Secular and or Atheist violence

[SithDoughnut]

I am only saying that it is evident that his actions were in fact for an atheistic purpose (too)... I agree that that was not the end purpose but the purpose was present nonetheless.

An atheistic society was a small goal in a much larger purpose, yes. It wasn't done for atheism though. It was done to get rid of religion.

 

[selfinflikted]

I can't post the link I want, because the URL has a swear in it, but google the words "intent" and "magic," and read the first article to come up.

Now, I'm not actually as frustrated, upset or offended as that article would suggest (so, if the snarktastic tone offends you, it isn't my fault, because it was never my intent for you to get offended.)

The basic point is that everybody who understands the words "done in the name of X," understands them to mean that something was done for the primary purpose of supporting X, and with X as the primary motivation. The simple action of arguing "Stalin killed in the name of atheism," regardless of what you intend it to mean, encourages people to see Stalin as a Crusader for atheism-- a person who decided that there was no god and, based on that idea, decided to form a tyrannical government founded on the idea that there is no god, and killing all who disagree, solely or primarily for the purpose of evangelizing the atheist position.

Maybe it's not what you mean, but intent isn't magic. It's what you said, and continue to say, and continue to argue, and thus, what you encourage other people to believe. Which, end result, makes the world less safe for atheists, because it bolsters people's views that atheists are dangerous and, us being a minority, we're unable to counter such views as quickly as they are able to spread.



The position you've taken is neither simple nor base. You're arguing that you don't actually believe what you're arguing; and demanding that people believe that you're arguing what you want them to believe you're arguing, instead of what you are actually arguing. If you don't actually believe what you're saying (I described what you're saying, above), then please find words that mean what you believe, instead of trying to simultaneously argue a position, and change our society's understanding of what certain words mean, just so that you can continue to use a turn of phrase you like, even though it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Because as long as you keep saying what you're saying, people will keep believing that you're saying something that you claim you don't believe.

I think he doesn't really believe what he's arguing. At least, not anymore

 

[Mling]

I think he doesn't really believe what he's arguing. At least, not anymore

I don't think so, either, which is why I'm so confused. I've seen his posts on other threads, and he seems like a very reasonable and decent person. I was surprised to see this thread, and now and confused about why he continues arguing such a harmful position which he openly says he doesn't really hold.

 

[Tiberius]

My point was clearly displayed in the OP and throughout... and is that people have committed crimes in the name of Atheism and crimes have been committed by the nonreligious.

I disagree. You have never shown that any crimes were committed for the sole purpose of spreading atheism.

Every single example you have shown has been for some other purpose.

and my point is only that him making people atheist was demonstrated to be a purpose of his (I accept it was not his end purpose) and for that reason I say they were done in the name of atheism, for the purpose of atheism.

And as I have and many other have stated many times, he was using atheism as a way of increasing the state's power.

 

[selfinflikted]

I don't think so, either, which is why I'm so confused. I've seen his posts on other threads, and he seems like a very reasonable and decent person. I was surprised to see this thread, and now and confused about why he continues arguing such a harmful position which he openly says he doesn't really hold.

Sometimes it's hard to admit you made a mistake.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It's pretty obvious that the atheists here are happy to criticise any belief system other than their own. After 30 page they're not saying anything which hasn't been said (and answered) already. I tried summarizing the basic arguments here and they appear to have been conveniently ignored.

Perhaps it's a good thing. Such a dogmatic, narrow-minded and intentionally ignorant attitude towards history is sure to put people off "Free-thinking". It's much better at painting a bad picture of atheism than we are.

 

[selfinflikted]

It's pretty obvious that the atheists here are happy to criticise any belief system other than their own.

Atheism isn't a belief system.

After 30 page they're not saying anything which hasn't been said (and answered) already. I tried summarizing the basic arguments here and they appear to have been conveniently ignored.

Perhaps it's a good thing. Such a dogmatic, narrow-minded and intentionally ignorant attitude towards history is sure to put people off "Free-thinking". It's much better at painting a bad picture of atheism than we are.

Those arguments have been refuted ad nauseum already in this thread.

 

[Mling]

It's pretty obvious that the atheists here are happy to criticise any belief system other than their own. After 30 page they're not saying anything which hasn't been said (and answered) already. I tried summarizing the basic arguments here and they appear to have been conveniently ignored.

Perhaps it's a good thing. Such a dogmatic, narrow-minded and intentionally ignorant attitude towards history is sure to put people off "Free-thinking". It's much better at painting a bad picture of atheism than we are.

You keep saying things like this. It's relationship to anything that's actually been said is tenuous to the point of being invisible. Do you think that saying it repeatedly will make people believe it?

 

[Belk]

I disagree. You have never shown that any crimes were committed for the sole purpose of spreading atheism.

Every single example you have shown has been for some other purpose.



And as I have and many other have stated many times, he was using atheism as a way of increasing the state's power.

True, but can not the same be said of the start of the crusades? That it was not about religion but a political ploy to get the warring knights out of the country?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Those arguments have been refuted ad nauseum already in this thread.

The points I and other made were not refuted - instead they were ignored and the same arguments were repeated over an over again.

You keep saying things like this. It's relationship to anything that's actually been said is tenuous to the point of being invisible. Do you think that saying it repeatedly will make people believe it?

Having debated many a Creationist, I know making people believe what is real is harder than it seems.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

True, but can not the same be said of the start of the crusades? That it was not about religion but a political ploy to get the warring knights out of the country?

Yes and no. Obviously it was a nationalist war - but it was a nationalist war based on religion. The Holy land belonged to the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. If none of these religions existed, perhaps the Crusades would not have happened. Perhaps.

This was a point I made earlier. Nationalism alone was not the only reason people died under people like Stalin and Mao - their nationalism was based on atheism: if God does not exist, the only source of truth is the government.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Yes and no. Obviously it was a nationalist war - but it was a nationalist war based on religion. The Holy land belonged to the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. If none of these religions existed, perhaps the Crusades would not have happened. Perhaps.

This was a point I made earlier. Nationalism alone was not the only reason people died under people like Stalin and Mao - their nationalism was based on atheism: if God does not exist, the only source of truth is the government.

Maybe you could explain this to me.
Why would the government be the only source of truth?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Maybe you could explain this to me.
Why would the government be the only source of truth?

Like I said, because there is no God. If He doesn't do anything, then who will?

 

[selfinflikted]

Like I said, because there is no God. If He doesn't do anything, then who will?

It's about gaining power. It's that simple. Religion takes that away. If all that is left is the government, that's who holds the power.

 

[Mling]

Like I said, because there is no God. If He doesn't do anything, then who will?

But if there is no god, why would books disappear? Why would people forget how to discuss philosophy, or express their emotions, or think rationally? Why would people saying things that make sense stop rallying against a government they disagree with?

What would squash all the other ways that people learn truth, that already exist regardless of whether a god does or not?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It's about gaining power. It's that simple. Religion takes that away. If all that is left is the government, that's who holds the power.

Not always. As I said earlier, several forms of nationalism (Zionism for example) are based on religion. In theory there was no need to remove religion at all - they could just have easily have used it to gain power, as Hitler did in the early days of Nazi Germany.

With Soviet Russia and Communist China, there was a deliberate attempt to remove religion.

What would squash all the other ways that people learn truth, that already exist regardless of whether a god does or not?

Censorship, propaganda, indoctrinating schoolchildren etc. Dictators rarely allow their people information that would contradict what the government says.

 

[selfinflikted]

Not always. As I said earlier, several forms of nationalism (Zionism for example) are based on religion. In theory there was no need to remove religion at all - they could just have easily have used it to gain power, as Hitler did in the early days of Nazi Germany.

With Soviet Russia and Communist China, there was a deliberate attempt to remove religion.

But that was not the chosen method - eradication of religion was. Still, this doesn't mean it was done in the name of atheism.

As an aside, I'm really liking typing in italics today. Just sayin'.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Like I said, because there is no God. If He doesn't do anything, then who will?

How did you go from 'doing something' to being 'source of truth' ?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

But that was not the chosen method - eradication of religion was. Still, this doesn't mean it was done in the name of atheism.

As an aside, I'm really liking typing in italics today. Just sayin'.

But if it wasn't done "in the name of atheism" (I like me some quotation marks ) then why promote atheism at all? If you intend to eradicate religion, all religion, and replace it with the belief there is no God - how is that not doing it in the name of atheism?

 

[AtheistVet]

Because they're doing it in the name of their own cult of personality.