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

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

No. I'm saying that they were an atheistic regime. I'm not aware of any atheistic countries which didn't have a controlling regime in charge which suppressed and slaughtered those that challenged their atheistic regime.

Sweden?

How are you defining "atheist countries". Do you mean countries with a totalitarian regime forcing atheism on the people? If so it is hardly surprising they oppressed opposition to the official state decree.

If you simply mean countries where most people were atheist then neither Russia nor China can be considered atheist countries. The closes you have is something like Sweden.

ISAW wrote: »

Fundamentalist religions (which are a small minority and are not mainstream) have also caused deaths but religion has also contributed to developing society. What has atheism contributed? What great atheist civilization ever existed?

Well America. The US Constitution was constructed using Enlightenment principles by a group of men with little or no religious beliefs.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Sweden?

Is that not a secular state rather than an atheist one?

How are you defining "atheist countries". Do you mean countries with a totalitarian regime forcing atheism on the people? If so it is hardly surprising they oppressed opposition to the official state decree.

Yes, that is the context. I think the point is he is making, is that where states have had atheism at its core, they have been totalitarian, their atheistic view pushing them to oppress the religious.

Well America. The US Constitution was constructed using Enlightenment principles by a group of men with little or no religious beliefs.

Didn't know that. Is that a fact? Wonder why they have 'In God we trust' on there money etc.

StealthRolex

ISAW wrote: »

What has atheism contributed?

Self assembly flat-pack furniture

ISAW wrote: »

What great atheist civilization ever existed?

Sweden

:-)

hairyheretic

JimiTime wrote: »

Didn't know that. Is that a fact? Wonder why they have 'In God we trust' on there money etc.

Didn't that get added on during the McCarthy era, an anti communist thing?

JimiTime

hairyheretic wrote: »

Didn't that get added on during the McCarthy era, an anti communist thing?

Haven't a clue tbh, not very read on American history.

DublinWriter

PDN wrote: »

Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann...

Let's put that to bed, shall we?

Borman was an admitted atheist and had his own agenda. Table Talk was a book of anecdotal stories that Borman recalled from memory and was published in 1951.

From Wiki -
Historian Ian Kershaw remarked upon questionable nature of Table Talk as a source, stating "the `table talk’ monologues of the last months (the so called `bunkergespräche’) of which no German text has ever been brought to light must be treated with due caution."

Again, from Wiki -
March 23, 1933, he addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Sweden?

The majority of Swedes are not atheist, nor is Sweden an atheist country.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well America. The US Constitution was constructed using Enlightenment principles by a group of men with little or no religious beliefs.

The Declaration of Independence refers explicitly to a 'creator'.

marco_polo

Judging by the factors being put forward as idealogical motivations of the Khymer Rouge, I'd say links to a few Cambodian History books would not be out of place on this thread.

prinz

hairyheretic wrote: »

Didn't that get added on during the McCarthy era, an anti communist thing?

The origins go back much further. It was on coins in Civil War times, and a similar phrase appears in the fourth verse of the complete Star Spangled Banner, 'In God Is Our Trust'...

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that not a secular state rather than an atheist one?

That is what I'm trying to clarify, what is an "atheist country" according to ISAW

It is sort of difficult to see the difference between a secular state and an atheist state (as opposed to an specifically anti-theistic state, such as USSR or China), what would an atheist state do that a secular state wouldn't?

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes, that is the context.

But isn't that like saying I'm not aware of any totalitarian state that wasn't totalitarian?

People seem to be equating atheism with state enforced anti-theism, which seems a bit odd. State enforced anti-theism is anti-theism. Anti-theism is obviously atheist in nature, but the reverse it not a given.

JimiTime wrote: »

I think the point is he is making, is that where states have had atheism at its core, they have been totalitarian, their atheistic view pushing them to oppress the religious.

But the only way you get to that conclusion is to equate totalitarian anti-theism with atheism. It is hardly surprising you get that conclusion then.

Would Sweden or America not be atheist states, given that the state officially makes no recognition of God or gods?

JimiTime wrote: »

Didn't know that. Is that a fact? Wonder why they have 'In God we trust' on there money etc.

In 1789 the unofficial motto of America was "One from many" (E Pluribus Unum)

Then in 1956 as the cold war was heating up Christians conservatives got worried their state was too secular/atheist in nature and equated that with the stuff that was happening in the USSR, and started enacting a ton of legislation that started placing "God" all over the shop, including enacting into law In God We Trust as the official state motto.

This of course was 150 years after the founding fathers had died.

Clarification of the position of the founding fathers is found in the copy of the Treaty of Tripoli ratified by the Senate in 1797 (there is political controversy that this was not the same document actually signed at the Treaty of Tripoli, which had basically a hand written note in stead of Art 11, but that doesn't matter too much in the context of a statement of the position of the Founding Fathers with regard to America and religion as this copy was approved by the Senate)

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

strobe

ISAW wrote: »

No. I'm saying that they were an atheistic regime. I'm not aware of any atheistic countries which didn't have a controlling regime in charge which suppressed and slaughtered those that challenged their atheistic regime.

See you still aren't getting it. I'll post the quote again and this time highlight the part you seem to be determined to misread.

"Also if anyone thinks a dictatorship such as existed in all of these countries is an example of open Democracy then I recommend the book “democracy for the lay man” on Amazon. Any example, atheism or Christianity, of the few forcing by the use of violence their views and beliefs on the masses is very very far from the secular democracy espoused by most atheists."

You are trying to force this idea that when atheist talk about wanting a true secular democracy they mean they want an oppressive totalitarian regime which forces atheism on everybody on pain of death. Soviet Russia was a totalitarian pseudo communist state, they oppossed everything that was seen as having the potential of undermining their total control. Just like China oppossed Falun Gong for no other reason than it was becoming extremely popular. These states do not suffer anycollective that isn't in direct and outspoken support of the regime. If tens of thousands of people got together, created a formal organisation and played dominoes every tuesday in a totalitarian regime but refused to say they supported the state unconditionally and that the state had supreme power over their organisation, the game of dominoes would be treated in the exact same way as Christianity. Theological belief doesn't even come into it.

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

You are trying to force this idea that when atheist talk about wanting a true secular democracy they mean they want an oppressive totalitarian regime which forces atheism on everybody on pain of death. ...Theological belief doesn't even come into it.

From Fasgnadh again on the atheists' position:
http://groups.google.co.zm/group/alt.talk.creationism/msg/06be66e0f0977cf4

the secular state, the necessary separation of Church and State
is a BEQUEST, a gift to you atheists, by the MAJORITY RELIGIOUS
societies which have been evolving freedom, democracy, abolition of
slavery, emancipation of women, ..as their UNDERSTANDING of God has
evolved.
...
Social reality; human culture, society, economics,
science, politics, evolves just as Physical reality has...
It is in that sphere that humans have the freedom to create..
and it is the arena in which our greatest triumphs and our
catastrophic mistakes, co-exist.. because without the
freedom to make mistakes, (such as Nazism, communism, atheism ;-)
we would be mere automatons. puppets.

I'm sure you will find some way to Blame God for our mistakes,
just as you blame Him for Creation...

I don't think you realise how similar to the Creationists that
makes you.. the only difference is they praise Him and feel
happy about the Universe they live in.. seeking to understand it's
meaning, while you appear to hate it and damn God for your unhappiness.

[/fasgnadh]

In short you are saying all regimes were not atheist.
But I am pointing out to you that:

1. atheistic ones caused mare death then all the others
2. Atheistic regimes contributed less then the others
3. Non atheistic regimes were sometimes benign.

And the FACT is that people like Dawkins for example DO VIEW atheism as a "better way" and want religious people removed from any authority. Maybe some atheists couldnt care less and want to sit on their hands and do nothing, which can be criticised in itself but I am specifically talking here about evangalising fundamental atheists such as those like Dawkins who subscribe to scientism.

If you promote atheism as a better way for society and you promote removing religious believers from positions of authority then you are one of these people.

PDN

DublinWriter wrote: »

Let's put that to bed, shall we?

Borman was an admitted atheist and had his own agenda. Table Talk was a book of anecdotal stories that Borman recalled from memory and was published in 1951.

From Wiki -
Historian Ian Kershaw remarked upon questionable nature of Table Talk as a source, stating "the `table talk’ monologues of the last months (the so called `bunkergespräche’) of which no German text has ever been brought to light must be treated with due caution."

Again, from Wiki -
March 23, 1933, he addressed the Reichstag: "The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people.

You haven't put it to bed.

You seem to be implying that Bormann was lying because he was an "admitted atheist". While the two may sometimes go hand in hand, it would be unfair to treat lying and atheism as being synonymous.

You and I both know that if a close associate of a well-known Christian (let's say Mother Theresa or Billy Graham) published personal reminiscences that were damaging to their reputation that the atheists who visit this board would be very willingto cite them as evidence. You can't go cherry picking what suits your ideology.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

t is sort of difficult to see the difference between a secular state and an atheist state (as opposed to an specifically anti-theistic state, such as USSR or China), what would an atheist state do that a secular state wouldn't?

What about where a State officially declares itself to be atheist, and teaches atheism as fact in schools?

In 1789 the unofficial motto of America was "One from many" (E Pluribus Unum)

Then in 1956 as the cold war was heating up Christians conservatives got worried their state was too secular/atheist in nature and equated that with the stuff that was happening in the USSR, and started enacting a ton of legislation that started placing "God" all over the shop, including enacting into law In God We Trust as the official state motto.

This of course was 150 years after the founding fathers had died.

That's true in as far as goes - but rather misleading as to what has been left out. The guys in the 1950s didn't exactly pluck the phrase out of mid air.

The phrase was bound up with many Americans' view of their nationhood because their National Anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, contains the line: "And this be our motto: In God is our Trust"

The phrase "In God We Trust" first appeared on US coins during the American Civil War. It was discontinued for a while - and a lively debate on the subject was continued until 1938 when it reappeared on coins and has done ever since. Interestingly, those who opposed its use on money, such as Theodore Roosevelt did not do so out of a desire to be secular - but rather because he felt the name of God was so holy that it would blasphemous to print it on something so mundane as money.

It is actually required by law today that the motto appear on all US currency, and surveys indicate that 90% of US citizens want it to stay.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

What about where a State officially declares itself to be atheist, and teaches atheism as fact in schools?

Good point, I hadn't considered that.

Such a State would fall in between the secular notions of American and the anti-theist notions of China and the USSR.

A state where say the position is such that in a private school you can teach what ever the fudge you like but in a public school the doctrine is atheism all the way.

PDN wrote: »

That's true in as far as goes - but rather misleading as to what has been left out. The guys in the 1950s didn't exactly pluck the phrase out of mid air.

The phrase was bound up with many Americans' view of their nationhood because their National Anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, contains the line: "And this be our motto: In God is our Trust"

The phrase "In God We Trust" first appeared on US coins during the American Civil War. It was discontinued for a while - and a lively debate on the subject was continued until 1938 when it reappeared on coins and has done ever since. Interestingly, those who opposed its use on money, such as Theodore Roosevelt did not do so out of a desire to be secular - but rather because he felt the name of God was so holy that it would blasphemous to print it on something so mundane as money.

It is actually required by law today that the motto appear on all US currency, and surveys indicate that 90% of US citizens want it to stay.

I know, I wasn't arguing that America is an nation of atheists, simply that most of the Founding Fathers were atheists or non-religious deists and founded the country on those principles that had little to do with religion.

Even back then the country was mostly Christian afaik.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I know, I wasn't arguing that America is an nation of atheists, simply that most of the Founding Fathers were atheists or non-religious deists

I think that's a bit of an atheist urban legend, actually. It tends to be spread by Americans who think that we should give a hoot about what the Founding Fathers believed due to their near mythical status in the US, and to counter the opposite legend, spread by the right, that the Founding Fathers were all committed Christians.

As far as I'm aware none of the Founding Fathers claimed to be atheist, but a sizable minority were deists. Most of them were members of one church or another - few Unitarians.

One thing I think we would probably agree on is that most of them were certainly secularists.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That is what I'm trying to clarify, what is an "atheist country" according to ISAW

I mean a society which promotes atheism as "the best way" and puts restrictions on religious believers having any authority.

Here's something from fasgnadh again which might outline some of the problems with respect to how atheists want society to be:

http://groups.google.am/group/alt.politics.democrats/browse_thread/thread/77f7d4faada5f338

Atheists are still quoting Epicurus as if his weak rhetoric is logic.

By the time we get to the Enlightenment people understood that
a God who stops you from hitting the ground when you fall over,
is a puppet master controlling automatons, not the creator
of autonomous beings with free will and responsibility.

Still the atheists cling to their simplistic caricatures.

They even blame the god they claim not to believe in, for NOT
STOPPING the mass murders of the atheist holocausts!!!

http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:10645?context=latest

As alt.atheism shows they share the fundamentalists LITERAL reading
of the Bible, believing that their ignorant misunderstandings of
metaphor shows faults in the text.

There are problems with the text, as with any document thousands of
years old that was originally transmitted orally.

So let us deal with those first..

Like my grandparent's worldview, it is not hard to find errors, from
our perspective.. they were more patriarchal, saw distinct roles
for men and women, feminism is a very recent phenomenon in human
society. These are due to cultural context, different stages
of human evolution require different forms of social organisation.

When Islam arrived it was a Revolution in the rights accorded to women
and the responsibilities assigned to both men and women.

Now, especially after centuries of male clerics, it appears sexist
and misogynist in many, but not all, Islamic societies.

Like female genital mutilation, which occurs in parts of Africa
including Muslims, Christians and tribal Pagans, some elements of
local culture become absorbed and appear to be part of the religion,
because it is the dominant language of social organisation.

Similarly dictators and even democratic governments will make appeals
to religious notions to gain the support of the majority religious,
Power Seekers like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and George Bush, who pay lip
service to the Spiritual Tradition to curry favour with the populace.

And in this way political conflicts, as in India at partition, become
played out in religious terms.. when the fundamental problem is that
centuries of co-existence were shattered by colonialism and post
colonial disintegration.

If you want to see these set out in meticulous detail, read the master,
John Shelby Spong, an Episcopalian minister on whose work the current
crop of Atheists, Dawkins and Hitchins base their own credos.

So, even the Christians disagree over it's basic content, the Roman
church include the Apocrypha, [books including Esther, Judith, The
Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch (ancestor of Obama ;-) ], ..the Protestant
denominations leaving them out.

For any other document that would render it inoperable..that the Bible
has inspired and sustained mighty and enduring Civilisations is a
testament to it's spiritual power.

The fundamentalists are like Philistines staring at the Venus de Milo,
and complaining that it is not anatomically correct:

"Where's the ARMS" they wail, to the amusement of Art Historians
and art lovers alike!

The Qur'an has less problems with transcription errors through the ages,
because it is more recent and was written down more quickly after the
Revelation.

But, and this i critical, both provide moral and spiritual guidelines
which have sustained great civilisations over millennia.

No other social doctrines, dogmas or documents have had such lasting
efficacy.

This phenomenon, especially when we see the wholesale RETURN
to religion and Spiritual teachings when people are FREED from
ATHEIST Tyranny, cannot be explained, or explained away, by
Atheist dogma.

The second problem for Religion is simply cultural context
- time and place., because it is the foundation of social
organisation for almost all of human history, is that
everything that humans have evolved through, every mistaken
ideology, every transformation of political or economic thinking,
has typically taken place under one religion or another.
Because Religion has always been central to human evolution and
Civilisation.

It is simply a fact that many of mankind's mistakes have occurred in
societies which were religious, simply because there really are no other
kinds of society, for any significant period in history!!

Those that don't make mistakes, don't make anything.

A family may be moral, they may be loving and compassionate,
but a child in that family may still lie, or poke it's
siblings eye out with a pencil, because it lacks maturity..
that is not a reflection on the parents beliefs.

Atheists frequently throw the Spiritual Baby out with the
Religious Bathwater.

And for most of history atheism made no mistakes because it was
insignificant and irrelevant to the evolution of human society.

However, once society was producing a sufficient surplus for the
chattering class to emerge, and literacy was expanded by printing and
mass publication and distribution.. any idea, irrespective of
merit, could be circulated.. (much like the internet today ;-)

This is of course potentially wonderful,but like all technological
advances, it takes humanity some time to learn how to us it.

Every new technology has been used to create Porn.. it happened
on the walls with Roman frescoes, it happened when Photography
arrived, and with Film.. mobile phones and the internet.

In the 19th century, Nietzsche Freud and Marx, all singularly
unimpressive individuals, (respectively disturbed, neurotic,
and misogynist) advanced theories rejecting God. And laid
the groundwork for the totalitarian horrors of the 20th Century.

The worst barbarity occurred in the 'Modern'(sic) Era, when God
had been proclaimed Dead in the hearts of man, Religion declared
the Opium of the people, and the sexuality of the neurotic Viennese
Bourgeois became the central obsession of mankind.

Gas chambers and Gulags, millions systematically tortured terrorised
and murdered, churches burned, then entire cities, priests killed then
entire communities.. the Atheist ****holes were the worst and most
miserable, and their peoples could not wait for them to be assigned
to the dustbin of FAILED experiments.

And yet modern atheists, like modern Nazis, refuse to acknowledge
the holocausts carried out by THEIR ideology, in every case where it
came to power! 8^o

Atheism needs REFORM.

It has become a haven of Blind Faith and Dogma

Morton Lucifer needs to nail his 95 Theses to the door
of Dawkin's house.. or perhaps to his forehead...! B^D

and launch the ATHEIST REFORMATION!!! B^D

Atheism is now, in the hands of Dawkins and Hitchins, a populist
dogma. It still tries to wear the mantle of science, aided in this
by the (mostly American) Creationist morons, who cannot understand
that creation does not unfold according to THEIR understanding,

God's Hands are not tied by the limits of human imagination.

Never have been, never will.

After 600 years, the Church has been humbled by Galileo!

But for atheists to claim Darwin, as they continue to do, is a joke.

He explicitly denied being an atheist and went to church! B^D

The Big Bang, the fundamental scientific theory of the origin of the
Universe, was developed by Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a Catholic
Prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic
University of Leuven!

Religion is clearly NO IMPEDIMENT to rational science!

That title belongs to the Atheist tyrannies, the Union of Savage
Slaughter and Repression, Mao's Great Leap Backward and Cultural
Devolution, and Pol Pots Year Zero genocide.

Not only science, but art, music, culture and all of
human society entered a Dark Age during the Atheist tyrannies!

Atheism, given the chance, did NOT usher in a new, rational Utopia,
but immersed millions in misery and despair.

The problem for atheists is, there is not much there to RE FORM!

[/fasgnadh]

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I think that's a bit of an atheist urban legend, actually. It tends to be spread by Americans who think that we should give a hoot about what the Founding Fathers believed due to their near mythical status in the US, and to counter the opposite legend, spread by the right, that the Founding Fathers were all committed Christians.

Possibly. Personally I think it is more important what they put into law than their own personal beliefs.

The Christian right, perhaps because they recognize the flaw in going up against the constitution direction, often make claim to the Christian founding of America, the subtle implication being that modern secularist liberals are interpreting the original meaning behind the constitution incorrectly.

The argument that the FF were atheists or non-religious deists who cared little for religion is largely put foward, as far as I can tell, to counter this notion.

I'm not American, though I do admire the separation of church and state you find in America.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not American, though I do admire the separation of church and state you find in America.

The reason for the was because the founding fathers were Christian not in spite of it! They saw what interdenominational fighting caused in Europe. they didn.t want that in the Us . so they couldn't endorse a particular denomination for the US. Because of they they went around the States trying to convince them to allow freedom to practice religion but not to endorse any particular State religion.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I mean a society which promotes atheism as "the best way" and puts restrictions on religious believers having any authority.

Fair enough, though I'm not sure why that is an atheist country, it sounds anti-theist to me.

I'm sure you agree that it is not necessary for example for a Christian country to put restrictions on other religious believers in order to be considered a Christian country.

I would consider pre-1972 Ireland to be a Christian State, specifically a RCC State, as the constitution recognized the "special position" of the RCC

That of course doesn't mean they put restrictions on believers having any authority, with many Protestant members of government etc.

ISAW wrote: »

Here's something from fasgnadh again which might outline some of the problems with respect to how atheists want society to be:

Ok ....

What part of that some what incoherent rant was presenting how "atheists want society to be"?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Possibly. Personally I think it is more important what they put into law than their own personal beliefs.

The Christian right, perhaps because they recognize the flaw in going up against the constitution direction, often make claim to the Christian founding of America, the subtle implication being that modern secularist liberals are interpreting the original meaning behind the constitution incorrectly.

The argument that the FF were atheists or non-religious deists who cared little for religion is largely put foward, as far as I can tell, to counter this notion.

I'm not American, though I do admire the separation of church and state you find in America.

TBH though, their nationalism seems to be almost religious. They almost worship their flag as far as I can tell.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

The reason for the was because the founding fathers were Christian not in spite of it! They saw what interdenominational fighting caused in Europe. they didn.t want that in the Us . so they couldn't endorse a particular denomination for the US. Because of they they went around the States trying to convince them to allow freedom to practice religion but not to endorse any particular State religion.

I'm not following your point. You are correct that they saw inter-denominational fighting and wished that there State would provide freedom of religion and freedom from religion to ensure that everyone was free from State imposed religion.

How does that make them Christian?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH though, their nationalism seems to be almost religious. They almost worship their flag as far as I can tell.

Again that seems to stem mostly from the conservative movement of the 20th century. The idea of worshiping the flag comes from the military community. It is considered a huge disgrace in the military to allow the flag to touch the ground, as this has connotations from battlefields.

The traditions were made more public in the 1920s with the establishment of the Flag Codes by various groups which eventually became laws in the 40s.

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

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough, though I'm not sure why that is an atheist country, it sounds anti-theist to me.

So you admit Dawkins is anti-theist? And the supporters of scientism are? And fundamentalist proselytising atheists are?
And you are not a supporter of any of their positions? Well then having admitted that I don't think mainstream religious people will view you as a danger or a threat. If and when you begin to attack them and try to ridicule them they may however reclassify you and suggest you were dishonest.

I'm sure you agree that it is not necessary for example for a Christian country to put restrictions on other religious believers in order to be considered a Christian country.

no it isn't. but It could do so and still be a christian country. depends on what you mean by "country". THe Holy See for example is christian. so is the UK but Roman Catholics
by law can't become the monarch. Nor can Roman Catholics become Provost of Trinity College. the current one is atheist and there was only ever one Catholic one in 4000 years. the rules however allow for an Anglican Vice Provost to fill in for all the Anglican legal requirements of the Provost. Ironically going to annual Chapel on trinity Monday is still done by the current Provost (presumably because he likes the pomp and ceremony).

I would consider pre-1972 Ireland to be a Christian State, specifically a RCC State, as the constitution recognized the "special position" of the RCC

And the Catholic Church banned Catholics from trinity

That of course doesn't mean they put restrictions on believers having any authority, with many Protestant members of government etc.

Actually as I just pointed out in some cases it DOES. Trinity was run by Protestants and had representatives in Parliament. this was backed up (and actually still is today) by the law.

What part of that some what incoherent rant was presenting how "atheists want society to be"?

What great atheist civilizations were there?
Care to list an atheist society that was not a repressive regime and slaughtered peole?
Atheists are a tiny minority of people but some of them are a smug bunch of scientism supporting fundamentalists who whenever they got power in the past caused death and destruction greater than any religion ever did!

By the way it is very difficult to gat what atheists actually believe. When put to them they all believe in something different. But they claim the lack of belief in god is the common factor. If they bind together based on this lack of belief it seems they insist have nothing else in common. Whichj prompts me to ask "why bothewr" ? If the only common factor is "I don't believe in God or the supernatural" why bother identifying as a group. My assertion is that a subgroup of these people assert that they dont believe in god because...and they present a whole diatribe of rationalist and relativist philosophy and end up assertion things like science is best done by atheists and atheism is the better way and that they have proved that and that they can then laugh at others who don't think like them and censor those that doubt them.
Just as i have been censored for saying that the basic principles advanced by atheists in the AA forum here are not proved.
One can not ultimately "advance the discussion" when the discussion so far is based on something one has not shown.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following your point. You are correct that they saw inter-denominational fighting and wished that there State would provide freedom of religion and freedom from religion to ensure that everyone was free from State imposed religion.

How does that make them Christian?

It doesn't. It is just that they were christian from a background of fleeing infighting.
Just because your father fought in the civil war doesn't mean you will not be a contentious objector but it is unlikely and it is likely you will not want civil war.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that seems to stem mostly from the conservative movement of the 20th century. The idea of worshiping the flag comes from the military community. It is considered a huge disgrace in the military to allow the flag to touch the ground, as this has connotations from battlefields.

The traditions were made more public in the 1920s with the establishment of the Flag Codes by various groups which eventually became laws in the 40s.

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

You should see the pictures of the British Army leaving Collins Barracks in Cork They are on the wall there. they nmarched out one gate as the Republicans cane int he other.
An armour car drove up and ripped down the flag onto the ground and dumped in into the car . they then sawed down the flagpole and drove off!

Some respect?!

strobe

ISAW wrote: »

Atheists are still quoting Epicurus as if his weak rhetoric is logic.


They even blame the god they claim not to believe in, for NOT
STOPPING the mass murders of the atheist holocausts!!!



[/fasgnadh]

I don't have the slightest idea what a fasgnadh is but it quite clearly doesn't know what the word atheist means.

If you are happy to pick and choose random internet passages from people claiming to be atheists and then try to superimpose what they say to be representative of all or even most atheists, then can I respond in kind and select posts on religious message boards from now on to post in this forum to prove things about religion? I think we both know how that would go.

Clearly I wouldn't do that because some people are just stupid or uneducated or crazy. Selectively quoting these people would be a pathetic strawmaning attempt. Why do you think it's ok for you to do the equivalent?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You should see the pictures of the British Army leaving Collins Barracks in Cork They are on the wall there. they nmarched out one gate as the Republicans cane int he other.
An armour car drove up and ripped down the flag onto the ground and dumped in into the car . they then sawed down the flagpole and drove off!

Some respect?!

Well I meant let your flag touch the ground. Destroying the flag of your enemy is also a military tradition :pac:

Iwasfrozen

Are people here forgetting that Stalin allowed the church to re-open during the war ? And many people believe he was a secret Orthodox Catholic.

Also Hitler was a Pagan, like Himmler. Not an atheist.

Fanny Cradock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are people here forgetting that Stalin allowed the church to re-open during the war ?

And?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also Hitler was a Pagan, like Himmler. Not an atheist.

I think a number of people have acknowledged that Hitler was not an atheist.

Iwasfrozen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And?

So he obviously wasn't an Atheist.

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

I don't have the slightest idea what a fasgnadh is but it quite clearly doesn't know what the word atheist means.

and your evidence is?

If you are happy to pick and choose random internet passages from people claiming to be atheists

1. they aren't random they are from thesame poster.
2. It is quite well documented. The people who calim to thbe atheists are all numbered and signed up to bye numbered as atheists.
They all post to alt.atheism and atheist usenet discussion group.
3. Fasgnadh is not an atheist he is an agnostic.

and then try to superimpose what they say to be representative of all or even most atheists,

It is representative of all the vocalisations you get fro atheist groups on the net. the same opinions are to be seen in the atheism and agnostic group on boards.ie

the difference is that
1. anyone can use whatever language they want on alt.atheism
there is no censorship.

2. nobody can be banned from alt.atheism or censored as they have donme to me on the AA forum here.

then can I respond in kind and select posts on religious message boards from now on to post in this forum to prove things about religion? I think we both know how that would go.

Not up to me to deside. But i can tell you this. You can post alt.atheism and nobody can censor you. you can post what you like. If you post Fasgnadh on the points you want to make you will be dismantled. It is very easy to do it and will cost you nothing. I suspect we both know you won't do that.

Clearly I wouldn't do that because some people are just stupid or uneducated or crazy. Selectively quoting these people would be a pathetic strawmaning attempt. Why do you think it's ok for you to do the equivalent?

All quote are "selective" . Duh! I can't post everything he has posted for years.
go on I dare you post alt.aheism with a claim that Fasgnadh is stupid or uneducated or crazy in opinions about atheism. Don't forget the reply to you can't and wont be censored by anyone and you will not be able to stop that reply going to the group by complaining to any moderator. It is uncensored and unmoderated.

ISAW

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So he obviously wasn't an Atheist.

Hitler wasn't a Christian either! He was anti Catholic and the Catholic church opposed Hitler and Catholics didn't vote for him.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I meant let your flag touch the ground. Destroying the flag of your enemy is also a military tradition :pac:

The flag was the Union flag - the British one.

Hugo Drax

ISAW wrote: »

Hitler wasn't a Christian either! He was anti Catholic and the Catholic church opposed Hitler and Catholics didn't vote for him.

Such nonsense

Hitler was born and raised a Catholic, had close contacts with the church and was photographed many times after he became Chancellor attending catholic ceremonies on big occasions.

He signed a concordat with the Pope, he wasn't anti Catholic. Half of Germany was and is Catholic, are you telling me he would have alienated half his own country??

Iwasfrozen

ISAW wrote: »

Hitler wasn't a Christian either! He was anti Catholic and the Catholic church opposed Hitler and Catholics didn't vote for him.

This page first quote:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

Hitler wrote:

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

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

The flag was the Union flag - the British one.

Ok. I'm not familiar with the event, but obviously these soldiers didn't care too much about the handling of the Union Jack.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Hitler wasn't a Christian either! He was anti Catholic and the Catholic church opposed Hitler and Catholics didn't vote for him.

Plus he commited mass genocide ...

strobe

ISAW wrote: »

and your evidence is?

My evidence is where they say {paraphrasing} "they even blame god". To blame god you must believe in god. If you believe in god you are not an atheist. Simples.

2. It is quite well documented. The people who calim to thbe atheists are all numbered and signed up to bye numbered as atheists.
They all post to alt.atheism and atheist usenet discussion group.

I claim to be an atheist. I do not post on alt.atheism..........
Your explanation? {this should reveal a lot, I just hope you get it}

It is representative of all the vocalisations you get fro atheist groups on the net.

Your evidence? {keep in mind you need to show how the selections you have chosen need to represent every atheist that uses the internet. (now I'm no scientician but my calculations put it somewhere over 12 people)

the difference is that
1. anyone can use whatever language they want on alt.atheism
there is no censorship.

2. nobody can be banned from alt.atheism or censored as they have donme to me on the AA forum here.



Not up to me to deside. But i can tell you this. You can post alt.atheism and nobody can censor you. you can post what you like. If you post Fasgnadh on the points you want to make you will be dismantled. It is very easy to do it and will cost you nothing. I suspect we both know you won't do that.




All quote are "selective" . Duh! I can't post everything he has posted for years.
go on I dare you post alt.aheism with a claim that Fasgnadh is stupid or uneducated or crazy in opinions about atheism. Don't forget the reply to you can't and wont be censored by anyone and you will not be able to stop that reply going to the group by complaining to any moderator. It is uncensored and unmoderated.

And why exactly were you banned/censored from posting in the A&A forum? Because I have seen posters claim ghosts are going to eat my soul and then get very very personal without getting banned. Link to the posts that got you banned, then try to justify them....just for sh1ts and giggles.

Fanny Cradock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So he obviously wasn't an Atheist.

Obviously! It couldn't be that he was trying to galvanise and strengthen public resolve in the face of defeat by the Nazi's. Of course, let's not mention the previous deaths of the ~100,000 members of religious orders or the post-war crackdown on religions.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

Link to the posts that got you banned, then try to justify them....just for sh1ts and giggles.

There will be none of that. No cross-forum bitching allowed.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There will be none of that. No cross-forum bitching allowed.

That was kinda the point....Don't bring it up if it is irrelevant and/or inadmissible. I.E no cheap point scoring, unless it's all ok.

Fanny Cradock

From what you wrote your intentions were not clear to me. Anyway, message has bee delivered and received.

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This page first quote:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

What about this one?

Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race." Albert Speer reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

nozzferrahhtoo

prinz wrote: »

People of all faiths believe various things to be their 'god given mission'. Hitler used religion when it suited him i.e., on the rise to power. Once he was in power it was of no further use.

Maybe if you had read my entire post rather than taking bits out of it which out of context are then meaningless, you would not have needed to reply to me at all. I went ON in that post to say...

Regardless of whether Hitler himself was Christian or not, he certainly used that rhetoric to lead and control the masses in his books and speeches. The problem is not with Hitler being Christian therefore, but with his target audience being Christian and how easily he could use their beliefs to control them. Just like Stalin was able to rise to power in a society that was awash with superstition and credulity and was able to sell them everything from their very own inquisition to miracles in the form of Magic Biology which could never work.

Which is pretty much what you are saying here. Do you normally disagree with people by agreeing with them? Ditto for the rest of your response to me such as "using traditions to reinforce themselves and their programme".

This is EXACTLY what I am saying. The problem is not with Hitler being Christian, or Hitler being Atheist. This is why the bickering on both sides is so useless to us on the issue and in fact clouds it unnecessarily.. The problem lies with the religious beliefs of the masses he was "leading" and how easy it was to mould those beliefs to his ends.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

I have bold-faced the most relevant word in your post. You prefer to take the position that supports your ideology.

False. When finding out what a persons opinion is I prefer to take it from the person themselves. Or would you rather I get all your opinions from other people on here, or should I listen to YOU?

This has nothing to do with fitting things to me “idealogy”. I would do the exact same if Hitlers own words were going AGAINST what I am arguing for here.

It is merely to do with me thinking it is best practise to presume that what a person is saying is what a person means… especially when the only other source is a totally unverifiable book of what another person says they think, the majority of which is taken from private talks that… convieniently… none of us can verify or research.

If you want to highlight that in my text as if it is a problem then so be it. I merely consider it politer and safer to take what people say to be what people mean, not what other people say they say and mean. As I said, if I want to know what YOU think, I read what YOU have written, not what other people have written about you or have claimed you think.

Taking what someone has said, which is verifiable by actually getting our hands on the book that person wrote and the text of the speeches that person gave is actually a safer way of doing things than taking unverifiable thrash from a book of what is essentially anecdotes. It is a testament therefore to the strength of my position if the best you can do is pull me up on that practise, a practise I am proud to engage in and will not be changing because someone wants to use it to score cheap points.

PDN

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So he obviously wasn't an Atheist.

Whoa! Let's back up there and consider what you just posted.

You're saying that Stalin obviously wasn't an Atheist because he permitted a measure of religious toleration for a limited period during World War II?

So your definition of an atheist is someone who is intolerant absolutely all of the time instead of just being intolerant most of the time? That's a mighty big admission for you to make on this forum!

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is EXACTLY what I am saying. The problem is not with Hitler being Christian, or Hitler being Atheist. This is why the bickering on both sides is so useless to us on the issue and in fact clouds it unnecessarily.. The problem lies with the religious beliefs of the masses he was "leading" and how easy it was to mould those beliefs to his ends.

That is a little simplistic and designed to forward your own view that religion was the problem in the Weimar Republic.

Are you saying that those with religious beliefs are more easily swayed into violence or to support violence simply because there is someone "cleverer" than them who can manipulate them more easily? Complete rubbish.

I think you'll find the Nazi regime used violence, threats of violence and threats of torture against family members to get the uncooperative to cooperate and later lies and propaganda along with military and political maneuvers to instigate a coup that put him in the position of dictator.
He never won a majority popular vote to gain power officially.

It is a long him since Christianity had a martyr mentality and most of us today who might be threatened with violence against our families would more than likely respond with overt cooperation - whatever it takes to protect those we love.

If you look a little closer I think you will also find that Hitler user nationalism to gain the the support required to enter politics as a "valid alternative" - something we are not unfamiliar with in this countries violent history.

The problem is not with Hitler being an atheist or not it is with Hitler behaving like an atheist with no moral absolutes and no care for his fellow man.

If Hitler did become atheist having been raised a Catholic then like most atheists the god he chose not to believe in was a god of his own invention, and not the God Christians believe in.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is merely to do with me thinking it is best practise to presume that what a person is saying is what a person means… especially when the only other source is a totally unverifiable book of what another person says they think, the majority of which is taken from private talks that… convieniently… none of us can verify or research.

What a person says is only ever what they say. If you want to find out what they mean then you look at their actions and how they live their lives.

In the example of Hitler there is nothing in his life or his actions that can in any way be considered to be remotely Christian.

Hugo Drax

StealthRolex wrote: »

What a person says is only ever what they say. If you want to find out what they mean then you look at their actions and how they live their lives.

In the example of Hitler there is nothing in his life or his actions that can in any way be considered to be remotely Christian.

Actually, persecuting the jews is an age old christian pasttime