replacement of Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion by a form of Christianity

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which regimes were these?

Id have to go back an look

And the 19th century still had an awful lot more technology than the 14th

I accept that, which is why I post also dates of mass slaughter from feudal Japan and china and from China before the time of Christ.

Also, While Japan had the gun they still kept the sword and bow as part of their culture. Technology does not always "develop" if the culture does not facilitate that. Shogun stayed with the sword while Westerners took the gun developed it and came back to destroy the East with their own weapons!

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM
The two didit numbers (34 through 44 are references)

in the eight years that the Han Dynasty was being replaced by the Qin Dynasty 221-207B.C., the population of China decreased from 20 million to 10 million.
. . . .
In the Dong (Eastern) Han Dynasty 206B.C.-220A.D., the population of China was 50 million. After the transition of power to the Three Kingdom period 222-589, the population decreased to 7 million.
. . . .
In the Sui Dynasty 581-618, the population of China was 50 million. After the transfer of power to the Tang Dynasty 618-907, only one third was left.
. . . .
At the peak of the Song Dynasty 960-1279 the population was about 100 million. But in the beginning of the Qing Dynasty in 1655, the population was 14,033,900. During the 20 year period from 1626 to 1655, the population decreased from 51,655,459 to 14,033,900
34
Some sense for the pure slaughter underlying these population collapses can be had from more recent massacres. For example, just in the one month of 1681, for just the Triad Rebellion, in merely the one province of Kwangtung, with the rebellions defeat "some 700,000 people were executed." Eventually the province was almost depopulated.35

The sanctity of life was no greater nearer our time. During the last century in over some fifteen years the Teiping Rebellion possibly cost "tens of millions" of lives,36 maybe even as many as 40,000,000.37 Some 600 cities were "ruined."38 Because the rebellion began in the province of Kwangsi, Imperial forces allowed no rebels speaking its dialect to surrender. All were slaughtered.39 Indeed, massacre on both sides during this and the almost concurrent Nein Rebellion was general. For one county in the province of Anhwei, for example, local scholars lamented that out of a population of 300,000 Chinese, "By the time the rebels were cleared only a little over 6,000 survived. This is a catastrophe unique for the locality since the beginning of the human race."40 Overall, 70 percent of the province's population were killed or died.41

When the Taiping rebels captured Nanking in 1853 they killed all the Tartars garrisoning the city. But this was not enough. They also murdered all their family members. In total about 25,000 people may have been wiped out.42 When imperial troops recaptured Nanking the following year they in turn allegedly exterminated about 100,000 rebels, and in just three days.43 They followed the same quick and bloody policy in Canton and along the Pearl River. After they recaptured this area from the rebels they are said to have beheaded 700 to 800 inhabitants a day, whether rebel collaborator or not, ultimately killing another 100,000 people. Just in the province of Kwangtung, it is written that 1,000,000 were executed.44 In one province, reportedly 1,000,000 were executed! This is more than the total number of Americans killed in all the civil and international wars the United States has fought in its whole history, including the War of Independence.

I left out Japan etc. i cant find the source at the moment I posted it earlier in the thread it is a table.

Here http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1A.GIF

Lines 235-295

Here is something else I just came across which might shed some light on the issue.

Are atheistic regimes totalitarian and christian ones Authoritarian? that might explain why atheistic regimes kill loads more people.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.FIG17.4.GIF

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The 19th century still had an awful lot more technology than the 14th

And if so, is this description of the leader and goal of the Taiping rebellion accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion#History_of_the_Rebellion[/QUOTE]

Led by a christian against a corrupt totalitarian regime. Even Mao praised them!

I would disagree wioth the description you paint on these lines
It want fought by Christianity to "Spread Christianity" under orders of the Pope or any Christian leader.

It clearly was not mainstream Christianity no more than David Koresh was:

Hong Xiuquan claimed that the illness he had following his imperial examinations was in fact a vision to the effect that he was the brother of Jesus, who was sent to rid China of the corrupt Manchu Qing Dynasty rulers

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

I only set out to show that states run by atheistic philosophies were always totalitarian contributed little if anything to human civilization and killed hundreds of millions wheras those run by Christianity could be benign and contributed a great deal to civilization.

Which you have consistently failed to do.

Countries cannot be run by atheistic philosophies, atheism is not a philosophy, atheism is not a belief.

The USSR was run by marxist ideology, corrupted into Leninism and later corrupted more into Stalinism. A very good case can be made for 'communist' Russia not even been communist, so far had it drifted from Marx's ideals. But thats beside the point.

But the Orthodox church would have agreed with this element of communism. their tradition was one of council among leaders rather then dictat from a Pope.

If you really can't understand why Communist would have a problem with church 'leaders', people who held high positions in the past over their 'flocks' then what is the point in debating with you ?

Communism is a system where everyone is equal. Church 'leaders' were above normal people, they were still 'above' normal people in our society until very recently. In Ireland the parish priest used to hold a considerable amount of power.

Simply put, church leaders, priests etc among others were rightly seen as members of the bourgeoisie.

Stalin persecuted them non the less and only relented when the Nazis invaded and he needed people to fight them. when the Nazis were defeated they went back to persecuting the Christians.

That would be the Christian Nazi's ?

So is Christianity! In fact almost all of Marx's ideas can be found in Christian social teaching.

Of course it can. Then again like so much teaching in Christianity it remains completely theoretical.

As I've said before, church officials, priests etc held positions of power and wealth over the proletariat. This is incompatible with communism.

That would be a completely incorrect view of Chriatianity.

No it wouldn't be.

Preists are not seen as holier than others or closer to God.

Yes they were and still are to certain extents. Its ridiculous that you even try to argue against this. Old people in Ireland practically worship the parish priest, they are afraid of him, they respect him, he is seen as closer to God. whether that is christian doctrine or not is not the point, the point is thats what people perceived in the past and still perceive to a certain extent.

As some elements of Christianity are also. "We are all equal in the eyes of God"

But some people are more equal than others. Your talking theory, I'm talking fact.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Led by a christian against a corrupt totalitarian regime. Even Mao praised them!

I would disagree wioth the description you paint on these lines
It want fought by Christianity to "Spread Christianity" under orders of the Pope or any Christian leader.

It clearly was not mainstream Christianity no more than David Koresh was:

I'm somewhat confused. You said:

ISAW wrote:

In fact other pre 20th century non Christian atheistic regimes such as in China (hardly Christian) were also "mega murderers"
As Rummel calls them.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM
During the last century in over some fifteen years the Teiping Rebellion

So it appears you attributed the slaughter of the Taiping rebellion to "non Christian atheistic regimes" but the instigator of the Taiping rebellion was a Christian whose target was Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion. Am I missing something here? You can say he wasn't a mainstream scotsman Christian but that doesn't make him an atheist and doesn't make this slaughter attributable to "non Christian atheistic regimes"


Also, I again feel the need to comment on the valid distinction you make between mainstream christianity and the fundamentalist fringes coupled with your apparent attempt to lump all atheists together, not allowing us to make the very same distinction....

edit: if we're only counting deaths that are attributable to people such as "the Pope or any Christian leader" then the number of deaths that are attributable to atheism is zero, since atheism doesn't have a leader. If we're attributing deaths caused by anyone who associated themselves with a particular label then both the Taipei rebellion and the deaths caused by David Koresh are attributable to Christianity. And if we're attributing only the deaths caused by the very top christian leaders to christianity while attributing the deaths of anyone who labelled themselves an atheist to atheism (and, seemingly, some who labelled themselves christian on the basis that they're not mainstream ) then we're just being hypocritical

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Which you have consistently failed to do.

I wont go into the fallacy of "proving a negative". I provided the statistics from several sources. If you think any of my figures are wrong then show me where they are wrong.

You on the other hand picked a figure of a hundred million native dead in the Us out of the air and blamed all these deaths on Christian regimes. When challenged for a source I took the one you provided, traced the primary source from it and can find no reference at all to Christianity being a cause.

Countries cannot be run by atheistic philosophies, atheism is not a philosophy, atheism is not a belief.

A atheistic regime as in classical atheism has a central tenet that "there is no God". countries can be run by people who say "There is no such thing as God. This must be spread to other places and and if you say there is a god is you will be persecuted"

The USSR was run by marxist ideology, corrupted into Leninism and later corrupted more into Stalinism.

Marxism itself being a corruption of Christian teaching. All they needed to do was remove God.

A very good case can be made for 'communist' Russia not even been communist, so far had it drifted from Marx's ideals. But thats beside the point.

Exactly the "not a true Scotsman" fallacy does not apply for "true" Christians just as it does not for "true" communists or "true" atheists.

If you really can't understand why Communist would have a problem with church 'leaders', people who held high positions in the past over their 'flocks' then what is the point in debating with you ?

If you can't understand that some elements of Christianity and other religions don't have a Pope or clergy who are "closer to God" and that these people were still persecuted by atheistic regimes because the atheistic regimes promoted atheism then I don't know what is the point?

Communism is a system where everyone is equal.

As is Christianity. - all are equal in the eyes of God.

Church 'leaders' were above normal people, they were still 'above' normal people in our society until very recently.

and still are in a temporal sense. As are Taoisigh and Presidents . But they are still normal people.

In Ireland the parish priest used to hold a considerable amount of power.

They still do but it is temporal. The Spiritual position they hold is nothing to do with this . It is only a political creation. In other words you can separate worldly things from the church and it will still survive. You can take away all the physical things they own and they will still survive. But when you say they cant even be allowed to believe and take away their very life because they believe this goes further then any political measure. Just like Hitler did with Jews. The original laws were political laws of segregation but eventually not satisfied with that the final solution was to do away with them altogether and re settle their countries with "better" people.

Simply put, church leaders, priests etc among others were rightly seen as members of the bourgeoisie.

If you are going to reclassify all believers as bourgeoise well then what is the difference between them? they didnt just kill priests and Bishops but ALL believers were targets.

That would be the Christian Nazi's ?

The popes and Catholics didn't support or vote for Hitler.

Of course it can. Then again like so much teaching in Christianity it remains completely theoretical.

Except when applies to Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans and all the other orders who traveled to every dark corner of the entire planet and practices those social teachings and lived according to them for the benefit of the local community?

As I've said before, church officials, priests etc held positions of power and wealth over the proletariat. This is incompatible with communism.

Including nomadic priests who had no land or property preached having no wealth at all and to render it all up to the State and never have any wealth or touch any money? Priests who said only faith in God mattered? Who liked lives with the same principles of communism? Who were only incompatible with the atheistic elements of communism?

No it wouldn't be.

Yes it would be! Christianity isnt about totalarianism.
Atheist regimes have always been totalist.
Atheists running a country never had a benign regime whether communist or not.
Christian ones have not always been regimes and
Christians have had benign administrations.
christian social teaching isn't about power and controlling people.
Care to name one book you have ever read on christian social teaching?

Yes they were and still are to certain extents.

Nonsense. There are about say 4000 priests in Ireland . Care to name ONE that says clergy are holier than other people? In fact one of the newer Catholic orginisations ios Called Opus Dei. Maybe you have heard of them? 99.9 per cent of them are non clergy and the main tenet of their movement is that laity can be holy and God's work is not reserved for Clergy.

Its ridiculous that you even try to argue against this.

Why? On what basis can you maintain priests are holier then laity?

Old people in Ireland practically worship the parish priest,

If they did that then it would be heresy! They accepted the priest's authority. AS they did the local Garda or publican or solicitor. The authority of clergy then extended in all sorts of non sacramental things.

they are afraid of him, they respect him, he is seen as closer to God.

dont know about the "closer to God" bit. He could probably be seen as an authority on how to inform the person on how to be closer to god but that does not mean he was. a bit like the football team coach. He might know how you should paly but he might not be as good a player.

whether that is christian doctrine or not is not the point,

Actually it IS the point since above you state "No it wouldn't be. " and "they still are to some extent" in relation to Priests being holier.

the point is thats what people perceived in the past and still perceive to a certain extent.

That is a different point! Above you suggested the church claimed clergy were holier and it was doctrinal. Now you are saying people thought it was doctrinal and that priests had to have political power. Well if they thought that they would be WRONG as I pointed out. But even they though wrong that does not justify atheistic regimes killing priests or any other believer whether holier or not!

But some people are more equal than others. Your talking theory, I'm talking fact.

No! And you know the "some people are more equal than others" quote is from a explanation of how the Russian revolution turned away from their social teaching principles just as they turned away from God to enforce atheistic principles?

And Im NOT talking theory. Franciscans exist - FACT!

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm somewhat confused. You said:

So it appears you attributed the slaughter of the Taiping rebellion to "non Christian atheistic regimes"

Correct.

but the instigator of the Taiping rebellion was a Christian whose target was Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion. Am I missing something here?

Yep.

1. He claimed to be a christian but what instruction did he get other than a phamplet?
Was he ever baptised? What teachings or doctrines did he bring to china? Ddi he act under the instructions of any Christian Church leader?

2. It was not just his forces which carried out mass murder but those of the godless Chinese ruling regime.

You can say he wasn't a mainstream scotsman Christian but that doesn't make him an atheist and doesn't make this slaughter attributable to "non Christian atheistic regimes"

I agree. Given 1 above his slaughter cant be added tothe christian total. Given 2 above any slaughter by the Chinese regime at the time CAN be added to the "atheistic" total!
REmember the stats were dug up to support the "Godless chines regime" numbers. a rebellion may have caused deaths but it was a rebellion against a regime. It is the response of the regime was the deaths to which I was referring.

Also, I again feel the need to comment on the valid distinction you make between mainstream christianity and the fundamentalist fringes coupled with your apparent attempt to lump all atheists together, not allowing us to make the very same distinction....

Ther are broader groups of "believers" Islam for instrance. Im confining myself to Christianity and to the 95 per cent of Christians whou coulod trace their roots back to the Early church not the "New age" christians. In particular those with "Apostolic succsssion" a magesterium and creeds.

I accepot some people can be called atheists and be "no religion" i.e. be new age or agnostic . and these seem to be 15 per cent of people in the US. But Im only referring to the ONE per cent of atheists ie, the "ther is certainly no god" people.

edit: if we're only counting deaths that are attributable to people such as "the Pope or any Christian leader" then the number of deaths that are attributable to atheism is zero, since atheism doesn't have a leader.

Any regime that claimed Christian principles versus any regime that had atheism as a principle. The belief or lack of it by the leader isn't important to this issue. a pope could be an atheist and a atheistic leader be a secret believer.

If we're attributing deaths caused by anyone who associated themselves with a particular label then both the Taipei rebellion and the deaths caused by David Koresh are attributable to Christianity.

Actually to be fair Koresh caused minimal if any deaths. The deaths were caused by the US authorities strafing the building and setting it on fire. Jim Jones now is a different matter - about 400 deaths there. But Im sorry this was already dealt with. Im not including loony fringe people who claim to be christian and who killed minor amounts anyway.
We are already aware that some Christian regimes did in fact kill people.

I dont want to get into a "Bhuddism is/isn't atheism" argument either. Pre 20th century China was non monotheist and non Christian. As was Japan. They were brought up to show non communist non christian regimes also killed people. Atheistic ones in particular killed people and were not communist!

And if we're attributing only the deaths caused by the very top christian leaders to christianity

We aren't so dont hold a straw man for me to knock down.

while attributing the deaths of anyone who labelled themselves an atheist to atheism

Nope! Only regimes with "there isn't any God" as a central belief!

People that never got into power and were Christians or atheists dint kill enough people to ever register on the radar.

(and, seemingly, some who labelled themselves christian on the basis that they're not mainstream ) then we're just being hypocritical

It is a straw man since I dont include people wh called themselves athesit but REGIMES who had a goal of atheism just like regimes which had an expressed goal of christianity. You can't claim the Taipeng rebellion was a war of Christianity against an atheistic regime!
It wasn't. It was a war of a person who thought he was Christian against an atheistic regime.

Sam Vimes

Just so we're clear here, the crimes of the Qing dynasty that had as its central tenet Confucianism can be blamed on atheism and the crimes of communism that had as its central tenet the control of and ownership of wealth by the people can be blamed on atheism but the crimes of Hong Xiuquan cannot be blamed on christianity because he doesn't fit your definition of "mainstream" and because he did not have direct control over a state. Is that correct?

Can I not define the crimes of Stalin as "a war of a person who thought he was an atheist against christians"? They both commanded large numbers of people and I don't see why Hong's contribution to the slaughter (against Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion btw), should be ignored just because he wasn't in charge of a state at the time

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

I provided the statistics from several sources. If you think any of my figures are wrong then show me where they are wrong.

You provided statistics for the number of people killed under Stalin, Mao and other dictators. You have not proven anything regarding the connection of these deaths to atheism.

You are interpreting statistics the way you want to interpret them.

You on the other hand picked a figure of a hundred million native dead in the Us out of the air and blamed all these deaths on Christian regimes. When challenged for a source I took the one you provided, traced the primary source from it and can find no reference at all to Christianity being a cause.

Of course you didn't, because just like your statistics, the link to religion or atheism is nonsense. I said as much when I posted those figures, I know its nonsense, I'm simply trying to show you how nonsensical yours are.

A atheistic regime as in classical atheism has a central tenet that "there is no God". countries can be run by people who say "There is no such thing as God. This must be spread to other places and and if you say there is a god is you will be persecuted"

Must be spread ? Where in the atheist bible does it say anything about spreading atheism ? :pac:

Marxism itself being a corruption of Christian teaching. All they needed to do was remove God.

Nonsense. Buddhism has far more in common with Marxism than Christianity.

Many parts of Christianity are completely incompatible with Marxism.

If you can't understand that some elements of Christianity and other religions don't have a Pope or clergy who are "closer to God" and that these people were still persecuted by atheistic regimes because the atheistic regimes promoted atheism then I don't know what is the point?

We are mainly discussing Russia, are you trying to suggest that the church and its priests in Russia did not have a privileged position over the proletariat ?

As is Christianity. - all are equal in the eyes of God.

So I'm going to heaven just like all the Christians on this forum ?

and still are in a temporal sense. As are Taoisigh and Presidents . But they are still normal people.

Which is completely incompatible with communism.

They still do but it is temporal. The Spiritual position they hold is nothing to do with this .

I couldn't care less what their 'spiritual' position is as I don't believe in it and neither did Lenin or Stalin. Their worldly position is what interested them and their worldly position was a position of privilege over the proletariat.

If you are going to reclassify all believers as bourgeoise well then what is the difference between them? they didnt just kill priests and Bishops but ALL believers were targets.

Don't go down the straw man route, I'm sick of it.

1. I was talking about members of the clergy, not believers.
2. To destroy any system you must destroy it all. 'Believers' were continuing the class division by elevating others. Like slaves who continued to serve their masters even after slavery was made illegal.
3. You have not provided any statistics on numbers of believers killed for being believers.

The popes and Catholics didn't support or vote for Hitler.

Nice how you switch between Catholic and Christian whenever it suits you.

Protestants in Germany overwhelmingly voted for him, are they not Christians ?
Hitler was a Catholic, or at least he thought he was a Catholic.

Except when applies to Jesuits, Dominicans and Franciscans and all the other orders who traveled to every dark corner of the entire planet and practices those social teachings and lived according to them for the benefit of the local community?

Converting the heathens ? :pac:

I'll actually agree here and say that Christian, mostly Catholic, missionaries have done a lot of good work in the world.

But I was talking about Christianity in general. You can't add or subtract believers whenever it suits you.

Including nomadic priests who had no land or property preached having no wealth at all and to render it all up to the State and never have any wealth or touch any money?

Do I really need to get links describing how the churches flourished while the people starved ? Not just in Russia but around the world ?

How people could 'buy' admittance to heaven with a little gold ? You really need links to that ?

Yes it would be! Christianity isnt about totalarianism.

Its absolutely about Totalitarianism, its the most totalitarian notion that has ever been conceived. But you know as well as I that if I continue down this route I'll get banned from here so if you want to discuss this further please open a thread in A&A.

Atheist regimes have always been totalist.

Because you define them as such.

Atheists running a country never had a benign regime whether communist or not.

Well you yourself have said Buddhism is 'atheist', look at how many Buddhist governments have ruled benignly.

But I assume your going to move the goal posts again and claim Buddhism is a religion in which case I'll simply refer you to Scandinavian countries and other countries which have had atheist governments.

Thats assuming you don't move the goal posts more to redefine it again.

Nonsense. There are about say 4000 priests in Ireland . Care to name ONE that says clergy are holier than other people?

I never said such a thing. I said people consider them to be. My own grandmother did, every week of the last few years of her life paying money to the local priest to get him to come over for a cup of tea for 20 minutes. To that generation priests were to be respected and feared.

Actually it IS the point since above you state "No it wouldn't be. " and "they still are to some extent" in relation to Priests being holier.

In relation to how they are viewed by people, not what Christian doctrine says.

That is a different point! Above you suggested the church claimed clergy were holier and it was doctrinal.

No i did not. I specifically stated I did not. Please point out where I suggested any such thing.

No! And you know the "some people are more equal than others" quote is from a explanation of how the Russian revolution turned away from their social teaching principles just as they turned away from God to enforce atheistic principles?

I used to be quite Marxist, I'll well aware of where it came from.

And Im NOT talking theory. Franciscans exist - FACT!

Nice, except it was in response to your comment of 'we're all equal in the eyes of god'.

Are all Christians Franciscans ?

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just so we're clear here, the crimes of the Qing dynasty that had as its central tenet Confucianism can be blamed on atheism and the crimes of communism that had as its central tenet the control of and ownership of wealth by the people can be blamed on atheism but the crimes of Hong Xiuquan cannot be blamed on christianity because he doesn't fit your definition of "mainstream" and because he did not have direct control over a state. Is that correct?

Atheistic communism that preached atheism as a central tenet was atheistic.
The point was made these were communist regimes and the deaths were caused buy communism. Logically only one exception is needed to disprove any formal rule.

The theorem then became a discussion as to whether non communist administrations which were atheistic slaughtered people which would prove it isnt caused only by communism.

One might also show communist systems which were theist and didnt slaughter people. I did this as well.

There is a problem when you discuss with atheists because some of them say Bhuddism isn't atheism or taoism isnt atheism or whatever. I would suggest though that ruling regimes in china were not monotheist and were certainlyt non Christian. The rebellion was not one of the regime . He was rebelling AGAINST the regime. The regime slaughtered people.

His regime was not the regime of the State correct.
I would also argue his regime was not a Christian regime.
The "Heavenly Kingdom of Transcendent Peace" was in no way Christian like the Orthodox Romans and Anglicans are. Yhe charter is quite clear on what is meant by this I believe.

Chinese Atheistic forces nevertheless seem to have inflected more casualties:
There were probably more than a million troops in the battle and the Taiping army sustained 100,000 dead (and many more wounded) in the three day clash. Following the defeat of the Taiping army the Imperial troops, commanded by Zeng Guofan, slaughtered much of the city's population. Nanking had been the capital of the Heavenly Kingdom and was known by the Taipings as Tianjing (Heavenly Capital - the name should not be confused with Tianjin, China's third largest city). This battle was the effective end of the Taiping army and the last major Taiping city to fall back under Imperial control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Nanking

Can I not define the crimes of Stalin as "a war of a person who thought he was an atheist against christians"?

You can and you would be putting up another straw man. It makes no difference what Stalin or any leader believed personally. If the taipeng Rebellion was to establish a "heavenly kingdom of Christ according to what the apostles wanted" and relied on Christian tradition and writings then yes you might have a point.

They both commanded large numbers of people and I don't see why Hong's contribution to the slaughter (against Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion btw), should be ignored just because he wasn't in charge of a state at the time

No! I would not exclude it just for that. I exclude it because it isnt a Christian regime. You could claim it is not an atheist regime either but as I stated i was regerring to the REACTION to the rebels by the atheistic state.

I'm not aware of any atheist movements not in control of a state that were doing great works for society in the nineteenth century or earlier. Nay place they ran they ran onto the ground!

Sam Vimes

You are attempting to lump philosophies as diverse as Confucianism and Communism together on the basis of one tenet they (arguably) shared and using this to suggest that no one (including me personally) who shares this tenet (lack of belief in a god) should ever be given power while attempting to distance yourself from the crimes of all manner of people whose belief in christianity meant they had far more in common with you than any atheist I've ever met has with any of these regimes, on the basis that these people who shared a belief in christianity with you weren't in charge of what you call "christian regimes" when they carried out their crimes and because they weren't what you call "mainstream christians"

This is one big no true Scotsman fallacy with excuses thrown in so you can wash your hands of the crimes of christians carried out in the name of what they called christianity and dump the crimes of people who had totally different world views to me at my door in an attempt to disqualify me from public office. My version of atheism has no more to do with communism or confucianism than your version of christianity has to do with David Koresh or Hong Xiuquan. I don't even support the idea of an atheistic regime but here you are saying that

ISAW wrote:

We can't have atheists in power that promote atheism over other things because that resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. We CAN have religions in power but they sometimes may let the power go to their head so we need controls on them.

We should have neither atheistic nor theistic regimes. We should have secular democracies where everyone's rights are respected equally. Pointing out that the small subset of christianity that you define as "mainstream" did not kill as many people while directly in charge of what you call a "chritian regime" really does not make me jump at the idea of a theocracy any more than I would at an atheistic totalitarian regime of any kind. I can imagine the campaign posters now: "Put us in charge. Within certain narrowly defined parameters certain subsets our our group may not be as likely to murder you as these other people who we have lumped together despite having totally different world views!"

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

You provided statistics for the number of people killed under Stalin, Mao and other dictators. You have not proven anything regarding the connection of these deaths to atheism.

Only to regimes which promoted atheism as a central tenet. At the asmew time all the other tenets of the regimes were promoted without atheism and there ARE examples wher they didn't slaughter people. the only difference is atheism but you are right it does not prove it. similarly the only difference i can see in populations with cancer is that they have high levels of smokers. You can test for all the other reasons and exclude them one by one. But you cant conclude smoking causes cancer. You would be forgiven for believing it does though.

You are interpreting statistics the way you want to interpret them.

As are the anti cancer lobby.

Of course you didn't, because just like your statistics, the link to religion or atheism is nonsense. I said as much when I posted those figures, I know its nonsense, I'm simply trying to show you how nonsensical yours are.

But you CANT show how ANY regime promoting religion at the tip of a sword killed a million people whereas I can show how ALL promoting atheism did!

Must be spread ? Where in the atheist bible does it say anything about spreading atheism ? :pac:

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”

Vladimir Lenin quotes (Russian Founder of the Russian Communist Party, leader of the Russian Revolution of 1917, 1870-1924)

"religion is the opium of the people" Marx

Mao didn't do what he did to "serve God and spread religion"

Nonsense. Buddhism has far more in common with Marxism than Christianity.

so Marx drew on his Bhuddist roots? LOL!

Marx<- Hegel<- Fuerbach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Essence_of_Christianity


By the way Karl Popper criticized Marx's theories as non-falsifiable.

Many parts of Christianity are completely incompatible with Marxism.

Would that be the atheistic parts?

We are mainly discussing Russia, are you trying to suggest that the church and its priests in Russia did not have a privileged position over the proletariat ?

If you look back at the discussion you will note the point was raised that stalin supported the church at one time. He supported the Ukranian orthodox church or rather he stopped surpressing them to get people to attack the Germans. But he kept surpressing other Christians and other believers. Stalinism didn't want any believers. It was atheistic.
It wanted atheistic robots.

So I'm going to heaven just like all the Christians on this forum ?

the fact that you have an equal right to a job does not mean you willkepp one if you are to lazy to do the work.

Which is completely incompatible with communism.

No it isn't. communism can be classless and still have hierarchical structures. Only anarchistic communism would not have this. You seem to thin a communist army couldnt have officers.

I couldn't care less what their 'spiritual' position is

So what whether or not you care wont change the fact.

as I don't believe in it and neither did Lenin or Stalin.

Well ther you go. The think you have in common with Lenin and Stalin is you all didnt believe and you all couldn't care less about believers except to repress them.

Their worldly position is what interested them and their worldly position was a position of privilege over the proletariat.

But as i have pointed out not necessarily one of being a christian. It osnt a requirement of christianity. If all that was necessary was to take away all monies and riches they could have done that but they had to get rid of believers as well because atheism was part of their central beliefs. Central to christian belief is that the material world is secondary. so if they were left with their spiritual welfare and physical subsistence all they would have is belief. But the atheistic regimes didn't want that..

Don't go down the straw man route, I'm sick of it.

1. I was talking about members of the clergy, not believers.
2. To destroy any system you must destroy it all. 'Believers' were continuing the class division by elevating others. Like slaves who continued to serve their masters even after slavery was made illegal.
3. You have not provided any statistics on numbers of believers killed for being believers.

1. Then why not just remove all posessions form clergy? But they couldnt be happy with that!
2. Exactly that is all atheistic regimes ever did - destroy!
3. dont have to - it was an announced central aim. the fact that they killed so many (including non Clergy) and expressed atheistic goals shows it anyway.

Nice how you switch between Catholic and Christian whenever it suits you.

Protestants in Germany overwhelmingly voted for him, are they not Christians ?
Hitler was a Catholic, or at least he thought he was a Catholic.

All dealt with in the first six pages of this discussion. go back and read it.

Converting the heathens ? :pac:

I'll actually agree here and say that Christian, mostly Catholic, missionaries have done a lot of good work in the world.

But I was talking about Christianity in general. You can't add or subtract believers whenever it suits you.

And I am not doing that. the contact Christianity had as Christianity expanded was through Missionaries who educated rather then exploited and who served rather then slaughtered locals.

Do I really need to get links describing how the churches flourished while the people starved ? Not just in Russia but around the world ?

Yes.
No church flourishes while people starve. That's what people like the missionary orders Changed. The Church stagnated and suffered when some of the hierarchy got fat on the sweat of workers and neglected their flock. But even right through these times members at all levels in the church still continued faith and good works.

How people could 'buy' admittance to heaven with a little gold ? You really need links to that ?

Yes. Since selling indulgences was symptomatic of a particular element of corrupting in the Church. In fact above you claim one has to llok at the whole thing and now you are singling out a minority of the church who operated for a minority of the time it was around.

In fact if you are interested in history the "counter reformation" is just as interesting and informative as the factors driving the Reformantion. But let me put it another way. If some bankers are corrupt even if they sit as chair of the bank governing Authority does that mean you should reject all banks?

Its absolutely about Totalitarianism, its the most totalitarian notion that has ever been conceived. But you know as well as I that if I continue down this route I'll get banned from here so if you want to discuss this further please open a thread in A&A.

No not at all. You are free to compare what you deem as totalitatian with respect to the church to the totalitarianism of atheistic regimes. It is on topic for this thread as far as I can see. I'm happy to ask the moderaters about that in advance. I just dont want you making unsupported comments like "atheists were not totalitarian but The church is the most totalitarian organisation ever"

Because you define them as such.

Becasuse the dictionary defines "totalist"3 and because I have asked for regimes which promoted astheism which were benign and not totalist and I have been shown any and all the one which were atheistic were totalist. I accept that there might be one whisch wasnt but ther never have been any in history as far as I know.

Well you yourself have said Buddhism is 'atheist', look at how many Buddhist governments have ruled benignly.

Interesting.
They are still spiritual however. If an Bhuddist government promoted atheism in "there is no god " as a central tenet of their belief and didn't kill people then I would accept that point.

But I assume your going to move the goal posts again and claim Buddhism is a religion in which case I'll simply refer you to Scandinavian countries and other countries which have had atheist governments.

It is an atheist religion it would seem. But I would nt rule out chinese per 20th century slaughter since it want necessarily done by religion or spiritualists but may have been done by atheistic regimes promoting atheism.

And No they haven't! The only ones i am aware of is when the scandanivans like finland or Estonia were communist puppet states.

They arent officialy atheist as far as I know. In fact they are hotbeds of Protestantism.

Thats assuming you don't move the goal posts more to redefine it again.

Definition stands atheistic = promoting atheism. christian = promoting christianity.

I never said such a thing. I said people consider them to be. My own grandmother did, every week of the last few years of her life paying money to the local priest to get him to come over for a cup of tea for 20 minutes. To that generation priests were to be respected and feared.

But now you are adding and changing the claim! Before it was they are "holier" or "closer to God" now it is they were respected and feared. I might not like Bertie Aherns private life or Enda Kenny's morals but I respect their position as leaders of their parties or ministers or Bishops or whatever.

In relation to how they are viewed by people, not what Christian doctrine says.

So you are saying what is important is image and not standards?


No i did not. I specifically stated I did not. Please point out where I suggested any such thing.

i stated "priests are not closer and closer to God and you replied
"Yes they were and still are to certain extents. Its ridiculous that you even try to argue against this."

I used to be quite Marxist, I'll well aware of where it came from.

Lost your faith in Marxism did you? A bit like Dawkins faith in "memetics"

Are all Christians Franciscans ?

Nope. Not all local credit union people sit on bank boards either. But they both handle finance.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You are attempting to lump philosophies as diverse as Confucianism and Communism together on the basis of one tenet they (arguably) shared and using this to suggest that no one (including me personally) who shares this tenet (lack of belief in a god) should ever be given power

Nope. In fact I trying to show they one can SEPARATE communism and other things from fundamental atheism and atheistic regimes.

while attempting to distance yourself from the crimes of all manner of people whose belief in christianity meant they had far more in common with you

I didnt bring my belief or not into this so please keep it out.
Lenin etc. and ALL atheistic regimes were avowedly atheist. You cant claim someone who read a book about Christians was representing Christianity no more then you can claim Hitler was representing the Church! And as it happens the people killed were mainly because of the Chinese atheist regime and not this pseudo christian.

than any atheist I've ever met has with any of these regimes,

that is just a waffle argument i.e. "you have more in common with Hitler then any atheist
I have ever met" It is bald assertion and a personal attack dressed up in waffle!
You don't even know me and Id prefer to keep it that way.
Stick to the issue.

on the basis that these people

What people?

who shared a belief in christianity with you

where did I claim to be a christian? All i did was put what I think is the position of the church! Just as an academic of religious studies would.

weren't in charge of what you call "christian regimes" when they carried out their crimes and because they weren't what you call "mainstream christians"

It is defined in the Charter! If anyone is moving goalposts it is you! I defined it about sixty pages ago so that this wouldn't happen. The definition has not changed. You have tried any amount of ways to straw man you r way around it but you are stuck with it!

This is one big no true Scotsman fallacy with excuses thrown in so you can wash your hands of the crimes of christians carried out in the name of what they called christianity

Where do you get the idea that the Taipeng rebellion in china was a christian rebellion done to spread Christianity throughout china? and dont forget the feudal example given and the ancient china example and the Japan example and a whole host of non christian examples of slaughter by non monotheist atheistic godless regimes.

and dump the crimes of people who had totally different world views to me at my door in an attempt to disqualify me from public office.

I a nazi an anarchist or a racist can be banned from running for office why someone who discriminates against religion on the basis that they want to ban it?

My version of atheism has no more to do with communism or confucianism than your version of christianity has to do with David Koresh or Hong Xiuquan. I don't even support the idea of an atheistic regime but here you are saying that

Where? Wher did i say what you believe or what I believe has anythin gto do with the issue?

We should have neither atheistic nor theistic regimes. We should have secular democracies where everyone's rights are respected equally. Pointing out that the small subset of christianity that you define as "mainstream" did not kill as many people while directly in charge of what you call a "chritian regime" really does not make me jump at the idea of a theocracy any more than I would at an atheistic totalitarian regime of any kind.

ther you go again. Fudging the issue. Mainstream Christianity is DEFINED several times by mne no and is NOT a small section it is between 85 and 97 per cent of christianity. It hasd not changed core beliefs in 1800 years. Over that time the damage it has done is over a hundred times less then the damage done in fifty years by atheistic regimes.

I can imagine the campaign posters now: "Put us in charge. Within certain narrowly defined parameters certain subsets our our group may not be as likely to murder you as these other people who we have lumped together despite having totally different world views!"

fudge again! It isnt a "narrow group " it is 1,500 MILLION people at least and it has always been the core hasnt changed and always had the same principles! You just cant claim new age so called christians and heretics are representative of Christian doctrine!

Sam Vimes

Not representative of Christian doctrine!? Atheism doesn't even have a doctrine to be representative of!

I got sucked into talking to you again. Bye now. You can believe that my unwillingness to continue talking to you is down to the spectacular logic that you have confounded me with if you want

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not representative of Christian doctrine!? Atheism doesn't even have a doctrine to be representative of!

Atheistic regimes do! The doctrine of spreading atheism.

I got sucked into talking to you again. Bye now. You can believe that my unwillingness to continue talking to you is down to the spectacular logic that you have confounded me with if you want

Toodle pip! Run away again but it wont change the hundreds of millions killed by atheistic regimes - historical fact!

Not a "some people say" that priests are holy makey uppy issues.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Only to regimes which promoted atheism as a central tenet.

Under your general definition which apparently allows you to add confucianism to the list of atheist regimes. :rolleyes:

But you CANT show how ANY regime promoting religion at the tip of a sword killed a million people whereas I can show how ALL promoting atheism did!

Oh its religion now ? Absolutely love these goalposts, they're on wheels at this stage :rolleyes:

Of course you can define 'regime' and 'promoting religion' to mean anything you want it to mean and you do.

But just out of curiosity, heres a webpage which categories deaths and if you total all the religious figures you get 809 million people have died in religious wars.

But of course you will deny this as not fitting into your definitions of 'religious regime' or 'promoting the religion'.

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” Adolf Hitler.

"religion is the opium of the people" Marx

Absolutely and he was right. So what ?

"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." - Adolf Hitler

Mao didn't do what he did to "serve God and spread religion"

No but apparently Hitler did.

“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.” - Adolf Hitler

All dealt with in the first six pages of this discussion. go back and read it.

No it wasn't. It was discussed and then the subject changed when you couldn't accept Hitlers christianity.

No not at all. You are free to compare what you deem as totalitatian with respect to the church to the totalitarianism of atheistic regimes.

I said Christianity, not the church, was totalitarian. Although I'd argue that the Church is too.

And I know I can't say anything about that here.

Interesting.
They are still spiritual however. If an Bhuddist government promoted atheism in "there is no god " as a central tenet of their belief and didn't kill people then I would accept that point.

Why would they promote that ?

They arent officialy atheist as far as I know. In fact they are hotbeds of Protestantism.

Goal posts ...

Definition stands atheistic = promoting atheism. christian = promoting christianity.

No, atheistic means being atheist. Spreading atheism is not atheism, its anti-theism.

Christian means being Christian. But being a Christian requires one to evangelise, at least most Christians believe that. Spread the good news and all that, so spreading christianity is part of being christian.

But now you are adding and changing the claim! Before it was they are "holier" or "closer to God" now it is they were respected and feared.

I'm not changing it, people see them as 'holier', 'closer to god' etc. This is not even an argument, I spent years of my life seeing my grandmother among many with this attitude.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Atheistic regimes do! The doctrine of spreading atheism.



Toodle pip! Run away again but it wont change the hundreds of millions killed by atheistic regimes - historical fact!

Not a "some people say" that priests are holy makey uppy issues.

I really don't want you to get the idea that I'm running away but right now my desire to avoid talking to you is just about overtaking my desire to avoid you thinking you've won. That may change in the future but at the moment I just can't be bothered explaining the same thing over and over to someone who's only interested in repeating one statistic ad nauseum as if he's making a point

monosharp

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I just can't be bothered explaining the same thing over and over to someone who's only interested in repeating one statistic ad nauseum as if he's making a point

Yet ironically told me Hitler was dealt with and was no longer on topic :rolleyes:

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Atheistic regimes do! The doctrine of spreading atheism.

We have been over this, that is a made up definition of yours.

Atheistic simple means atheist in character. Since atheism doesn't have a doctrine neither does atheistic.

If you thought about it for a second you would realize it doesn't make sense. There are thousands of different ways that someone could be an atheist. How would you spread atheism?

If you tell someone they should only look at the natural world you would be spreading naturalism. If you tell someone they should not let religion manipulate the working classes for the sake of those in power you are spreading Communism.

You can't spread atheism because atheism cannot exist as a doctrine independently to another doctrine. It is not a doctrine in of itself and thus you cannot teach it to other people in of itself

If you don't believe me name we one atheist doctrine that is solely independent to any other.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Under your general definition which apparently allows you to add confucianism to the list of atheist regimes. :rolleyes:

Definition is clear. If a core belief is "there is no god" they are atheist
If they promote that they are "atheistic"
Atheistic not be may be anti theist but I am aware of no atheistic regimes that were not anti theist.

Oh its religion now ? Absolutely love these goalposts, they're on wheels at this stage :rolleyes:

discussed already. some atheists regard Bhuddism as religion but as still atheist.

Of course you can define 'regime' and 'promoting religion' to mean anything you want it to mean and you do.

Regime was used to indicate oppression.

Not all Church administrations were regimes - some were.
All atheistic administrations were oppressive.

But just out of curiosity, heres a webpage which categories deaths and if you total all the religious figures you get 809 million people have died in religious wars.

But of course you will deny this as not fitting into your definitions of 'religious regime' or 'promoting the religion'.

No link given
No argument offered just a missing link to numbers.
I suspect they are from a bioased source and like in the other cases when you trace what they twisted into their data you will find no hint of the church being responsible for 800 million deaths.

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” Adolf Hitler.

he was at some level Christian rather than take it from a book called:
http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

No it wasn't. It was discussed and then the subject changed when you couldn't accept Hitlers christianity.

He didn't believe in the Church. he was opposed by successive popes. Catholics didn't vote for him. He used regions just as Stalin did.

I said Christianity, not the church, was totalitarian. Although I'd argue that the Church is too.

Look at the tirangle I referenced from Rummel. In the past the church tended to be authoritarian. they have every right to be in spiritual matters. But atheistic regimes were totalist. The communal decision making of Councils and ofg the Orthodox shows it was not totalist!

And I know I can't say anything about that here.

How do you know? diod amod tell you or does the charter say it?>
We are discussing totalitarianism in relation ot atheistic regimes in history
Surely a valid supported argument comparing Atheist c regimes to the church is on topic?
Who told you it wasn't?
So how dfo you know you can't discuss historic corruption?

Why would they promote that ?

If so called Bhuddists Taoists Confusionists or whatever godless non christians Chinese regime believed there is no God and also killed millions they were an atheistic regime. Not because they killed people but because "there is no god" was a central belief.

Goal posts ...

Ones you made! YOU claimed Scandanavia is atheist. I'm not aware the majority population is or that any laws or declarations say they are. Where is you evidence to support the claim Scandanavians are atheist. Atheists are a tiny minoroty in most places and atheistic people even smaller.

No, atheistic means being atheist. Spreading atheism is not atheism, its anti-theism.

so you are saying all spreading of atheism is anti theism. I stated that a core belief migh exist but not be spread. AS some Christians do. Or as Jews do since Judaism forbids evangelizing. All administrations which had atheism as a core belief however to my knowledge spread it and persecuted believers.

Christian means being Christian. But being a Christian requires one to evangelise, at least most Christians believe that.

arguable (see above) but so what if true? It does not requie persecution of none christians which happened but not all the time. .

Spread the good news and all that, so spreading christianity is part of being christian.

As i said not necessarily but Atheistic regimes ALWAYS surpressed non atheists,. christians did not always oppress non christians.

I'm not changing it, people see them as 'holier', 'closer to god' etc.

Changing it you are! Who is moving goalposts now?

I stated "priests are not closer to God" and that the Church does not hold that doctrine and you replied
"Yes they were and still are to certain extents. Its ridiculous that you even try to argue against this."

Now you change it to "people see them as"

This is just a "some people say" isn't it?
You seem to use them a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

This is not even an argument, I spent years of my life seeing my grandmother among many with this attitude.

And you may always have seen white swans and believed all swans were white.

The Church does not believe Priests are holier than others no matter what your granny might have thought about Church doctrine. I'm sure if she asked and the Priest told her she would have accepted his learning and authority that the church didnt believe Priests were better people than non Priests.

There is a host of non Priests who were made saints and a small number of very unholy popes.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I really don't want you to get the idea that I'm running away

Well, I do.

but right now my desire to avoid talking to you is just about overtaking my desire to avoid you thinking you've won.

I don't want to win. It isn't about ME. what I want is some truth to be accepted. atheistic regimes were the greatest killers in history. the church bad and all as it was at times did have a positive influence on society. the modern atheist seems to ignore this.

That may change in the future but at the moment I just can't be bothered explaining the same thing over and over to someone who's only interested in repeating one statistic ad nauseum as if he's making a point

My statistics keep growing. More research is done and more evidence added to my argument. So far all the atheists have supplied is unsupported claims that the Church caused a hundred million deaths. In fact worse. when you go and look into their figures the primary source contradicts their assertion!

I don't want you to run away thinking I have anything against you. It is just the idea that atheism was great for the world and the church was and is a great source of evil is plainly WRONG!

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

Definition is clear. If a core belief is "there is no god" they are atheist

Confucianism doesn't believe theres no god.
It doesn't say anything about any deities.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe there is no god. I don't 'know' there is or isn't a god. I don't accept any god's just like I don't accept fairies.

If they promote that they are "atheistic"

No they're not they are anti-theist.

Would you like me to redefine 'Christian' for you since that seems to be the game your playing.

Atheistic not be may be anti theist but I am aware of no atheistic regimes that were not anti theist.

You just defined Confucianism as atheist. Lots of Confucian societies have been completely benign on the issue of other religions.

discussed already. some atheists regard Bhuddism as religion but as still atheist.

Well there you go. If you consider Buddhism to be atheist then theres bucketfuls of Buddhist regimes which were not ant-theist.

Not all Church administrations were regimes - some were.
All atheistic administrations were oppressive.

Not according to you when discussing Buddhism or Confucianism.

No link given
No argument offered just a missing link to numbers.

My fault. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon

he was at some level Christian rather than take it from a book called:
http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

You expect me to take a site called answers.org seriously ? :pac:

I'll take actual public quotes from Hitler's speeches and writings as well as top level Nazi's quotes thank you very much.

Hitler was Catholic, he believed in his own perverse way he was serving your god.

He didn't believe in the Church. he was opposed by successive popes.

Oh really ? when did the Pope oppose him ?

Catholics didn't vote for him. He used regions just as Stalin did.

Protestants did overwhelmingly vote for him. Are Protestants not Christian now ? Goal posts again ?

Who told you it wasn't?
So how dfo you know you can't discuss historic corruption?

Because I've been banned for similar before. And my argument is not against the church, its against Christianity as a whole.

Ones you made! YOU claimed Scandanavia is atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Geographic_Distribution

Although I'm sure your going to explain now why Sweden and those other countries with high levels of irreligious aren't 'real' scotsmen atheists :rolleyes:

All administrations which had atheism as a core belief however to my knowledge spread it and persecuted believers.

Atheism is not a belief.
You have proven yourself wrong by trying to claim confucian and buddhist states are atheist.

arguable (see above) but so what if true? It does not requie persecution of none christians which happened but not all the time. .

Not the point.

You are trying to claim that atheistic means spreading atheism. Spreading atheism is not atheistic, it is anti-theism.

Spreading Christianity is Christianity. It says spread it in the book, in your doctrine.

I stated "priests are not closer to God" and that the Church does not hold that doctrine and you replied
"Yes they were and still are to certain extents. Its ridiculous that you even try to argue against this."

Which is not the argument at all.

I said people perceived them as such. Your the one who incorrectly, trying to debunk my point, stated that the church doesn't hold that doctrine. I never said they did.

And you may always have seen white swans and believed all swans were white.

It makes no difference to my argument if it was all or some. They were a privileged class over the proletariat, their very nature, the very nature of religion makes them appear as such to believers.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

I'm an atheist and I don't believe there is no god. I don't 'know' there is or isn't a god.

Then you are not an atheist.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Well, I do.



I don't want to win. It isn't about ME. what I want is some truth to be accepted. atheistic regimes were the greatest killers in history. the church bad and all as it was at times did have a positive influence on society. the modern atheist seems to ignore this.

My statistics keep growing. More research is done and more evidence added to my argument. So far all the atheists have supplied is unsupported claims that the Church caused a hundred million deaths. In fact worse. when you go and look into their figures the primary source contradicts their assertion!

I don't want you to run away thinking I have anything against you. It is just the idea that atheism was great for the world and the church was and is a great source of evil is plainly WRONG!

I'll tell you what, I'll fight through my frustration to respond to your point and might respond as long as it doesn't drag out for days

ISAW wrote: »

Nope. In fact I trying to show they one can SEPARATE communism and other things from fundamental atheism and atheistic regimes.

Despite saying earlier in the thread

ISAW wrote: »

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

ISAW wrote: »

I didnt bring my belief or not into this so please keep it out.
.......
that is just a waffle argument i.e. "you have more in common with Hitler then any atheist
I have ever met" It is bald assertion and a personal attack dressed up in waffle!
You don't even know me and Id prefer to keep it that way.
Stick to the issue.
....
where did I claim to be a christian? All i did was put what I think is the position of the church! Just as an academic of religious studies would.
.....
Where? Wher did i say what you believe or what I believe has anythin gto do with the issue?

1. You're quite clearly a christian
2. Whether you're a christian or not you are arguing as if you were one so if someone writes a reply that suggests you might be one you should respond as if you are the hypothetical christian you are arguing as instead of going on about personal attacks and ignoring the point being made

ISAW wrote: »

Lenin etc. and ALL atheistic regimes were avowedly atheist. You cant claim someone who read a book about Christians was representing Christianity no more then you can claim Hitler was representing the Church! And as it happens the people killed were mainly because of the Chinese atheist regime and not this pseudo christian.

No true scotsman. The only thing that I can say all christians have in common is that they believe that Jesus Christ raised from the dead (and even that's debatable) and if we take that definition the numbers are a hell of as lot higher than yours. If you wanted you could say that no Christian has ever done any harm because anyone who does harm is not following Christian doctrine and is therefore a pseudo christian but that would just be an even worse no true scotsman fallacy. The point is that the fact that someone identifies themselves with christianity is no guarantee of anything. The fact that you go on to label them pseudo christians after they carry out their atrocities is no comfort to the dead

And yes Stalin was an atheist but he was also a man, an adult, a Russian etc etc etc. He was a great many things but it doesn't mean that any of these things necessarily contribute to despotism. Absolutely anyone can be an atheist, it's the simplest thing in the world to be. The common thread here is not atheism, it's fundamentalist nutbaggery. Anyone can be a fundamentalist nutbag, religious or non-religious, and this is what we should be fighting against. We should not be singling out the fundamentalist nutbags who associate themselves with one label and saying that no one who associates themselves with that label should ever be given power based on a single statistic. We should be fighting for a society where no one person or group is given enough power to carry out such atrocities and the type of discrimination you appear to be advocating against the non-religious runs counter to that goal

ISAW wrote: »

It is defined in the Charter! If anyone is moving goalposts it is you! I defined it about sixty pages ago so that this wouldn't happen. The definition has not changed. You have tried any amount of ways to straw man you r way around it but you are stuck with it!
....
ther you go again. Fudging the issue. Mainstream Christianity is DEFINED several times by mne no and is NOT a small section it is between 85 and 97 per cent of christianity. It hasd not changed core beliefs in 1800 years. Over that time the damage it has done is over a hundred times less then the damage done in fifty years by atheistic regimes.
....
fudge again! It isnt a "narrow group " it is 1,500 MILLION people at least and it has always been the core hasnt changed and always had the same principles! You just cant claim new age so called christians and heretics are representative of Christian doctrine!

the fact that you defined your true christian early on in the thread does not make it any less a no true scotsman fallacy.

ISAW wrote: »

Where do you get the idea that the Taipeng rebellion in china was a christian rebellion done to spread Christianity throughout china?

Wiki

The rebels attempted social reforms and the replacement of Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion by a form of Christianity.

If it's wrong I'll happily take the correction, that is unless it is prefixed by a bold and capital declaration of wrongness.

ISAW wrote: »

and dont forget the feudal example given and the ancient china example and the Japan example and a whole host of non christian examples of slaughter by non monotheist atheistic godless regimes.

Others are dealing with this but anyway, you are defining the crimes carried out by any regime whose philosophy did not involve theistic belief as directly attributable to that lack of belief. I could do the same with christian societies but of course, correlation is not causation and I would be as wrong to do so as you are. The problem is that you define an atheistic regime as one that promotes atheism to the detriment of religion. you have been given several examples of states run by atheists and states with a large majority of atheists and of course the millions of atheists worldwide who are not murderous nutbags but you exclude all of these from your numbers because they don't fit your definition of an atheistic regime. When your definition of an atheistic regime requires that they were promoted atheism to the detriment of religion, ie that they were oppressive, is it really any surprise that you find they were all oppressive? You've defined it in such a way as to exclude any that weren't!

Also, could you answer Wicknight's question about atheistic doctrines that are independent of any other?

ISAW wrote: »

I a nazi an anarchist or a racist can be banned from running for office why someone who discriminates against religion on the basis that they want to ban it?

This is really the major problem, what appears to be the assumption that if someone is an atheist they want to ban religion. I don't want to ban religion and neither does any atheist I have ever met but on this thread you appear to be of the opinion that an atheist should never be given power because you have made this assumption of them, ironically meaning that you are discriminating against the non-religious on the basis that you want to ban them from public office.


Simple question: are you opposed to any atheist or group of atheists taking power in a state?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Confucianism doesn't believe theres no god.
It doesn't say anything about any deities.

Fair enough. Any Confuscian regime which has not other atheist tenets from Buddhism Taoism or whatever if it is strictly confuscian does not come "atheistic regime" . If it has additional beliefs say coming form Buddhism which is atheist then it is atheistic just like communist regimes which are atheistic. The definition still stands and we would have to go through the regimes one by one to see if they had atheist beliefs or not and add them to the atheistic death toll if so.

One thing is however certain - they were not Christian so they don't go to the Church total of deaths.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe there is no god. I don't 'know' there is or isn't a god. I don't accept any god's just like I don't accept fairies.

No! Under the definition already given from the beginning you are agnostic maybe but not atheist.
The regimes of which I speak are atheist. If i insluded agnistics and spiratualists I would include ghengis Kahn Hitler etc. But Im not including them Im only including strictly "there is no god" atheist regimes that killed people.

No they're not they are anti-theist.

The definition is given and I wont argue about it. If you want to call then "anti theist"
you may but not all atheistic administrations by definition have to be anti theist. It just so happens that all of them were.

Would you like me to redefine 'Christian' for you since that seems to be the game your playing.

NO! Christian from the beginning has been defines as what I call mainstream christian. In other words The ONE Church of the last 2000 years which has
1. apostolic succession
2. mageristerium - i.e. a tradition of doctrine associated ed with 1
3. A creed associated with 1 and 2 and in existence for millennia and in writing for about 1700 years

You just defined Confucianism as atheist. Lots of Confucian societies have been completely benign on the issue of other religions.

If they were then leave them out as regards body counts as long as they were not atheist according to another philosophy they also held e.g. Bhuddist or Taoist.

Well there you go. If you consider Buddhism to be atheist then theres bucketfuls of Buddhist regimes which were not ant-theist.

If that is the case then care to list all the buckets?
And If so I accept they were atheist and didn't kill people and given "Bhuddism is atheism" I stand corrected that ALL atheistic regimes killed people. But we will have to add them to the atheistic total if and when they did kill people. they cretainly dont add to the christian total.

My fault. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon

Wher do you get 809 million from?

For example this lists "Holocaust" as deaths due to religion/
You cant seriously say religion caused the death of six million Jews can you?
Naziism was the cause - not religion or The church!

The above source and claims about 42 million deaths attributable to Hitler. You can't claim this is the Church deliberately killing people!

It also has a lot about Islam, Iran, Hindus etc. which while religious are not related the the Christian Church no more than spiritual or shaministic, Monglos are related to atheism.

aactually uinder christian culpabailty it comes up with 56 Million and NOT 809 Million as you claimed!
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/gunsorxp.htm#XP
I would dispute this 56 million figure anyway/

For example i do NOT accept 9,000,000 were burned for witchcraft.
Nor do I accept 30 million were kiled for not accepting the christian creed!

Nor that 7 million Saracens were killed by christians nor that 5 million were killed by christians in the Crusades .

Thats 51 of the 56 million which is immediatley disputable!

You expect me to take a site called answers.org seriously ? :pac:

Are you claiming the quote from a bookHitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944
is in error?

If the quote isnt in error then show me how each of the quotes i offered you show how Hitler was a Christian when they clearly show the opposite!

I'll take actual public quotes from Hitler's speeches and writings as well as top level Nazi's quotes thank you very much.

1. If you claim these quotes are doctored then all you have to do is show me to prove me wrong!
Care to do so?

2. Now assume the quotes are not doctored and are original. If they are true, do you accept that they show that Hitler was not a Christian and did not follow the doctrine of mainstream christians as 80 to 95 per cent of Christians today do?

Hitler was Catholic, he believed in his own perverse way he was serving your god.

Please don't bring my beliefs into this!

Oh really ? when did the Pope oppose him ?

TWO popes were in office during the time Hitler came to power. The first Pius XI of all encuclicals except one came out against naziism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI#Mit_Brennender_Sorge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI#Condemnation_of_racism
By the time of his death ... Pius XI had managed to orchestrate a swelling chorus of Church protests against the racial legislation and the ties that bound Italy to Germany. He had single-mindedly continued to denounce the evils of the nazi regime at every possible opportunity and feared above all else the re-opening of the rift between Church and State in his beloved Italy.

Pius XI responded to ever increasing Nazi hostility to Christianity by issuing in 1937 the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge condemning the Nazi ideology of racism and totalitarianism and Nazi violations of the concordat. Copies had to be smuggled into Germany so they could be read from the pulpit[10] The encyclical, the only one ever written in German, was addressed to German bishops and was read in all parishes of Germany. The actual writing of the text is credited to Munich Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber and to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII.[11] There was no advance announcement of the encyclical, and its distribution was kept secret in an attempt to ensure the unhindered public reading of its contents in all the Catholic Churches of Germany.

This encyclical condemned particularly the paganism of National Socialist ideology, the myth of race and blood, and fallacies in the Nazi conception of God.

Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community — however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things — whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds."[12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#The_Holocaust

Protestants did overwhelmingly vote for him. Are Protestants not Christian now ? Goal posts again ?

some protestants did. Hitler only got about But it would be like atheists voting for Hitler . The numbers were small.

given we already know Catholics didnt vote for Hitler
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise%28n%29-1.htm

Take the first example and earliest date in the second Table
Lower Bavaria ~ 1.1. per cent Protestant but (in 1924) over ten per cent voted Nazi.

Take the second last example ( because it had the highest protestant populkation) and latest date ( May 1925)
MIDDLE FRANCONIA 68.7 Protestant Voted Nazi = 9.1

so in the former you have nearly ten times to population of non Protestants voting Hitler and in the latter even when seven tenths of the population are protestant less than ten per cent voted nazi ( most of whom were not Protestant or catholic for that matter)

Because I've been banned for similar before. And my argument is not against the church, its against Christianity as a whole.

Well actually it is against popes and leaders iof you maintian it is about totalitarianism!
But fair enough confine it to the Church and make it by comparing the church to atheist c regimes and you cant be banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Geographic_Distribution

Although I'm sure your going to explain now why Sweden and those other countries with high levels of irreligious aren't 'real' scotsmen atheists :rolleyes:

I would dispute a lot oif this. According to your reckoning by these figures France ( one of the most christian countries in the World) and The UK ( where the church is linked to the State) are "atheist"? [source the table of Eurobarometer poll 2005]

No i reckon the Pew figures of 15 per cent "nones" and about 1.5 per cent atheist is correct.
And of that one percent a minority are fundamentalist atheist who this the world without religion and with state atheism is better.

Atheism is not a belief.
You have proven yourself wrong by trying to claim confucian and buddhist states are atheist.

NO! They were brought in as non Christian pre 20th century mega killers. If you regard Buddhism as a belief in God and say it is not atheism then leave it out of the death toll as "not atheist". But your atheist comrades wont agree with you.

You are trying to claim that atheistic means spreading atheism.

No im defioning it as that.

Spreading atheism is not atheistic, it is anti-theism.

Spreading atheism could in theory be benigh biut as you stated it never is . I am prepared to acceopt atheistic administrations dont have to be anti theist and that atheistic regimes dont have to be. i.e. they spread atheism but dont attack religious belief. But as it happens they always were!

Spreading Christianity is Christianity. It says spread it in the book, in your doctrine.

Not necessarily. It could mean "live as we live" spread by example. and it isn't doctrinal for belief. As I pointed out Jews are actually doctrinally forbidden to evangelism. Islam also says "ther is no compunction in religion." forcing beliefs on others isn't Christian either.
Promoting atheism is one thing. Doing away with opposition is another.

Acheistic = promote atheism but they also were anti theist.


Which is not the argument at all.

I said people perceived them as such. Your the one who incorrectly, trying to debunk my point, stated that the church doesn't hold that doctrine. I never said they did.


[qute]
It makes no difference to my argument if it was all or some. They were a privileged class over the proletariat, their very nature, the very nature of religion makes them appear as such to believers.[/QUOTE]

"Appear as" such Moce "some people say" arguments?

christianity does not say Priests are holier or better then non Priests. In fact Priests in cant marry and Marriage is regarded as a sacrament.