Letters to the Indo: Atheists are the

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Look, for the love of sweet divine Jesus and all that's holy, I understand that perfectly well. Hell, I've even been inside what was once the Soviet state's largest Museum of Atheism (in St Petersburg).

Great. So the USSR did twist atheism to suit their own agenda? That's what I've been saying for the last few posts.

robindch wrote: »

I am asking you to back up your claim that what, for want of a better word, is the "doctrine" of atheism was used as justification for crimes. As I said above, even a single, well-documented instance of a sentence like "Stalin says there is no god, therefore this orthodox bishop must be shot" would be a good start.

1. I didn't refer to atheism as a doctrine. Rather I said that it was a part of the communism that was exercised in the USSR. This is something which you have just agreed with.

2. I said that atheism was used as a justification to suppress religious freedom, and to persecute people of faith, to pursue a communist agenda.

3. The articles themselves describe how atheism was used by the USSR, and indeed if you want to read further there are citations in them. I don't feel it warranted to trawl through material for you, indeed nor do I have the time to.

robindch wrote: »

You are making the claim here and it's for you to back it up. If you can't, then you should withdraw it.

Actually, what I am doing is saying that humans in general have a propensity to use beliefs or lack thereof to pursue agendas. This is evident throughout the history. If you have an objection to that case, bring it forward.

You've basically admitted that atheism was used by the USSR, so I don't get what your issue to the idea that it was abused is.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

The reality is, that atheism about as much as anything else can be abused for selfish ambitions.

How can atheism be abused?

You can't force people to lack belief in a god, you can't do anything in the name of atheism because atheism has no name, it's a lack of something that is entirely personal.

Various megalomaniacs have tried to nullify the power of the churches by banning religion, prayer, etc and some right wing theists have seized it as being some kind of atheistic version of the crusades, rather than seeing that the privileged power and wealth of the church is/are in diametric opposition to communist ideology and feck all to do with whether a god exists or not.

Galvasean

How many times do we have to state that atheism is a lack of belief in God(s)?
Anything else you do/believe is beyond the realms of atheism. Atheism doesn't tell you how to behave/how to treat others. It doesn't tell you to be good. It doesn't tell you to be bad.

philologos

Galvasean: I get that point. Just because something is a lack of belief doesn't mean that it cannot be used as a justification for persecuting others.

Its a poor argument to me that when something is so obviously involved with something to deny it and wish that it never happened. I value honesty, and this seems dishonest to me.

Its about as dishonest as the original writer trying to conflate atheism with communism. Rather atheism was used by communists. They aren't the same thing. Its time to be honest and reasonable about what actually happened rather than trying to run away from it.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

You can't force people to lack belief in a god, you can't do anything in the name of atheism because atheism has no name, it's a lack of something that is entirely personal.

History suggests otherwise.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Galvasean: I get that point. Just because something is a lack of belief doesn't mean that it cannot be used as a justification for persecuting others.

Its a poor argument to me that when something is so obviously involved with something to deny it and wish that it never happened. I value honesty, and this seems dishonest to me.

Its about as dishonest as the original writer trying to conflate atheism with communism. Rather atheism was used by communists. They aren't the same thing. Its time to be honest and reasonable about what actually happened rather than trying to run away from it.

No, communists ban religion, they can't "use" atheism - atheism is a lack of belief in god/s - it's dishonest to hang any action outside of lacking belief in a god on atheism...

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

History suggests otherwise.

Can I have an example of someone who was told to stop believing in god and so did, please?

philologos

Ickle Magoo: They did. They even published atheist material, and promoted disbelief in God.
Of course they did this to pursue their own goals, but this still happened. Its not good enough to pretend it didn't.

Its not dishonesty to present what actually happened. Certainly not in the context of clearing up what was in essence a pointless argument.

I've provided you enough links to consult and review for yourself. As I said to robindch, I certainly have no intention of trawling through material, especially when you can do this for yourself.

Waking-Dreams

To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine

philologos

Indeed, I start to wonder who it is that is renouncing reason. Those who deny the course of history, or those who affirm it, and accept it.

The reality is as in most situations somewhere in the middle, both belief and lack thereof have been used.

Galvasean

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Can I have an example of someone who was told to stop believing in god and so did, please?

"Hey you, stop believing in God!!!!"
"Ok."

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: They did. They even published atheist material, and promoted disbelief in God.

The point you seem determined to miss is the only reason atheism came into play was to nullify the power and control of the church which went against communist ideology, the primary motivation for promoting atheism was to get rid of the enemy to communism that was organised religion.

Atheism is nothing more or less than a personal belief in a god, it is not the promotion of not believing in god, it is not the quashing of religion, nor anything in-between. To suggest otherwise is certainly dishonest and disingenuous.

Ickle Magoo

Galvasean wrote: »

"Hey you, stop believing in God!!!!"
"Ok."

Well, apparently history showed it...

Surely the percentage of theists in post communist countries show that it's impossible to force atheism onto anyone?

Waking-Dreams

Indeed, I start to wonder who it is that is renouncing reason.

How do you convince someone who is in self-denial that they are, when they swear they're not? The brain is probably the most complicated thing in the world, and will accept all kinds of bad logic.

I don't see how Atheism can be used to control people because like someone said, how can you use disbelief in santa claus or fairies to influence people? Religion was a threat to communism. So I think you mean anti-religious material was used. Presumably the regime didn't deride belief in fairies or unicorns because that wasn't a threat.

If it was labelled Atheism, well that's just a bad name for it.

That's all I want to add here. This is starting to feel like an intervention.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't feel it warranted to trawl through material

That's basically the problem here.

If you did study the topic you're talking about, you might have a more accurate picture of what actually happened.

kiffer

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

How do you convince someone who is in self-denial that they are, when they swear they're not? The brain is probably the most complicated thing in the world, and will accept all kinds of bad logic.

I don't see how Atheism can be used to control people because like someone said, how can you use disbelief in santa claus or fairies to influence people? Religion was a threat to communism. So I think you mean anti-religious material was used. Presumably the regime didn't deride belief in fairies or unicorns because that wasn't a threat.

If it was labelled Atheism, well that's just a bad name for it.

That's all I want to add here. This is starting to feel like an intervention.

Using religion to control people: Do what I say! It is Gods will! Do it or you'll burn in hell later!

Using Atheism to control people: Do what I say! or these nasty men will take you to a gulag.

Erren Music

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

So I think you mean anti-religious material was used.

As in common sense was used.

Jakkass wrote: »

So the USSR did twist atheism to suit their own agenda? That's what I've been saying for the last few posts.

Do you read ANY replies?

I think you and those like you are off in your own little bubble of delusion. I mean you can string a sentence together and you spend A LOT of time on boards so I don't think you are retarded. BUT Something is not getting through.

Maximilian

I think a lot of what I've read on this thread is just semantics. Sure atheism is mere non-belief but I think what Jakass is getting at is something derived from atheism but not actually that. It's atheism combined with an anti-religious ideology. Surely an anti-religious atheistic extremism is as possible as religious extremism is.

Like any kind of fundamentalist ideology, I don't think the various leaders actually care about anything other than power. It's just a means to gain it.

Irlandese

Maximilian wrote: »

I think a lot of what I've read on this thread is just semantics. Sure atheism is mere non-belief but I think what Jakass is getting at is something derived from atheism but not actually that. It's atheism combined with an anti-religious ideology. Surely an anti-religious atheistic extremism is as possible as religious extremism is.

Like any kind of fundamentalist ideology, I don't think the various leaders actually care about anything other than power. It's just a means to gain it.

Cannot run. Won't run.
Atheism is very different from anti-theism.

If you cannot grasp that, you are not really reachable with logic.
Try religion??
Repetition in other words? Merely not believing in something does not make one want to destroy it, unless perhaps you are a fanatical theist working for the Inquisition? There, I can see why you might have that idea..........but it is still illogical.

ChocolateSauce

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, apparently history showed it...

Surely the percentage of theists in post communist countries show that it's impossible to force atheism onto anyone?

I dunno about that....70% of Czechs are atheists, and similar figures exist for Estonia and Lithuania. The figure of athiests is generally higher in eastern bloc countries than it is even in France. I don't think these figures were arrived at by a gradual shift from religion to non-religion..

Irlandese

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I dunno about that....70% of Czechs are atheists, and similar figures exist for Estonia and Lithuania. The figure of athiests is generally higher in eastern bloc countries than it is even in France. I don't think these figures were arrived at by a gradual shift from religion to non-religion..

Simple, really.
They are more honest with their census questions.
70% of Irish people are probably atheists too but haven't a hope of saying so on the RCC designed census questions we have to wade through.

Maximilian

Irlandese wrote: »

Cannot run. Won't run.
Atheism is very different from anti-theism.

If you cannot grasp that, you are not really reachable with logic.
Try religion??
Repetition in other words? Merely not believing in something does not make one want to destroy it, unless perhaps you are a fanatical theist working for the Inquisition? There, I can see why you might have that idea..........but it is still illogical.

You should try reading posts before making aggressive obnoxious comments. I was pretty much agreeing with what you just said. Atheism in these regimes is almost incidental.

Making up statistics doesn't advance your argument much by the way. 65% of people would probably agree with that.

Irlandese

Maximilian wrote: »

You should try reading posts before making aggressive obnoxious comments. I was pretty much agreeing with what you just said. Atheism in these regimes is almost incidental.

Making up statistics doesn't advance your argument much by the way. 65% of people would probably agree with that.

Nah, you are misreading me, friend.
Aggression? Obnoxious? #puzzled look# but no offence taken.
But, have you looked at a church congregation lately?
What % of the local pop are in there? 5% 3% 1% ??
I think 60-70% functional aetheists and agnostics may be about right.
It probably rises further if you add in the " don't give a damn"s
I think you are looking for an arguament in the wrong place.
I tend to agree with much of what you posted earlier too !
Peace, brother !!

Ickle Magoo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I dunno about that....70% of Czechs are atheists, and similar figures exist for Estonia and Lithuania. The figure of athiests is generally higher in eastern bloc countries than it is even in France. I don't think these figures were arrived at by a gradual shift from religion to non-religion..

I was looking down the following list and thinking how few are predominantly atheistic today...

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (April 27, 1978 - April 28, 1992)
Socialist People's Republic of Albania (Republika Popullore Socialiste e Shqipërisë/Republika Popullore e Shqipërisë) (January 1, 1946 - March 22, 1992)
People's Republic of Angola (República Popular de Angola) (November 11, 1975 - August 27, 1992)
People's Republic of Benin (République Populaire du Bénin) (November 30, 1975 - March 1, 1990)
People's Republic of Bulgaria (Narodna Republika Balgariya) (September 15, 1946 - December 7, 1990)
Chinese Soviet Republic (Zhōnghuá Sūwéi'āi Gònghéguó) (November 7, 1931 - October 10, 1934)
People's Republic of the Congo (République Populaire du Congo) (January 3, 1970 - March 15, 1992)
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Československá socialistická republika) (July 11, 1960 - March 29, 1990)
People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (September 10, 1987 - May 27, 1991)
Finnish Democratic Republic (Suomen Kansanvaltainen Tasavalta) (December 1, 1939 - March 12, 1940)
German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) (October 7, 1949 - October 3, 1990)
Political Committee of National Liberation (Greece) (December 24, 1947 - August 28, 1949)
People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada (March 13, 1979 - October 25, 1983)
People's Republic of Hungary (Magyar Népköztársaság) (August 20, 1949 - October 23, 1989)
Hungarian Soviet Republic (Magyar Tanácsköztársaság) (March 21 - August 6, 1919)
Democratic Kampuchea (April 4, 1976 - January 7, 1979)
People's Republic of Kampuchea (January 7, 1979 - October 23, 1991)
Mongolian People's Republic (November 24, 1924 - February 12, 1992)
People's Republic of Mozambique (República Popular de Moçambique) (June 25, 1975 - December 1, 1990)
People's Republic of Poland (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) (June 28, 1945 - July 19, 1989)
People's Republic of Romania (Republica Populară Romînă) (December 30, 1947 - December 21, 1989)
Somali Democratic Republic (Jamhuuriyadda Dimoqraadiga Soomaaliya) (July 1, 1976 - January 26, 1991)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik) (December 30, 1922 - December 26, 1991)
Tuvan People's Republic (Tuva Arat Respublik) (August 14, 1921 - October 11, 1944)
Democratic Republic of Vietnam (Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hòa) (September 2, 1945 - July 2, 1976)
People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (Jumhūrīyah al-Yaman ad-Dīmuqrāţīyah ash-Sha'bīyah)(November 30, 1967 - May 22, 1990)
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Like most things, I'm sure there are some exceptions...

philologos

Maximilian wrote: »

I think a lot of what I've read on this thread is just semantics. Sure atheism is mere non-belief but I think what Jakass is getting at is something derived from atheism but not actually that. It's atheism combined with an anti-religious ideology. Surely an anti-religious atheistic extremism is as possible as religious extremism is.

Like any kind of fundamentalist ideology, I don't think the various leaders actually care about anything other than power. It's just a means to gain it.

+1

If you read the letter. It is saying that atheism isn't an ideology in and of itself, but it can be twisted, distorted, and incorporated into other ideologies such as communism as a tool to pursue their own aims.

I didn't think this would be so objectionable, its a fairly uncontroversial opinion to say that human thought in general is capable of being used to do horrible things.

Maximilian

Jakkass wrote: »

+1

If you read the letter. It is saying that atheism isn't an ideology in and of itself, but it can be twisted, distorted, and incorporated into other ideologies such as communism as a tool to pursue their own aims.

I didn't think this would be so objectionable, its a fairly uncontroversial opinion to say that human thought in general is capable of being used to do horrible things.

The whole stupid Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot etc. were atheists argument comes up time and time again. Whatever these ideologies were, they certainly weren't atheism but atheism is still part of their genetic makeup as it were. I think some atheists just want to deny there's any relationship at all. There's no point denying it because there's no need. Atheism is no more Maoism or anti-theism then we are pigs just because we share 60% of the same genes. Its hard to see how someone could be an anti-theist though, without also being an atheist. Two different things but there's no point denying that there's some relationship, however tenuous.

I think a better response to the Stalin etc. argument is to ask if, say, the KKK do/believe what they do because they are Christian or something along those lines. I think the fallacy of the logic might then become apparent.

Dunno if I'm making any sense. I'm fairly drunk and maybe missing the whole thrust of the thread.

ChocolateSauce

Irlandese wrote: »

Simple, really.
They are more honest with their census questions.
70% of Irish people are probably atheists too but haven't a hope of saying so on the RCC designed census questions we have to wade through.

I wouldn't get my hopes up on that one.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Its true that atheism was warped and used by communist states to further their agenda.

Atheism wasn't warped, there is nothing to warp. Atheism isn't a belief system with good atheism and bad atheism or a correct atheism and an incorrect atheism.

An atheist who walks up to a girl and shoots here in the head because he is deeply anti-theist and believes for the good of the party or state or what ever all believers should be wiped from the face of the planet is not "warping" atheism.

He of course is nothing like me, but that is because he is a anti-theistic Communist who believes violent militancy is justified in the pursuit of his aims where as I am a anti-theistic humanist/social democrat (the philosophy not the party) who believes violence is not justified in the pursuit of these aims.

We are both atheists.

You can see why people like Sam Harris think the term atheist is unhelpful in these types of discussions. There is very little insight into what a person believes by them simply being labelled an atheist, far far far less than a Christian or Muslim or Humanist or Libertarian.

Maximilian

Wicknight wrote: »

Atheism wasn't warped, there is nothing to warp. Atheism isn't a belief system with good atheism and bad atheism or a correct atheism and an incorrect atheism.

An atheist who walks up to a girl and shoots here in the head because he is deeply anti-theist and believes for the good of the party or state or what ever all believers should be wiped from the face of the planet is not "warping" atheism.

He of course is nothing like me, but that is because he is a anti-theistic Communist who believes violent militancy is justified in the pursuit of his aims where as I am a anti-theistic humanist/social democrat (the philosophy not the party) who believes violence is not justified in the pursuit of these aims.

We are both atheists.

You can see why people like Sam Harris think the term atheist is unhelpful in these types of discussions. There is very little insight into what a person believes by them simply being labelled an atheist, far far far less than a Christian or Muslim or Humanist or Libertarian.

Seems to me there's a bit of a lacuna in the English language. It's not a religion, an ideology or a philosophy if you look at those definitions. I think we need a new word, how about 'Kevin'?

I think we should move the debate on from trying to categorize or define Kevin, particularly with other Kevins and focus the debate on anti-Kevinism and pseudo-Kevins.

Zombrex

Maximilian wrote: »

Seems to me there's a bit of a lacuna in the English language. It's not a religion, an ideology or a philosophy if you look at those definitions. I think we need a new word, how about 'Kevin'?

Well the New Atheists coined the term "Brights" to imply atheism in the context of Enlightenment principles of rationality, humanism, science etc.

But many consider that a little too obviously condocenting given the close relation with the English term bright to mean clever (the implicating being that those who don't subscribe to these things are dumb)

So yeah, Kevin is good. Or Steve, Steve is a good name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amwaFNZYUUY

Waking-Dreams

It's just very frustrating to hear these old atheist/communist arguments because the message that's being sub-communicated is that atheism can produce bad people too. What was it Hitchens once said? Show me a religious person who can make a positive gesture that couldn't also be made by a non-believer. But find someone who can commit an act in the name of their religion, and then ask if the same kind of act could be committed by a non-believer in the name of their atheism. The acquisition of power and control was the underlying motivation behind the communist regime, no? - and, if you think about it, power and control are things which organised religion has enjoyed throughout history too.


Jakkass, you have all the info you need right in front of you. For whatever cognitive reasons, you just don't want to accept it as true because that would mean you might have to re-evaluate some of your old belief systems. Now, you of course acknowledge that religion can be used as a force to do bad, but I suspect, to soften this blow, you then drag atheism into the fold, and in doing so say, “but sure, look, as humans we're all capable of bad things with our beliefs”. I just feel it's bottom of the barrel stuff, taking the spotlight off the belief in belief regime and trying to level the playing field.


Our minds tend to gravitate towards things we can use to back up our arguments. Hence why this debate will go on in perpetuity and I can see the perennial religious debate continuing for some time into the future of the human race. Although, certainly, there has been great progress in the last 50 years as more people are coming out of the belief closet and discovering that life is no less wondrous and fulfilling looking through a whole new wide angle lens.

philologos

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

It's just very frustrating to hear these old atheist/communist arguments because the message that's being sub-communicated is that atheism can produce bad people too. What was it Hitchens once said? Show me a religious person who can make a positive gesture that couldn't also be made by a non-believer. But find someone who can commit an act in the name of their religion, and then ask if the same kind of act could be committed by a non-believer in the name of their atheism. The acquisition of power and control was the underlying motivation behind the communist regime, no? - and, if you think about it, power and control are things which organised religion has enjoyed throughout history too.

We all agree that power and control were involved. Its about what was used to attain such control. State atheism was used to gain illegitimate control over believers, and indeed to persecute them heavily.

If history frustrates you that's unfortunate.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Jakkass, you have all the info you need right in front of you. For whatever cognitive reasons, you just don't want to accept it as true because that would mean you might have to re-evaluate some of your old belief systems. Now, you of course acknowledge that religion can be used as a force to do bad, but I suspect, to soften this blow, you then drag atheism into the fold, and in doing so say, “but sure, look, as humans we're all capable of bad things with our beliefs”. I just feel it's bottom of the barrel stuff, taking the spotlight off the belief in belief regime and trying to level the playing field.

I have the information. The information tells me, that atheism was twisted, incorporated into communist ideology, and used to persecute believers.

The reality as a few have now been honest enough to concede, is that it is just as likely that atheism can be abused. That's the reasonable option, and the option that is taken in the letter.

There is nothing dishonest, or disingenuous about telling things as they are. If you don't appreciate this, that is unfortunate.

By the by, I don't see how I would have to re-evaluate my beliefs in Christianity if I chose the absurd option of denying the truth about what happened.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Our minds tend to gravitate towards things we can use to back up our arguments. Hence why this debate will go on in perpetuity and I can see the perennial religious debate continuing for some time into the future of the human race. Although, certainly, there has been great progress in the last 50 years as more people are coming out of the belief closet and discovering that life is no less wondrous and fulfilling looking through a whole new wide angle lens.

The arguments used by those who wish to deny history, are lacking. An acceptance of what actually happened, and to realise that hey, atheism can be abused as religion can.

That is what is missing both in Mr Conroy's letter and in Mr Conway's letter.

Irlandese

Maximilian wrote: »

The whole stupid Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot etc. were atheists argument comes up time and time again. Whatever these ideologies were, they certainly weren't atheism but atheism is still part of their genetic makeup as it were. I think some atheists just want to deny there's any relationship at all. There's no point denying it because there's no need. Atheism is no more Maoism or anti-theism then we are pigs just because we share 60% of the same genes. Its hard to see how someone could be an anti-theist though, without also being an atheist. Two different things but there's no point denying that there's some relationship, however tenuous.

I think a better response to the Stalin etc. argument is to ask if, say, the KKK do/believe what they do because they are Christian or something along those lines. I think the fallacy of the logic might then become apparent.

Dunno if I'm making any sense. I'm fairly drunk and maybe missing the whole thrust of the thread.

Drink is a terrible aid to clear thought !
You say : "Its hard to see how someone could be an anti-theist though, without also being an atheist. Two different things but there's no point denying that there's some relationship, however tenuous."
Will you still go with this sober?
Say for example that all sumo wrestlers are men. Following your logic, I could then say the following, with the same amount of justification;
" All summo wrestlers are men, so are all men then summo wrestlers? "there's no point denying that there's some relationship, however tenuous." "
Of course anti-theists are atheists. But most atheists are not anti-theists. Atheism is an intransitive condition, if you like, as opposed to the transitive of anti-theism, which is aimed against theism, while atheism is a state of benign enlightenment.
Theists are the ones with the urge to preach to others and force opinions on un-believers. Atheists and agnostics are generally far more balanced and humane types, as, unfortunately, history has always recorded and probably always will.

Dades

Erren Music wrote: »

I think you and those like you are off in your own little bubble of delusion. I mean you can string a sentence together and you spend A LOT of time on boards so I don't think you are retarded. BUT Something is not getting through.

Erren Music permabanned from A&A.

That is all.

Maximilian

Irlandese wrote: »

Drink is a terrible aid to clear thought !
You say : "Its hard to see how someone could be an anti-theist though, without also being an atheist. Two different things but there's no point denying that there's some relationship, however tenuous."
Will you still go with this sober?
Say for example that all sumo wrestlers are men. Following your logic, I could then say the following, with the same amount of justification;
" All summo wrestlers are men, so are all men then summo wrestlers? "there's no point denying that there's some relationship, however tenuous." "
Of course anti-theists are atheists. But most atheists are not anti-theists. Atheism is an intransitive condition, if you like, as opposed to the transitive of anti-theism, which is aimed against theism, while atheism is a state of benign enlightenment.
Theists are the ones with the urge to preach to others and force opinions on un-believers. Atheists and agnostics are generally far more balanced and humane types, as, unfortunately, history has always recorded and probably always will.

I think you're missing the point. Also, your condescending attitude is beginning to irritate me.

If all anti-theists are also athiests, it doesn't follow that all athiests are anti-theists. I never said that was the case. Once again you are arguing with me on a point we agree on.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Erren Music permabanned from A&A.

That is all.

We can only live in hope of rohatch's next reincarnation.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

The point you seem determined to miss is the only reason atheism came into play was to nullify the power and control of the church which went against communist ideology, the primary motivation for promoting atheism was to get rid of the enemy to communism that was organised religion.

I agree with you. This was the point that was also emphasised in the letter.

Atheism came into play, and was abused for the purposes of communist ideology. That's all I've been saying, and defending.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't think this would be so objectionable, its a fairly uncontroversial opinion to say that human thought in general is capable of being used to do horrible things.

Nobody is disagreeing with that. What we are disagreeing with is your claim that atheism was twisted.

There is one central tenet 'gods don't exist' and that's it. How can you twist something so simple? That's why I asked you to provide evidence of it being twisted, but you said that you wouldn't (not that you probably could have anyway )

What happened in Soviet Russia is the same as what happened in many other dictatorships -- basically, one ideology which demands 100% loyalty from its client population crunches up against another one, and both try to annihilate each other. Christianity was more successful in the USA, Communism in Russia. That's how it goes.

Anyhow, the fundamental mistake you're making is that your failing to understand the difference between atheism and anti-religious sentiment.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Erren Music permabanned from A&A.

Much obliged!

Irlandese

Maximilian wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. Also, your condescending attitude is beginning to irritate me.

If all anti-theists are also athiests, it doesn't follow that all athiests are anti-theists. I never said that was the case. Once again you are arguing with me on a point we agree on.

Oh, Cripes, you are right. Full apology and wry grin.
I had actually been out drinking quite late myself last night,
which, along with the old visual handicap,
must have helped me to read it the exact wrong way. Sorry.

But, now, condescending? Go on with yourself.
If I want to be condescending, you can be sure I would
do a better job of it than that !

Peace Bro !

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

Erren Music permabanned from A&A.

That is all.

Thank Christ Dades.

gawker

Just noticed Mr Conway is back in the paper with this enlightened piece. The Irish Independent Letter of the Day for today:

In light of the current adolescent fad for so-called homosexual marriage, one is reminded of the analysis of post-modernist thought by the philosopher Roger Kimball in 'Experiments Against Reality'.

He concluded that the so-called 'Enlightenment' sought to emancipate man by liberating reason and battling against superstition. But that reason, liberated entirely from tradition, has turned out to be rancorous and hubristic -- in short, irrational.

While Mr Kimball was primarily concerned with Marxism/atheism, his focus was also on irrational social experimentation, such as homosexual marriage.

Given the fact that Eamon Gilmore's entire political CV has been a continuous experiment against reality (with devastating social consequences), it's hardly surprising that he has embraced this latest fad.

While much of the current commentary on this subject is quite depressing from a rational perspective, there is room for optimism. In all of the 31 US states that have had public votes on the question, the No side has won, 31-nil. This includes California, whose citizens are fed a steady stream of liberal/feminist dogma almost from kindergarten. One hopes similar common sense will prevail here.

Eric Conway


Navan, Co Meath

Nice to see he has opened his mind a little then. :rolleyes: I see he is also still afraid of us living in a world of reason which isn't limited by his Catholic tradition.

Gbear

gawker wrote: »

In light of the current adolescent fad for so-called homosexual marriage

What an ignorant moron.
The fight for equal rights is an adolescent fad now.:rolleyes:
Everyone should be good little catholics and do what they're told.

gawker wrote: »

But that reason, liberated entirely from tradition, has turned out to be rancorous and hubristic -- in short, irrational.

What? I don't think he knows what irrational means.

In fact, he definitely doesn't know what irrational means.

Sarky

I feel like I should get worked up about such daft ramblings, but all I can feel is pity for someone completely out of touch with reality.

That, or he isn't real and the paper really is trying to troll people.

fitz0

I had wondered where the ever amusing Mr Conroy had gone lately. I genuinely enjoy reading his letters. Unlike Waters and his pseudo-intellectual post modernist tripe, Eric Conroy is a straight up nutter. No ifs ands or buts about it, he's a grade A crackpot in the finest tradition. His letters are so basically hilarious I can see why the Indo takes every opportunity it gets to publish his anti everything that isn't the traditional meat and two veg Irish Catholicism.

I also entertain the notion that he could very well be a trolling god.

PopePalpatine

I'm scared...I live in a town which is close to Navan...I don't want to bump into him if I'm wearing my "Religions of the World" t-shirt.

mambo

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm scared...I live in a town which is close to Navan...I don't want to bump into him if I'm wearing my "Religions of the World" t-shirt.

He has support in Leitrim, though this letter writer has ascribed statements to Eric that he might deny.

I would like to respond to one of your letters from July 16. Eric Conway talked about how "same-sex marriage is a necessary part of a progressive and inclusive society".
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/evolution-3173469.html

seamus

I love it when people make proclamations about how gay marriage is wrong.

Then I know that I can safely ignore everything they say without worrying that I'm being unfair.

Galvasean

I think i found a video that nicely sums up Mr. Conway's attitude toward same sex marriage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yqUpypQwGs

PopePalpatine

mambo wrote: »

He has support in Leitrim, though this letter writer has ascribed statements to Eric that he might deny.

I would like to respond to one of your letters from July 16. Eric Conway talked about how "same-sex marriage is a necessary part of a progressive and inclusive society".
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/evolution-3173469.html

Apparently marriage is a "Divine institution". I guess he's too caught up in fantasising about stoning promiscuous women to find out that it wasn't the tribes of Israel who came up with marriage.

ShooterSF

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm scared...I live in a town which is close to Navan...I don't want to bump into him if I'm wearing my "Religions of the World" t-shirt.

Near Navan? Heck he could be up the road from me! Would love to meet the guy in person just because Im sure my views on life would infuriate him which would please me.

joseph brand

Maximilian wrote: »

Seems to me there's a bit of a lacuna in the English language. It's not a religion, an ideology or a philosophy if you look at those definitions. I think we need a new word, how about 'Kevin'?

I think we should move the debate on from trying to categorize or define Kevin, particularly with other Kevins and focus the debate on anti-Kevinism and pseudo-Kevins.

As a Kevin, this post really caught my attention.