A post for Soul Winner

MagicMarker

I have had the same post deleted three times now from the christianity forum by PDN.

When I first found my post to be deleted, I reposted it, as I didn't see any reason for it to have been deleted. This 2nd post was then edited to inform me of the breach of charter, specifically...

10. No swearing or facsimile thereof (includes textspeak such as "wtf"). Such words will be edited and warnings issued. Banning will occur if it continues.

It turns out my use of the word ''fúcked'' resulted in my whole post being deleted. Note, my post wasn't edited, it was deleted, and I didn't receive a warning or a banning, no notification at all.

So, I posted it a third time EXCLUDING all profanity and once again it was completely deleted along with the 2nd post which PDN had edited himself, still no warning or banning.

Of course, the post couldn't have been all bad seeing as it's still there quoted in Wicknight's post.

So, I'll post it here instead, in response to Soul Winner, if he/she happens to be a visitor here.

Originally Posted by MagicMarker
Stalin didn't do it because he didn't believe in God, he did it because he didn't believe in unicorns. See what I did there?

You can't do something in the name of atheism, it doesn't even make sense. Atheism is just a disbelief in a deity. Stalin did what he did because of his own fúcked up ideologies, he just happened to be an atheist as well. This seems to be the only argument you theists can come up with, and it's been debunked time and time again.

And I'm afraid you're wrong about atheist's ''double standards''. If a religious person happens to do a bad thing that has nothing to do with religion, then no one will say they did it in the name of religion, because that's just stupid.

It's just unfortunate PDN feels he has to resort to such petty actions.

Zillah

This is ill advised, as was your attempt to repost it after it was deleted. Their forum, their insufferably conservative rules.

Also, mods will form ranks regardless of religious beliefs, because if you defy one, you defy the system. And the system cannot allow that.

They're like feudal lords that way.

Don't worry Dades, I've got this one, my liege.

Zillah

Fuck > fúck

MagicMarker

Zillah wrote: »

Fuck > fúck

Sorcerer!!! :eek:

Goduznt Xzst

If only we could get "muppet" defined as a swear word on boards.ie. We'd effectively make every PDN post disappear

MagicMarker

In fairness, I couldn't possibly see why it would have been deleted, so I reposted.

None the less, there was no reason why it couldn't have been edited (as per the charter) and a warning issued. At least then I'd know what the problem was. As it stood, I would have never known it was deleted, had I not gone back and checked, likewise with the 2nd and 3rd attempts. Besides, it's quotes in Wicknight's post, so what? Is breaking the charter okay so long as it's in quotes?

And again, I edited ''fúcked'' out of the last post, but it was still deleted.

Under the circumstances, I think it's understandable to believe there are ulterior motives at play.

Oh, and I must admit, I'm assuming it was PDN who deleted the posts, as I saw he was the one who edited my 2nd one.

Zillah

Thread being locked in 5, 4, 3...

robindch

Now ladies, you all know the rules -- no gosipping about the neighbours, lest Dades or myself have to start getting all, ah, feudal about things.

Goduznt Xzst

Try this one, it will pass right through PDN's filter:

Stalin didn't do it because he didn't believe in God, he did it because he didn't believe in muppets. See what I did there?

You can't do something in the name of atheism, that's just muppetry. Atheism is just a disbelief in a deity. Stalin did what he did because of his own muppety ideologies, he just happened to be an atheist as well. This seems to be the only argument you theists can come up with, and it's been debunked time and time again.

And I'm afraid you're wrong about atheist's ''double standards''. If a religious person happens to do a bad thing that has nothing to do with religion, then no one will say they did it in the name of religion, because that's just muppetry.

stevejazzx

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Try this one, it will pass right through PDN's filter:

Wow, I wish I had of thought of that, PDN's filter:); could've saved myself a right old time. Nice.

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

Fuck > fúck

Ah, well played. My favourite til now has been fuck.

Zillah

Only the finest will do. Spared no expense.

MagicMarker

Zillah wrote: »

Fuck > fúck

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ah, well played. My favourite til now has been fuck.

Atheism is great eh? Great bunch of lads altogether!

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

You should take it to the resolution procedure thingy they have, with PMs and feedback. I think christianity mods are usually grand but best to resolve something like this

robindch

Kiddies, I know that you've all just started school this week, but please cut out the new word you've all just learned.

The forum's halberd is close to myne twitchinge handde.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

The forum's halberd is close to myne twitchinge handde.

Thou doth speak'th ye'olden wordings? :eek:

Soul Winner

MagicMarker wrote: »

Stalin didn't do it because he didn't believe in God, he did it because he didn't believe in unicorns. See what I did there?

You can't do something in the name of atheism, it doesn't even make sense. Atheism is just a disbelief in a deity. Stalin did what he did because of his own fúcked up ideologies, he just happened to be an atheist as well. This seems to be the only argument you theists can come up with, and it's been debunked time and time again.

And I'm afraid you're wrong about atheist's ''double standards''. If a religious person happens to do a bad thing that has nothing to do with religion, then no one will say they did it in the name of religion, because that's just stupid.

Well when one considers the thoughts of Joseph Stalin one is inclined to disagree with you on this one. He says:

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas." Joseph Stalin

Ideas that were different to his I suspect.

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." Joseph Stalin

That was sweet of him.

"The only real power comes out of a long rifle." Joseph Stalin

Sound like something a kid would say, no wonder Saddam admired him so much. Plus this quote contradicts the first one I quoted a tad which suggests the guy was somewhat confused to boot.

When a dictator says things like these and then carries out the atrocities that he carried out, one is convinced that his motives where driven by his frame of reference and his value system, both of which where atheistic at their core. Don't translate this into "I think all atheists have no good values." There are many atheist that have great values systems. I was simply asked a question in relation to Stalin and I'm just answering it. I think that if Stalin had been a genuine God fearing leader of men then he would not have carried out the things he did. Same goes for men who purport to be God fearing leaders who also carry out atrocities, at least Stalin was upfront about his God fearing status, he didn't have one.

Bracing oneself for forthcoming the barrage of slurs....:eek:

mehfesto

Soul Winner wrote: »

When a dictator says things like these and then carries out the atrocities that he carried out, one is convinced that his motives where driven by his frame of reference and his value system, both of which where atheistic at their core. Don't translate this into "I think all atheists have no good values." There are many atheist that have great values systems. I was simply asked a question in relation to Stalin and I'm just answering it. I think that if Stalin had been a genuine God fearing leader of men then he would not have carried out the things he did. Same goes for men who purport to be God fearing leaders who also carry out atrocities, at least Stalin was upfront about his God fearing status, he didn't have one.

Bracing oneself for forthcoming the barrage of slurs....:eek:

So because he didn't believe in a higher power he automatically is more prone to massacres? That had he believed in God he wouldn't have killed millions?

...Wait so no god-loving/fearing man ever commited atrocities?
Ever? That if they do they aren't really Christian?

That's a pretty handy cop out card, that.

Otacon

Soul Winner wrote: »

...one is convinced that his motives where driven by his frame of reference and his value system, both of which where atheistic at their core...

What atheistic values exactly? The only thing I have in common with Stalin is a lack of belief in God.

Soul Winner

mehfesto wrote: »

So because he didn't believe in a higher power he automatically is more prone to massacres? That had he believed in God he wouldn't have killed millions?

...Wait so no god-loving/fearing man ever commited atrocities?
Ever? That if they do they aren't really Christian?

That's a pretty handy cop out card, that.

Its not that he didn't believe in God, its that he didn't fear God. Big difference. There are plenty of leaders who believe in God but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are God fearing leaders. If they were, then they too wouldn't do some of the things they do either.

Soul Winner

Otacon wrote: »

What atheistic values exactly?

I quoted them. Had he been a genuine God fearing leader he wouldn't have said those things nor done the things he did. He wasn't a bad person because he was an atheist but his atheistic ideology did drive his thinking and ultimately his actions.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I quoted them. Had he been a genuine God fearing leader he wouldn't have said those things nor done the things he did. He wasn't a bad person because he was an atheist but his atheistic ideology did drive his thinking and ultimately his actions.

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Christian, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Atheist Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Christian would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about a Protestant man whose brutal actions make the atheist sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Christian would do such a thing."

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

mehfesto

So he didn't fear God, therefore he had no moral qualms with the killings of millions? That's your belief, yeah?

Isn't that a bit simplistic?

And what's this about genuinely fearing God? Is this another 'no true scotsman' argument?

The Spanish Inquisition were pretty God fearing and they slaughtered thousands.

I think your argument has pretty large holes in it.

thirtythirty

Soul Winner wrote: »

I quoted them. Had he been a genuine God fearing leader he wouldn't have said those things nor done the things he did. He wasn't a bad person because he was an atheist but his atheistic ideology did drive his thinking and ultimately his actions.

That's a very brave and surefooted statement.

Assumption makes an ass of you and me you know.

strobe

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its not that he didn't believe in God, its that he didn't fear God. Big difference. There are plenty of leaders who believe in God but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are God fearing leaders. If they were, then they too wouldn't do some of the things they do either.

Elijah......David.....Moses.

Any questions?

krudler

George Bush, god fearing simpleton, never did anything wrong?

Soul Winner

Like I said guys. Genuine God fearing leaders would not do what Stalin did for the reasons Stalin did them. A person can be God fearing even if it turns out that God does not exist. Elijah didn't do anything like what Stalin did. David killed in self defense and in battle, he did not kill millions of people arbitrarily just so he could stay in control. Plus all these guys lived in a time when it was kill or be killed. Stalin didn't have to commit the atrocities he committed in order to stay in power. He was just an evil bastard. Plus I never said that people who believe in God don't do evil things, I said that genuine God fearing people wouldn't do the likes of what Stalin did. George Bush IMO is not a God fearing man, Tony Blair maybe but not Bush. At least Blair is showing signs of regret for the war in Iraq or for the deaths that resulted at least, you don't see Bush doing that. Anyway I believe that you can be God fearing and fight wars worth fighting but that's where its stops, as soon as you would stoop to whatever level you think justifies you staying in power no matter what then you have lost the plot altogether. Stalin lost the plot and the reason he had no qualms about it is because he didn't believe that he would be ultimately held accountable to anyone for his actions. People who genuinely believe that they will be ultimately held accountable for their actions in this life would not do these types of things unless they are insane. I hope for George Bush's sake that the reasons he gave for invading Iraq were honest reasons before he meets the God he professes to believe in, because he might have fooled most of the world but if God exists then he didn't fool Him. If God exists then everyone will give an account of their lives to Him. If you don't believe that then without a genuine love for your fellow man then God knows what lengths you'll go to get what you want. As for the Inquisition. What they did was utterly wrong. But if one delves a bit deeper into their theology then it is easy to see that their religion was gone way off the track of what Christ laid down for the Church. They weren't turning the other cheek, or welcoming to strangers, or loving their enemies. These were Christ's commands and if they genuinely loved Him then they too would not have committed the atrocities they committed either.

MagicMarker

Soul Winner wrote: »

Its not that he didn't believe in God, its that he didn't fear God. Big difference. There are plenty of leaders who believe in God but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are God fearing leaders. If they were, then they too wouldn't do some of the things they do either.

Indeed, one's atheism, the other is not. So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter whether Stalin believed in God, his beliefs were still atheistic at their core, even if he did believe.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

mehfesto

I believe in paragraphs.

Dades

I agree with SW in that had he been a genuine "God fearing" theist he might have thought twice about becoming a genocidal dictator.

However, not all believers (i.e. non-atheists) are "God fearing" in this sense so that point means nothing in this discussion.

Robert Mugabe is superficially a Roman Catholic, so I think it's safe to say he is a believer of sorts. Are his actions a result of his catholicism or of his megalomania?

In short one's belief or not in a supernatural being doesn't necessarily guide you in your actions. People do what they will do, regardless of what they believe, not because of it.

ShooterSF

Fair play for being able to type this "I said that genuine God fearing people wouldn't do the likes of what Stalin did. George Bush IMO is not a God fearing man" with what I'd imagine was a straight face less than half a page down from this:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Christian, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Atheist Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Christian would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about a Protestant man whose brutal actions make the atheist sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Christian would do such a thing."

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

I don't think I could have done it.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

In short one's belief or not in a supernatural being doesn't necessarily guide you in your actions. People do what they will do, regardless of what they believe, not because of it.

Quite false.

People certainly will do what they do because of what they believe (for certain meanings of the word 'believe'). The open question is how beliefs lead to actions, how the beliefs are learned or deduced, the balance between beliefs derived from desires and beliefs derived from evidence, the role of self-justification, self-legitimization, the desire for self-respect, status and many, many other things.

There may indeed be plenty of religious who will do or won't do certain things because they think that their deity is watching them/deity will burn them etc. But equally well, there's plenty of religious people who'll do openly antisocial things that they otherwise wouldn't do simply because they think that the creator of the universe approves of what they're doing. And discussions like the one from a while back on corporal punishment of children (quite popular with christians, not at all popular here) leads me to suspect that the bad done because of this assumed deity approval far outweighs any good done, or bad not done, simply because of religious beliefs. To godwin myself, the SS didn't put "Gott mit Uns" on their buckles just because they liked the typeface.

strobe

Soul Winner wrote: »

Elijah didn't do anything like what Stalin did. David killed in self defense and in battle, he did not kill millions of people arbitrarily just so he could stay in control. Plus all these guys lived in a time when it was kill or be killed.

It was not by any stretch of the imagination in the heat of battle against enemy soldiers or in self defense. I'm sure you know the bible better than I do. You know very well that isn't the case. Do I really need to point out specific examples to you?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Quite false.....

To godwin myself, the SS didn't put "Gott mit Uns" on their buckles just because they liked the typeface.

The SS didn't put Gott mit Uns on their belt buckles at all. Their belt buckles carried the slogan Meine Ehre heißt Treue ('My honour is loyalty').

The Wehrmacht had Gott mit Uns on their belt buckles, but you can hardly blame the Nazis for that since it went back to 1701 when Frederick I of Prussia used the slogan on his coat of arms.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The Wehrmacht had Gott mit Uns on their belt buckles

You are, of course, quite correct. Please accept my apologies for mixing up one murderous branch of the Nazi regime with another one.

PDN wrote: »

you can hardly blame the Nazis for that since it went back to 1701 when Frederick I of Prussia used the slogan on his coat of arms.

I'm not blaming them at all, nor did I claim that they were the first to put them there. On the contrary, my point was that religion is used to legitimize people's antisocial feelings and that's been going on for a long, long time before Freddie Der First figured it out.

Actually, now that Freddie Der Großvater has come up, and being reminded that Bach did earlier in the week, I have to recommend this excellent book:

http://www.amazon.com/Evening-Palace-Reason-Frederick-Enlightenment/dp/0007156588

Dades

robindch wrote:

People certainly will do what they do because of what they believe (for certain meanings of the word 'believe'). The open question is how beliefs lead to actions, how the beliefs are learned or deduced, the balance between beliefs derived from desires and beliefs derived from evidence, the role of self-justification, self-legitimization, the desire for self-respect, status and many, many other things.

robindch wrote: »

On the contrary, my point was that religion is used to legitimize people's antisocial feelings and that's been going on for a long, long time before Freddie Der First figured it out.

Isn't that a separate point to whether people act contrary to their supposed beliefs?

My point was that saying you're a "Christian" does not mean you adhere wholesale to Christian 'values'. People's are ultimately true to their nature, and will also act despite their religion. How many of Ireland's nominal catholics ignore half of their church's teachings?

What you are referring to are the cases where people can find justification for their actions within their religion. Both valid notions - and not at all contradictory - but separate nonetheless.

Goduznt Xzst

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I said guys. Genuine God fearing leaders would not do what Stalin did for the reasons Stalin did them. A person can be God fearing even if it turns out that God does not exist.

How can you tell who's God fearing and doing, as they imagine, the work of their God out of a Godly reverance, and someone who isn't God fearing?

Take Charlemagne for example, you pretty much owe your Christianity to him. Was he God fearing? I mean he spread the name of your lord right, even if it was by force and intimidation.

Soul Winner

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

How can you tell who's God fearing and doing, as they imagine, the work of their God out of a Godly reverance, and someone who isn't God fearing?

I can't but their actions can be very telling. By their fruits ye shall know them etc etc...

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Take Charlemagne for example, you pretty much owe your Christianity to him.

Not so. We owe our Christianity to Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Without them there would be no Christianity and without whom we would probably never have heard of Charlemagne.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Was he God fearing? I mean he spread the name of your lord right, even if it was by force and intimidation.

The Gospel is not something that is to be enforced on people. It is to be preached to people who will either receive it or reject it. Charlemagne forgot to listen to what Jesus said:

"And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." Mark 6:11

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Christian, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Atheist Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Christian would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about a Protestant man whose brutal actions make the atheist sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Christian would do such a thing."

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

If China or the old Soviet Union had been model examples of how a modern society should be like then ye would be very quick to point to them and say; see, these nations are atheist in their ideology and look how great they are. But when the tables are turned, you'd never ever blame their atrocities and their abuses of human rights on their atheism, you'd just say; no, they just happen to be atheist. Tut tut.. Your little story above works both ways Sam.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Your little story above works both ways Sam.

Yes, but if you understood the point properly, you would see it only works one way.

Hint -- have a read of the wiki article on totalitarianism.

ShooterSF

Soul Winner wrote: »

I can't but their actions can be very telling. By their fruits ye shall know them etc etc...

So to sum this up.

"God fearing people don't commit genocide"
"What about [insert religious person who committed genocide]"
"They weren't really god fearing"
"How do you know if someone is god fearing?"
"By their actions"
"So people who commit genocide say wouldn't be god fearing based on their actions?"
"Correct."
"And amazingly god fearing people don't commit genocide?"
"Correct."
"Hmm. Out of curiosity have you a favourite shape?"
"Well I am partial to circles."
"Indeed."

mikhail

Soul Winner wrote: »

If China or the old Soviet Union had been model examples of how a modern society should be like then ye would be very quick to point to them and say; see, these nations are atheist in their ideology and look how great they are. But when the tables are turned, you'd never ever blame their atrocities and their abuses of human rights on their atheism, you'd just say; no, they just happen to be atheist. Tut tut.. Your little story above works both ways Sam.

No he wouldn't. That's what's called a straw man argument.

For instance, atheism is extremely common in Norway, which is a very pleasant country which hasn't attempted to slaughter the jews or sent tanks into Czachoslovakia in aaaages (and has a low crime rate, excellent healthcare and education statistics and so on), and I've never heard anyone hold it up as an example of why atheism is great.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

If China or the old Soviet Union had been model examples of how a modern society should be like then ye would be very quick to point to them and say; see, these nations are atheist in their ideology and look how great they are. But when the tables are turned, you'd never ever blame their atrocities and their abuses of human rights on their atheism, you'd just say; no, they just happen to be atheist. Tut tut.. Your little story above works both ways Sam.

How about, instead of "atheist nations" we refer to "nations where the people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power". This would rule out nations like Stalin's USSR and nations where the people are hugely under the sway of religious influences, like the USA or Saudi Arabia.

Now, let us compare some of these two groups. Say, Finland, Norway and Sweden versus USA, China, Saudi Arabia. We'll compare things like education, crime rates, political freedoms etc. How do you think that would work out?

mikhail

Damn it Zillah, why did you have to go and do what I just wrote I'd never seen anyone do?

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Yes, but if you understood the point properly, you would see it only works one way.

Hint -- have a read of the wiki article on totalitarianism.

I understand the point very well and do accept it and I can also see that it does actually work both ways. Thanks for the irrelevant link.

Soul Winner

mikhail wrote: »

...and I've never heard anyone hold it up as an example of why atheism is great.

It sort of happened here

Zillah

mikhail wrote: »

Damn it Zillah, why did you have to go and do what I just wrote I'd never seen anyone do?

What I did was very different. It think I explained it quite succinctly too.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

How about, instead of "atheist nations" we refer to "nations where the people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power". This would rule out nations like Stalin's USSR and nations where the people are hugely under the sway of religious influences, like the USA or Saudi Arabia.

Now, let us compare some of these two groups. Say, Finland, Norway and Sweden versus USA, China, Saudi Arabia. We'll compare things like education, crime rates, political freedoms etc. How do you think that would work out?

You just proved my point. If the nations which are atheistic in their ideology and practice can be held up as model nations you have no problem suggesting that their atheism has something to do with it. But when similar type nations commit atrocities then its not because of their atheist ideals, its always because of something else. You can't have it both ways. No hold on, I forgot, I'm in the A&A forum now, where it is always possible to have it both ways. :rolleyes:

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

It sort of happened here

Much as I like the cut of atmo's jib, I don't think he presumes to speak for all of us.

Look, I'll try and bullet point the Stalin thing:

• Stalin wanted total power.
• Who has lots of power that Stalin wants?
• The church (as always).
• How does Stalin wrestle that power from the church?
• Enforce State atheism. Genius!

That is why Stalins Russia was an enforced atheistic state. Not because Stalin loved atheism and worshiped at it's imaginary altar - but because it was a means to stripping another historical powerhouse - and threat to his supreme power - of it's influence.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

You just proved my point. If the nations which are atheistic in their ideology and practice can be held up as model nations you have no problem suggesting that their atheism has something to do with it. But when similar type nations commit atrocities then its not because of their atheist ideals, its always because of something else. You can't have it both ways. No hold on, I forgot, I'm in the A&A forum now, where it is always possible to have it both ways. :rolleyes:

You abjectly and utterly failed to understand what I just said. It wasn't even a long post. The very first fucking line is where I state that the key quality for a healthy nation is one where people do not abdicate their moral responsibility to a higher power. In which case nations like the USSR, where people absolutely abdicated their moral responsibility to the state and to the party, do not qualify.

To claim Norway and the USSR are "similar type nations" as I have just described is pure stupidity.

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

Much as I like the cut of atmo's jib, I don't think he presumes to speak for all of us.

Look, I'll try and bullet point the Stalin thing:

• Stalin wanted total power.
• Who has lots of power that Stalin wants?
• The church (as always).
• How does Stalin wrestle that power from the church?
• Enforce State atheism. Genius!

That is why Stalins Russia was an enforced atheistic state. Not because Stalin loved atheism and worshiped at it's imaginary altar - but because it was a means to stripping another historical powerhouse - and threat to his supreme power - of it's influence.

So you wouldn't agree with Christopher Hitchens that the Russian Orthodox Church stood side by side with the Stalinist regime and that there was never a moment in Russian history where the powers that be did not find that Church convenient?

The Hitch was responding to a question asked by his brother Peter: "Why can't you just accept that the Soviet Regime was an atheist regime which hated God?"

From 4:03 onwards...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCrXb7UyX3M