Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The atrocities of atheism, Albania.

johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:18:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:12:23 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:06:37 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:52:03 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:43:41 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:30:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:01:39 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:45:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:26:57 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:44:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:24:45 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

"A dogmatic Stalinist, Hoxha considered religion a divisive force and undertook an active campaign against religious institutions,"

The anti-religious fervor game from Hoxha's Stalinism. Both Hoxha's atheism and his anti-theism, were an effect of his "dogmatic" Stalinism. Now, I'm not a Stalinist or a Communist, so I can't say to what degree his interpretation of that dogma should have resulted in antitheism, but nevertheless, it did.

You have done little more than display a post hoc fallacy. They were atheists. They were antitheists. Ergo they were antitheists because they were atheists.

That is not an accurate portrayal, as I have just demonstrated. With a scant 5 minutes of looking a bit deeper.

Actually an unwarranted violent oppression on those who practice a religious faith springs to mind.

Caused by dogmatic Stalinism... not atheism.


No, No, No, Still a violent oppression against anybody inclined to a religious faith springs to mind, formed by an alegiance of radical atheistic thought..... Hitler did not try to kill all non Christians and did not stand for Christians, A country that declares itself an atheistic state and wages an agenda against those of any type of faith, falls into a catergory of radical atheisim.....Obviously not everybody who is atheist fits under this umbrella.....But the organisation that commited these attrocites indeed stood in favour for atheistic values and surpressed any opposition to it's idelogy.... Hence atheisim has a lot to do with it.

Not as a causal factor, until you demonstrate it.

What do you mean, if you can not grasp the fact that those who held any type of religious faith were violently opressed by those who wanted to form an atheistic state, then thats your problem, not mine. It has already been demostrated and is history.

They wanted to form a Stalinist state. Certainly atheism is a component of that ideaology but, as I already said both atheism and anti-theism were effects of this "dogmatic Stalinism."

Do you have a refutation of that, or are you just going to repeat yourself?



You wish to cloak the fact that all religious people of faith were condemed to practice their belief and were suppressed, even parents were afraid to pass their faith on to thier off spring, for fear of imprisonment or torture,

I'm not cloaking that at all. I'm not denying that claim. I am disputing the cause, not the effect.

and you want to cloak this behaviour and call it stallinsim.....no...no...no... it's radical atheisim.

Hey, moron, your source calls it that. Your source. The source you provided does that. All I did was find the source you were using and looked a bit deeper. Are you even paying attention?

The cause is an atheistic state, which you wish to cloak in the name of stalinism, The cause is an atheistic state, that wished to eridicate any or all peoples of faith.....You are the moron.......Read a little deeper. Yes it does claim to be a stalinistic agenda, but the effects are very radical and deeply atheistic in nature....




I know what lets call a whole country that punishes anybody who has any type of faith a stalinistc agenda.... Get real buddy. it's an athesitic agenda.



Ps be glad you an old man who can get his kicks from insulting people over a keyboard, if you were to conduct yourself to my face like that, I would lay you out flat on your back.

If a christian commits a murder, is it Theism thats at fault?

No, But if a Christian or a nation of Christians commit murders and imprison and torture people simply becase somebody opposess their belief system, ( Which Christians are certainly guilty of ) Then yes they are also guilty. But you can not charge all of theisim just Chritianity in this instance, which falls into the category of theisim.
tkubok
Posts: 5,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:38:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:18:18 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:12:23 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:06:37 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:52:03 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:43:41 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:30:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:01:39 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:45:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:26:57 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:44:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:24:45 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

"A dogmatic Stalinist, Hoxha considered religion a divisive force and undertook an active campaign against religious institutions,"

The anti-religious fervor game from Hoxha's Stalinism. Both Hoxha's atheism and his anti-theism, were an effect of his "dogmatic" Stalinism. Now, I'm not a Stalinist or a Communist, so I can't say to what degree his interpretation of that dogma should have resulted in antitheism, but nevertheless, it did.

You have done little more than display a post hoc fallacy. They were atheists. They were antitheists. Ergo they were antitheists because they were atheists.

That is not an accurate portrayal, as I have just demonstrated. With a scant 5 minutes of looking a bit deeper.

Actually an unwarranted violent oppression on those who practice a religious faith springs to mind.

Caused by dogmatic Stalinism... not atheism.


No, No, No, Still a violent oppression against anybody inclined to a religious faith springs to mind, formed by an alegiance of radical atheistic thought..... Hitler did not try to kill all non Christians and did not stand for Christians, A country that declares itself an atheistic state and wages an agenda against those of any type of faith, falls into a catergory of radical atheisim.....Obviously not everybody who is atheist fits under this umbrella.....But the organisation that commited these attrocites indeed stood in favour for atheistic values and surpressed any opposition to it's idelogy.... Hence atheisim has a lot to do with it.

Not as a causal factor, until you demonstrate it.

What do you mean, if you can not grasp the fact that those who held any type of religious faith were violently opressed by those who wanted to form an atheistic state, then thats your problem, not mine. It has already been demostrated and is history.

They wanted to form a Stalinist state. Certainly atheism is a component of that ideaology but, as I already said both atheism and anti-theism were effects of this "dogmatic Stalinism."

Do you have a refutation of that, or are you just going to repeat yourself?



You wish to cloak the fact that all religious people of faith were condemed to practice their belief and were suppressed, even parents were afraid to pass their faith on to thier off spring, for fear of imprisonment or torture,

I'm not cloaking that at all. I'm not denying that claim. I am disputing the cause, not the effect.

and you want to cloak this behaviour and call it stallinsim.....no...no...no... it's radical atheisim.

Hey, moron, your source calls it that. Your source. The source you provided does that. All I did was find the source you were using and looked a bit deeper. Are you even paying attention?

The cause is an atheistic state, which you wish to cloak in the name of stalinism, The cause is an atheistic state, that wished to eridicate any or all peoples of faith.....You are the moron.......Read a little deeper. Yes it does claim to be a stalinistic agenda, but the effects are very radical and deeply atheistic in nature....




I know what lets call a whole country that punishes anybody who has any type of faith a stalinistc agenda.... Get real buddy. it's an athesitic agenda.



Ps be glad you an old man who can get his kicks from insulting people over a keyboard, if you were to conduct yourself to my face like that, I would lay you out flat on your back.

If a christian commits a murder, is it Theism thats at fault?

No, But if a Christian or a nation of Christians commit murders and imprison and torture people simply becase somebody opposess their belief system, ( Which Christians are certainly guilty of ) Then yes they are also guilty. But you can not charge all of theisim just Chritianity in this instance, which falls into the category of theisim.

But then the answer is no, right? Since you said that it is Christianities fault, and i didnt say whether it was the fault of any individual theistic sect, i asked if it is Theisms fault.

The same applies to Communism and Atheism. Its not atheisms fault, its communism fault. After all, Buddhists are atheists too, and yet Buddhists would be rejected by communists because Buddhism is a religion.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:00:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:06:37 PM, johnlubba wrote:

Hey, moron, your source calls it that. Your source. The source you provided does that. All I did was find the source you were using and looked a bit deeper. Are you even paying attention?

The cause is an atheistic state, which you wish to cloak in the name of stalinism,

What don't you understand. YOUR REFERENCES called it that. YOURS. The ones you brought to the discussion. Do you not understand that?

The cause is an atheistic state, that wished to eridicate any or all peoples of faith.....You are the moron.......Read a little deeper. Yes it does claim to be a stalinistic agenda, but the effects are very radical and deeply atheistic in nature....

No, they are deeply Stalinistic in nature. Stalinism, at least as dogmatically applied here, eradicates religion as a competing source of power and influence over the population.





I know what lets call a whole country that punishes anybody who has any type of faith a stalinistc agenda.... Get real buddy. it's an athesitic agenda.

Prove it.




Ps be glad you an old man who can get his kicks from insulting people over a keyboard, if you were to conduct yourself to my face like that, I would lay you out flat on your back.

Do you think the threat of violence makes your position more solid?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:12:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 12:39:03 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:56:24 AM, vbaculum wrote:
The people who oppressed the Albanian religious groups *believed* things about the role that religion played in society, and thought certain things should be done to repress religion. These beliefs, in effect, were called "state atheism".

Atheism, per se, isn't a set of beliefs. As has already been said, it's not an ideology. It's simply the failure to believe certain claims - it's doubt.

Consequently, an atheist can be a Marx, a Rand, a Stalin, a Gates, a Sagan, etc. It binds you to no belief. Instead it simply frees you from the barbarism of the past.

However you wish to define it, But for me it's pretty simple and clear.......

I didn't define these terms arbitrarily, and you haven't addressed the reasons I gave for defining the terms, thus you concede the argument.

Albania declares itself an atheistic state, opressing and imprisoning and even torturing people of faith, stooping as low as offering food to children in schools to smoke out those who refrain from certain foods due to a religious ceremony.........

These are just appeals to emotion AND THAT IS NOT A FVCKING ELLIPSES!!!


Yes they were atheistic in thought in that they rejected any belief held of deity by the public and even punished them for it...... Whats hard to undertsand or figure out about that.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If a Christian kills someone for being a witch, it is likly the fault of Christianity, because it is clear from the Christian Bible that witches must be killed. There are many other examples where the bible enjoins Christians to murder people. And when a Christian heeds these injunctions, it is right to say the crime is a consequence of Christianity.

What enjoins an atheist to commit a crime? The answer is nothing. There is no book; there is no ideology. Atheism is doubt.

The state atheism you bring up is a consequence of communist totalitarianism. The ideology is clear.

I've known a lot of atheists and I've never in my life known of an atheist advocating this idea of state atheism. It doesn't exist as an ideal in modern, atheism. It's communist totalitarianism.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 4:16:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
John, what is you definition of atheism?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
If a Christian kills someone for being a witch, it is likly the fault of Christianity, because it is clear from the Christian Bible that witches must be killed. There are many other examples where the bible enjoins Christians to murder people. And when a Christian heeds these injunctions, it is right to say the crime is a consequence of Christianity.

What enjoins an atheist to commit a crime? The answer is nothing. There is no book; there is no ideology. Atheism is doubt.

The state atheism you bring up is a consequence of communist totalitarianism. The ideology is clear.

I've known a lot of atheists and I've never in my life known of an atheist advocating this idea of state atheism. It doesn't exist as an ideal in modern, atheism. It's communist totalitarianism.

Listen buddy, I'm not sure what you are trying to twist this into but this is the way I see it. If a nation, Albania, declares itself an atheistic state and punishes every body who has any type of faith or religion, and encourages and forces society to renounce God, then that is an atheistic agenda. If they declared themselves a Muslim state and punished anybody who never conformed to Muslim way of thought and forced people to accept God against their will then it would be a Muslim attrocity. In this case atheism is the emphasis and I stand by my claims. When it's a crime to declare your faith and you are forced to conform to atheism in the rejection of a belief God or just outright not allowed to even declare a belief, that is radical atheism enforced by tyranny.

If I live in my house and I wish to believe in God but my parents are atheist and would punish me with death if I reveal my faith.

Yes, my parents are atrocious and committing an atrocity with their hostility to their own child who won't conform to an atheistic mind set.

A belief system that punishes people who don't conform to their belief system is stupid.

You will argue that atheism is not a belief system but still theism is, and to punish those who have a religious belief system and faith and force them to conform to the atheistic mind set of no belief system, is still forcing people to conform and is a violation of anybodys freedom in anybody's book.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:13:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:52:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

No, it hasn't. I'm an atheist and I couldn't care less about what perfect strangers (society) do with their time. I rarely have theological arguments with people, so discrediting religion is, thankfully, not one of my pastimes. That may be a trend, but it isn't a universal agenda which atheists adhere to.:

Why are you a atheist?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:15:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 4:16:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
John, what is you definition of atheism?

My definition of atheism is a lack or absence of belief in God, which is stupid, it's not as if I lack or have absence of a belief in pink unicorns.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:27:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
If a Christian kills someone for being a witch, it is likely the fault of Christianity, because it is clear from the Christian Bible that witches must be killed.:
I agree and know why but what makes you think must live by that or ever must have?
There are many other examples where the bible enjoins Christians to murder people.:
Please show examples!!!

What enjoins an atheist to commit a crime? The answer is nothing. There is no book; there is no ideology. Atheism is doubt.:
What causes doubt? Fear! What do people do to what they fear? Destroy it.

The state atheism you bring up is a consequence of communist totalitarianism. The ideology is clear.

I've known a lot of atheists and I've never in my life known of an atheist advocating this idea of state atheism. It doesn't exist as an ideal in modern, atheism. It's communist totalitarianism.:
The non-belief in God is not modern nor partial. Killing is not a priority of most atheist in the forefront. I find it absurd to suggest atheism or general atheist have no agendas. Atheism fights for its cause to not believe in God. Atheism fights for people and children to be brought out of religious shackles. If atheism has no books or program to subscribe how do find its meaning all over the religious section of DDO? You do not have to have a code book to have a agenda. If you listen to atheist teaching and thoughts then you being ascribed its practices. You spread it. So maybe your not a communist totalitarian but you still fight for the less of God and religion.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
If a Christian kills someone for being a witch, it is likly the fault of Christianity, because it is clear from the Christian Bible that witches must be killed. There are many other examples where the bible enjoins Christians to murder people. And when a Christian heeds these injunctions, it is right to say the crime is a consequence of Christianity.

What enjoins an atheist to commit a crime? The answer is nothing. There is no book; there is no ideology. Atheism is doubt.

The state atheism you bring up is a consequence of communist totalitarianism. The ideology is clear.

I've known a lot of atheists and I've never in my life known of an atheist advocating this idea of state atheism. It doesn't exist as an ideal in modern, atheism. It's communist totalitarianism.

Listen buddy, I'm not sure what you are trying to twist this into

I've made the same point several times. It's not that hard.

State atheism is a different type of thing than atheism. State atheism is a set of policies based on a set of beliefs. Atheism, as you've pointed out, is doubt.

Radical atheism would mean radical doubt. You can only doubt the claims of religion to a certain extent. Consequently, radical atheism isn't really possible; you can't really doubt something to a moderate or extreme level; you either doubt something or you don't (for the most part).

but this is the way I see it. If a nation, Albania, declares itself an atheistic state and punishes every body who has any type of faith or religion, and encourages and forces society to renounce God, then that is an atheistic agenda.

An 'atheistic agenda' couldn't be possible. Decompressed, that phrase means: an agenda based on the doubt of religious claims. What would such an agenda entail? Nothing. You have to have beliefs to comprise an political agenda. State atheism is what the communists called a set of beliefs that justified the persecution of the religious. This isn't radical atheism because atheism is doubt.

Actuallly, a better would for state atheism would be 'violent anti-clericalism'. Here, the '-ism' in 'anti-clericalism' would properly be employeed doing the work of denoting a belief system - something it fails to do in the word 'atheism'.

If they declared thesmselves a Muslim state and punished anybody who never conformed to Muslim way of thought and forced people to accept God against their will then it would be a Muslim attrocity.

Answer this:

Islam is to the Koran as
Atheism is to:______

In this case atheism is the emphasis and I stand by my claims. When it's a crime to declare your faith and you are forced to conform to atheism in the rejection of a belief God or just outright not allowed to even declare a belief, that is radical atheism enforced by tyranny.

No such thing as radical doubt in one or more gods. It's anti-clericalism.


If I live in my house and I wish to believe in God but my parents are atheist and would punish me with death if I reveal my faith.

The would be anti-clericalists.

Yes, my parents are atrocious and committing an atrocity with their hostility to their own child who won't conform to an atheistic mind set.

Yes, my dad was very restrictive as well.



A belief system that punishes people who don't conform to their belief system is stupid.

Not really, it achieves the system's primary goal of perpetuating itself - at least in the short term.


You will argue that atheism is not a belief system but still theism is, and to punish those who have a religious belief system and faith and force them to conform to the atheistic mind set of no belief system, is still forcing people to conform and is a violation of anybodys freedom in anybody's book.

Yes, the best way to deal with the problem of religion in society is to do what Western, secular democracies do: Ensure that everyone can think whatever they want while ensuring that nobody is harmed as a consequence. This is what we atheists (a better word here would be "commited secularist") insist on.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:19:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:15:20 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 4:16:03 PM, muzebreak wrote:
John, what is you definition of atheism?


My definition of atheism is a lack or absence of belief in God, which is stupid, it's not as if I lack or have absence of a belief in pink unicorns.

Ok, so we agree on the definition. Now the reason atheism is not stupid, is because, unlike unicorns, 90% of humanity believe in god. As such, it is necesarry to have word for people who do not.

Now, how is it that the lack of a belief in god has caused these atrocities?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:18:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
If a Christian kills someone for being a witch, it is likly the fault of Christianity, because it is clear from the Christian Bible that witches must be killed. There are many other examples where the bible enjoins Christians to murder people. And when a Christian heeds these injunctions, it is right to say the crime is a consequence of Christianity.

What enjoins an atheist to commit a crime? The answer is nothing. There is no book; there is no ideology. Atheism is doubt.

The state atheism you bring up is a consequence of communist totalitarianism. The ideology is clear.

I've known a lot of atheists and I've never in my life known of an atheist advocating this idea of state atheism. It doesn't exist as an ideal in modern, atheism. It's communist totalitarianism.

Listen buddy, I'm not sure what you are trying to twist this into

I've made the same point several times. It's not that hard.

State atheism is a different type of thing than atheism. State atheism is a set of policies based on a set of beliefs. Atheism, as you've pointed out, is doubt.

Radical atheism would mean radical doubt. You can only doubt the claims of religion to a certain extent. Consequently, radical atheism isn't really possible; you can't really doubt something to a moderate or extreme level; you either doubt something or you don't (for the most part).


but this is the way I see it. If a nation, Albania, declares itself an atheistic state and punishes every body who has any type of faith or religion, and encourages and forces society to renounce God, then that is an atheistic agenda.

An 'atheistic agenda' couldn't be possible. Decompressed, that phrase means: an agenda based on the doubt of religious claims. What would such an agenda entail? Nothing. You have to have beliefs to comprise an political agenda. State atheism is what the communists called a set of beliefs that justified the persecution of the religious. This isn't radical atheism because atheism is doubt.

Actuallly, a better would for state atheism would be 'violent anti-clericalism'. Here, the '-ism' in 'anti-clericalism' would properly be employeed doing the work of denoting a belief system - something it fails to do in the word 'atheism'.

If they declared thesmselves a Muslim state and punished anybody who never conformed to Muslim way of thought and forced people to accept God against their will then it would be a Muslim attrocity.

Answer this:

Islam is to the Koran as
Atheism is to:______

In this case atheism is the emphasis and I stand by my claims. When it's a crime to declare your faith and you are forced to conform to atheism in the rejection of a belief God or just outright not allowed to even declare a belief, that is radical atheism enforced by tyranny.

No such thing as radical doubt in one or more gods. It's anti-clericalism.


If I live in my house and I wish to believe in God but my parents are atheist and would punish me with death if I reveal my faith.

The would be anti-clericalists.

Yes, my parents are atrocious and committing an atrocity with their hostility to their own child who won't conform to an atheistic mind set.

Yes, my dad was very restrictive as well.



A belief system that punishes people who don't conform to their belief system is stupid.

Not really, it achieves the system's primary goal of perpetuating itself - at least in the short term.


You will argue that atheism is not a belief system but still theism is, and to punish those who have a religious belief system and faith and force them to conform to the atheistic mind set of no belief system, is still forcing people to conform and is a violation of anybodys freedom in anybody's book.

Yes, the best way to deal with the problem of religion in society is to do what Western, secular democracies do: Ensure that everyone can think whatever they want while ensuring that nobody is harmed as a consequence. This is what we atheists (a better word here would be "commited secularist") insist on.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, in fact I am, and you are splitting hairs......You are hiding behind a defense that atheisim is nothing, not even a belief system....But you are clearly missing the whole point.....Atheisim can oppsoe those who hold belief systems..... In this case the oppsing party to those who had belief systems or faith were atheistic and wished to promote such a veiw on it's nation, a view of condeming those with faith and forcing those with faith to act as if they were atheist and deny their beliefs instead.....I am not crazy m8..... It's pure and simple...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:30:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:38:38 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:18:18 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:12:23 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:06:37 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:52:03 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 12:43:41 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:30:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:01:39 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:45:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:26:57 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:44:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:24:45 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

"A dogmatic Stalinist, Hoxha considered religion a divisive force and undertook an active campaign against religious institutions,"

The anti-religious fervor game from Hoxha's Stalinism. Both Hoxha's atheism and his anti-theism, were an effect of his "dogmatic" Stalinism. Now, I'm not a Stalinist or a Communist, so I can't say to what degree his interpretation of that dogma should have resulted in antitheism, but nevertheless, it did.

You have done little more than display a post hoc fallacy. They were atheists. They were antitheists. Ergo they were antitheists because they were atheists.

That is not an accurate portrayal, as I have just demonstrated. With a scant 5 minutes of looking a bit deeper.

Actually an unwarranted violent oppression on those who practice a religious faith springs to mind.

Caused by dogmatic Stalinism... not atheism.


No, No, No, Still a violent oppression against anybody inclined to a religious faith springs to mind, formed by an alegiance of radical atheistic thought..... Hitler did not try to kill all non Christians and did not stand for Christians, A country that declares itself an atheistic state and wages an agenda against those of any type of faith, falls into a catergory of radical atheisim.....Obviously not everybody who is atheist fits under this umbrella.....But the organisation that commited these attrocites indeed stood in favour for atheistic values and surpressed any opposition to it's idelogy.... Hence atheisim has a lot to do with it.

Not as a causal factor, until you demonstrate it.

What do you mean, if you can not grasp the fact that those who held any type of religious faith were violently opressed by those who wanted to form an atheistic state, then thats your problem, not mine. It has already been demostrated and is history.

They wanted to form a Stalinist state. Certainly atheism is a component of that ideaology but, as I already said both atheism and anti-theism were effects of this "dogmatic Stalinism."

Do you have a refutation of that, or are you just going to repeat yourself?



You wish to cloak the fact that all religious people of faith were condemed to practice their belief and were suppressed, even parents were afraid to pass their faith on to thier off spring, for fear of imprisonment or torture,

I'm not cloaking that at all. I'm not denying that claim. I am disputing the cause, not the effect.

and you want to cloak this behaviour and call it stallinsim.....no...no...no... it's radical atheisim.

Hey, moron, your source calls it that. Your source. The source you provided does that. All I did was find the source you were using and looked a bit deeper. Are you even paying attention?

The cause is an atheistic state, which you wish to cloak in the name of stalinism, The cause is an atheistic state, that wished to eridicate any or all peoples of faith.....You are the moron.......Read a little deeper. Yes it does claim to be a stalinistic agenda, but the effects are very radical and deeply atheistic in nature....




I know what lets call a whole country that punishes anybody who has any type of faith a stalinistc agenda.... Get real buddy. it's an athesitic agenda.



Ps be glad you an old man who can get his kicks from insulting people over a keyboard, if you were to conduct yourself to my face like that, I would lay you out flat on your back.

If a christian commits a murder, is it Theism thats at fault?

No, But if a Christian or a nation of Christians commit murders and imprison and torture people simply becase somebody opposess their belief system, ( Which Christians are certainly guilty of ) Then yes they are also guilty. But you can not charge all of theisim just Chritianity in this instance, which falls into the category of theisim.

But then the answer is no, right? Since you said that it is Christianities fault, and i didnt say whether it was the fault of any individual theistic sect, i asked if it is Theisms fault.

The same applies to Communism and Atheism. Its not atheisms fault, its communism fault. After all, Buddhists are atheists too, and yet Buddhists would be rejected by communists because Buddhism is a religion.

Very clever...But so many sects can fall under the name of theism and there can be holy wars, I guess in this case if two atheistic groups challenge each other, it's the same sort of thing....without the holy.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:10:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 10:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
If a Christian kills someone for being a witch, it is likly the fault of Christianity, because it is clear from the Christian Bible that witches must be killed. There are many other examples where the bible enjoins Christians to murder people. And when a Christian heeds these injunctions, it is right to say the crime is a consequence of Christianity.

What enjoins an atheist to commit a crime? The answer is nothing. There is no book; there is no ideology. Atheism is doubt.

The state atheism you bring up is a consequence of communist totalitarianism. The ideology is clear.

I've known a lot of atheists and I've never in my life known of an atheist advocating this idea of state atheism. It doesn't exist as an ideal in modern, atheism. It's communist totalitarianism.

Listen buddy, I'm not sure what you are trying to twist this into

I've made the same point several times. It's not that hard.

State atheism is a different type of thing than atheism. State atheism is a set of policies based on a set of beliefs. Atheism, as you've pointed out, is doubt.

Radical atheism would mean radical doubt. You can only doubt the claims of religion to a certain extent. Consequently, radical atheism isn't really possible; you can't really doubt something to a moderate or extreme level; you either doubt something or you don't (for the most part).


but this is the way I see it. If a nation, Albania, declares itself an atheistic state and punishes every body who has any type of faith or religion, and encourages and forces society to renounce God, then that is an atheistic agenda.

An 'atheistic agenda' couldn't be possible. Decompressed, that phrase means: an agenda based on the doubt of religious claims. What would such an agenda entail? Nothing. You have to have beliefs to comprise an political agenda. State atheism is what the communists called a set of beliefs that justified the persecution of the religious. This isn't radical atheism because atheism is doubt.

Actuallly, a better would for state atheism would be 'violent anti-clericalism'. Here, the '-ism' in 'anti-clericalism' would properly be employeed doing the work of denoting a belief system - something it fails to do in the word 'atheism'.

If they declared thesmselves a Muslim state and punished anybody who never conformed to Muslim way of thought and forced people to accept God against their will then it would be a Muslim attrocity.

Answer this:

Islam is to the Koran as
Atheism is to:______

In this case atheism is the emphasis and I stand by my claims. When it's a crime to declare your faith and you are forced to conform to atheism in the rejection of a belief God or just outright not allowed to even declare a belief, that is radical atheism enforced by tyranny.

No such thing as radical doubt in one or more gods. It's anti-clericalism.


If I live in my house and I wish to believe in God but my parents are atheist and would punish me with death if I reveal my faith.

The would be anti-clericalists.

Yes, my parents are atrocious and committing an atrocity with their hostility to their own child who won't conform to an atheistic mind set.

Yes, my dad was very restrictive as well.



A belief system that punishes people who don't conform to their belief system is stupid.

Not really, it achieves the system's primary goal of perpetuating itself - at least in the short term.


You will argue that atheism is not a belief system but still theism is, and to punish those who have a religious belief system and faith and force them to conform to the atheistic mind set of no belief system, is still forcing people to conform and is a violation of anybodys freedom in anybody's book.

Yes, the best way to deal with the problem of religion in society is to do what Western, secular democracies do: Ensure that everyone can think whatever they want while ensuring that nobody is harmed as a consequence. This is what we atheists (a better word here would be "commited secularist") insist on.



I'm not sure what you are getting at, in fact I am, and you are splitting hairs......You are hiding behind a defense that atheisim is nothing, not even a belief system....But you are clearly missing the whole point.....Atheisim can oppsoe those who hold belief systems..... In this case the oppsing party to those who had belief systems or faith were atheistic and wished to promote such a veiw on it's nation, a view of condeming those with faith and forcing those with faith to act as if they were atheist and deny their beliefs instead.....I am not crazy m8..... It's pure and simple...

Why won't you respond to my arguments?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:20:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:10:35 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
If a Christian kills someone for being a witch, it is likly the fault of Christianity, because it is clear from the Christian Bible that witches must be killed. There are many other examples where the bible enjoins Christians to murder people. And when a Christian heeds these injunctions, it is right to say the crime is a consequence of Christianity.

What enjoins an atheist to commit a crime? The answer is nothing. There is no book; there is no ideology. Atheism is doubt.

The state atheism you bring up is a consequence of communist totalitarianism. The ideology is clear.

I've known a lot of atheists and I've never in my life known of an atheist advocating this idea of state atheism. It doesn't exist as an ideal in modern, atheism. It's communist totalitarianism.

Listen buddy, I'm not sure what you are trying to twist this into

I've made the same point several times. It's not that hard.

State atheism is a different type of thing than atheism. State atheism is a set of policies based on a set of beliefs. Atheism, as you've pointed out, is doubt.

Radical atheism would mean radical doubt. You can only doubt the claims of religion to a certain extent. Consequently, radical atheism isn't really possible; you can't really doubt something to a moderate or extreme level; you either doubt something or you don't (for the most part).


but this is the way I see it. If a nation, Albania, declares itself an atheistic state and punishes every body who has any type of faith or religion, and encourages and forces society to renounce God, then that is an atheistic agenda.

An 'atheistic agenda' couldn't be possible. Decompressed, that phrase means: an agenda based on the doubt of religious claims. What would such an agenda entail? Nothing. You have to have beliefs to comprise an political agenda. State atheism is what the communists called a set of beliefs that justified the persecution of the religious. This isn't radical atheism because atheism is doubt.

Actuallly, a better would for state atheism would be 'violent anti-clericalism'. Here, the '-ism' in 'anti-clericalism' would properly be employeed doing the work of denoting a belief system - something it fails to do in the word 'atheism'.

If they declared thesmselves a Muslim state and punished anybody who never conformed to Muslim way of thought and forced people to accept God against their will then it would be a Muslim attrocity.

Answer this:

Islam is to the Koran as
Atheism is to:______

In this case atheism is the emphasis and I stand by my claims. When it's a crime to declare your faith and you are forced to conform to atheism in the rejection of a belief God or just outright not allowed to even declare a belief, that is radical atheism enforced by tyranny.

No such thing as radical doubt in one or more gods. It's anti-clericalism.


If I live in my house and I wish to believe in God but my parents are atheist and would punish me with death if I reveal my faith.

The would be anti-clericalists.

Yes, my parents are atrocious and committing an atrocity with their hostility to their own child who won't conform to an atheistic mind set.

Yes, my dad was very restrictive as well.



A belief system that punishes people who don't conform to their belief system is stupid.

Not really, it achieves the system's primary goal of perpetuating itself - at least in the short term.


You will argue that atheism is not a belief system but still theism is, and to punish those who have a religious belief system and faith and force them to conform to the atheistic mind set of no belief system, is still forcing people to conform and is a violation of anybodys freedom in anybody's book.

Yes, the best way to deal with the problem of religion in society is to do what Western, secular democracies do: Ensure that everyone can think whatever they want while ensuring that nobody is harmed as a consequence. This is what we atheists (a better word here would be "commited secularist") insist on.



I'm not sure what you are getting at, in fact I am, and you are splitting hairs......You are hiding behind a defense that atheisim is nothing, not even a belief system....But you are clearly missing the whole point.....Atheisim can oppsoe those who hold belief systems..... In this case the oppsing party to those who had belief systems or faith were atheistic and wished to promote such a veiw on it's nation, a view of condeming those with faith and forcing those with faith to act as if they were atheist and deny their beliefs instead.....I am not crazy m8..... It's pure and simple...

Why won't you respond to my arguments?

I gave a response, I accuse you of trying to hiding behind semantics....First you say atheisim is no belief system and has no agenda....When in fact atheisim can oppose other belief systems, Which is what happened in albania, It declared itself an atheistic state, and punished anybody who held a belief system.....This to me my friend is not.........nothing.........as you wish to portray....It is actually something....It is a regime that punishes anybody who is anything but an atheist......Simple....Atheists are not punished but people of faith are.....Is this that hard for you to figure out?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:42:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

Perhaps atheism doesn't, but a lot of atheists do.

I don't agree with his hypothesis about the tragedies in Albania, especially when so many people there are, and always have been, Muslim (Jew-saving Muslims, by the way...unsung heroes of the Holocaust, frankly), but foreseeing a dogmatic, agenda driven sect of atheism come to the forefront with a massive contingent of blindly following disciples isn't hard to imagine. In fact, it's not even necessary to imagine. This is the state of modern day atheism - it's a religion.

(next person to tell me irony is dead is getting smote by God...)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:52:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:42:36 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

Perhaps atheism doesn't, but a lot of atheists do.

Yes, and since everyone involved in this tragedy was Albanian, then we can conclude that being Albanian was a causal factor too. Those damned, dirty Albanians...


I don't agree with his hypothesis about the tragedies in Albania, especially when so many people there are, and always have been, Muslim (Jew-saving Muslims, by the way...unsung heroes of the Holocaust, frankly), but foreseeing a dogmatic, agenda driven sect of atheism come to the forefront with a massive contingent of blindly following disciples isn't hard to imagine.

Stalinism is a sect of Communism which is a socioeconomic philosophy. They are not "sects" of atheism even if they have atheism as an attribute or component.

In fact, it's not even necessary to imagine. This is the state of modern day atheism - it's a religion.

(next person to tell me irony is dead is getting smote by God...)
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:19:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:20:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:10:35 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
If a Christian kills someone for being a witch, it is likly the fault of Christianity, because it is clear from the Christian Bible that witches must be killed. There are many other examples where the bible enjoins Christians to murder people. And when a Christian heeds these injunctions, it is right to say the crime is a consequence of Christianity.

What enjoins an atheist to commit a crime? The answer is nothing. There is no book; there is no ideology. Atheism is doubt.

The state atheism you bring up is a consequence of communist totalitarianism. The ideology is clear.

I've known a lot of atheists and I've never in my life known of an atheist advocating this idea of state atheism. It doesn't exist as an ideal in modern, atheism. It's communist totalitarianism.

Listen buddy, I'm not sure what you are trying to twist this into

I've made the same point several times. It's not that hard.

State atheism is a different type of thing than atheism. State atheism is a set of policies based on a set of beliefs. Atheism, as you've pointed out, is doubt.

Radical atheism would mean radical doubt. You can only doubt the claims of religion to a certain extent. Consequently, radical atheism isn't really possible; you can't really doubt something to a moderate or extreme level; you either doubt something or you don't (for the most part).


but this is the way I see it. If a nation, Albania, declares itself an atheistic state and punishes every body who has any type of faith or religion, and encourages and forces society to renounce God, then that is an atheistic agenda.

An 'atheistic agenda' couldn't be possible. Decompressed, that phrase means: an agenda based on the doubt of religious claims. What would such an agenda entail? Nothing. You have to have beliefs to comprise an political agenda. State atheism is what the communists called a set of beliefs that justified the persecution of the religious. This isn't radical atheism because atheism is doubt.

Actuallly, a better would for state atheism would be 'violent anti-clericalism'. Here, the '-ism' in 'anti-clericalism' would properly be employeed doing the work of denoting a belief system - something it fails to do in the word 'atheism'.

If they declared thesmselves a Muslim state and punished anybody who never conformed to Muslim way of thought and forced people to accept God against their will then it would be a Muslim attrocity.

Answer this:

Islam is to the Koran as
Atheism is to:______

In this case atheism is the emphasis and I stand by my claims. When it's a crime to declare your faith and you are forced to conform to atheism in the rejection of a belief God or just outright not allowed to even declare a belief, that is radical atheism enforced by tyranny.

No such thing as radical doubt in one or more gods. It's anti-clericalism.


If I live in my house and I wish to believe in God but my parents are atheist and would punish me with death if I reveal my faith.

The would be anti-clericalists.

Yes, my parents are atrocious and committing an atrocity with their hostility to their own child who won't conform to an atheistic mind set.

Yes, my dad was very restrictive as well.



A belief system that punishes people who don't conform to their belief system is stupid.

Not really, it achieves the system's primary goal of perpetuating itself - at least in the short term.


You will argue that atheism is not a belief system but still theism is, and to punish those who have a religious belief system and faith and force them to conform to the atheistic mind set of no belief system, is still forcing people to conform and is a violation of anybodys freedom in anybody's book.

Yes, the best way to deal with the problem of religion in society is to do what Western, secular democracies do: Ensure that everyone can think whatever they want while ensuring that nobody is harmed as a consequence. This is what we atheists (a better word here would be "commited secularist") insist on.



I'm not sure what you are getting at, in fact I am, and you are splitting hairs......You are hiding behind a defense that atheisim is nothing, not even a belief system....But you are clearly missing the whole point.....Atheisim can oppsoe those who hold belief systems..... In this case the oppsing party to those who had belief systems or faith were atheistic and wished to promote such a veiw on it's nation, a view of condeming those with faith and forcing those with faith to act as if they were atheist and deny their beliefs instead.....I am not crazy m8..... It's pure and simple...

Why won't you respond to my arguments?


I gave a response, I accuse you of trying to hiding behind semantics....

That's not a response to my semantic arguments, though, which were to expose the semantic fallacy, equivication, which your argument is based on. Just because the anti-clerical policies of soviet-era regimes are called "state atheism" doesn't make them an extension of atheism. The phrase "state atheism" is an abuse of the traditional meaning of atheism, which is doubt regarding the existence of a god(s).

First you say atheisim is no belief system and has no agenda....

Right.

When in fact atheisim can oppose other belief systems,

No, it can't. Atheism is doubt. Doubt can't do anything.

Which is what happened in albania, It declared itself an atheistic state, and punished anybody who held a belief system.....This to me my friend is not.........nothing.........as you wish to portray....

I call it violent anti-clericalism.

It is actually something....It is a regime that punishes anybody who is anything but an atheist......Simple....Atheists are not punished but people of faith are.....Is this that hard for you to figure out?

A communist dictatorship sought to violently rid its country of religion. Juxtopose this fact with the fact that some people in the world fail to be convinced by the claims of religion. In terms of ideology, these aren't the same thing.

In fact, they are polar opposites. The communist is someone convinced of a total solution to societal problems. An atheist is someone who is *unconvinced* that religion is the total solution to any problem. Atheism is skeptisism. The atheists who abandoned traditional religions for the state religion of communism simply switched their religions.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 1:17:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 12:19:14 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:20:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:10:35 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
If a Christian kills someone for being a witch, it is likly the fault of Christianity, because it is clear from the Christian Bible that witches must be killed. There are many other examples where the bible enjoins Christians to murder people. And when a Christian heeds these injunctions, it is right to say the crime is a consequence of Christianity.

What enjoins an atheist to commit a crime? The answer is nothing. There is no book; there is no ideology. Atheism is doubt.

The state atheism you bring up is a consequence of communist totalitarianism. The ideology is clear.

I've known a lot of atheists and I've never in my life known of an atheist advocating this idea of state atheism. It doesn't exist as an ideal in modern, atheism. It's communist totalitarianism.

Listen buddy, I'm not sure what you are trying to twist this into

I've made the same point several times. It's not that hard.

State atheism is a different type of thing than atheism. State atheism is a set of policies based on a set of beliefs. Atheism, as you've pointed out, is doubt.

Radical atheism would mean radical doubt. You can only doubt the claims of religion to a certain extent. Consequently, radical atheism isn't really possible; you can't really doubt something to a moderate or extreme level; you either doubt something or you don't (for the most part).


but this is the way I see it. If a nation, Albania, declares itself an atheistic state and punishes every body who has any type of faith or religion, and encourages and forces society to renounce God, then that is an atheistic agenda.

An 'atheistic agenda' couldn't be possible. Decompressed, that phrase means: an agenda based on the doubt of religious claims. What would such an agenda entail? Nothing. You have to have beliefs to comprise an political agenda. State atheism is what the communists called a set of beliefs that justified the persecution of the religious. This isn't radical atheism because atheism is doubt.

Actuallly, a better would for state atheism would be 'violent anti-clericalism'. Here, the '-ism' in 'anti-clericalism' would properly be employeed doing the work of denoting a belief system - something it fails to do in the word 'atheism'.

If they declared thesmselves a Muslim state and punished anybody who never conformed to Muslim way of thought and forced people to accept God against their will then it would be a Muslim attrocity.

Answer this:

Islam is to the Koran as
Atheism is to:______

In this case atheism is the emphasis and I stand by my claims. When it's a crime to declare your faith and you are forced to conform to atheism in the rejection of a belief God or just outright not allowed to even declare a belief, that is radical atheism enforced by tyranny.

No such thing as radical doubt in one or more gods. It's anti-clericalism.


If I live in my house and I wish to believe in God but my parents are atheist and would punish me with death if I reveal my faith.

The would be anti-clericalists.

Yes, my parents are atrocious and committing an atrocity with their hostility to their own child who won't conform to an atheistic mind set.

Yes, my dad was very restrictive as well.



A belief system that punishes people who don't conform to their belief system is stupid.

Not really, it achieves the system's primary goal of perpetuating itself - at least in the short term.


You will argue that atheism is not a belief system but still theism is, and to punish those who have a religious belief system and faith and force them to conform to the atheistic mind set of no belief system, is still forcing people to conform and is a violation of anybodys freedom in anybody's book.

Yes, the best way to deal with the problem of religion in society is to do what Western, secular democracies do: Ensure that everyone can think whatever they want while ensuring that nobody is harmed as a consequence. This is what we atheists (a better word here would be "commited secularist") insist on.



I'm not sure what you are getting at, in fact I am, and you are splitting hairs......You are hiding behind a defense that atheisim is nothing, not even a belief system....But you are clearly missing the whole point.....Atheisim can oppsoe those who hold belief systems..... In this case the oppsing party to those who had belief systems or faith were atheistic and wished to promote such a veiw on it's nation, a view of condeming those with faith and forcing those with faith to act as if they were atheist and deny their beliefs instead.....I am not crazy m8..... It's pure and simple...

Why won't you respond to my arguments?


I gave a response, I accuse you of trying to hiding behind semantics....

That's not a response to my semantic arguments, though, which were to expose the semantic fallacy, equivication, which your argument is based on. Just because the anti-clerical policies of soviet-era regimes are called "state atheism" doesn't make them an extension of atheism. The phrase "state atheism" is an abuse of the traditional meaning of atheism, which is doubt regarding the existence of a god(s).

First you say atheisim is no belief system and has no agenda....

Right.

When in fact atheisim can oppose other belief systems,

No, it can't. Atheism is doubt. Doubt can't do anything.

Which is what happened in albania, It declared itself an atheistic state, and punished anybody who held a belief system.....This to me my friend is not.........nothing.........as you wish to portray....

I call it violent anti-clericalism.

It is actually something....It is a regime that punishes anybody who is anything but an atheist......Simple....Atheists are not punished but people of faith are.....Is this that hard for you to figure out?

A communist dictatorship sought to violently rid its country of religion. Juxtopose this fact with the fact that some people in the world fail to be convinced by the claims of religion. In terms of ideology, these aren't the same thing.

In fact, they are polar opposites. The communist is someone convinced of a total solution to societal problems. An atheist is someone who is *unconvinced* that religion is the total solution to any problem. Atheism is skeptisism. The atheists who abandoned traditional religions for the state religion of communism simply switched their religions.

There is no need for us to continue further, I do not agree with your semantic argument and language structure.....You are claiming atheisim can not do anything because it is simply non belief.....Heres a little eye opener for you buddy........Those with non belief ( The atheists), Killed, tortured, and imprisioned, and punished those who had belief or faith....Ie' those who hold no belief, Atheists, Killed punished and tortured people who had beliefs.....Call it communism, call it stallinism, call it voodo magic, whatever
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 1:23:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:52:42 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:42:36 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

Perhaps atheism doesn't, but a lot of atheists do.

Yes, and since everyone involved in this tragedy was Albanian, then we can conclude that being Albanian was a causal factor too. Those damned, dirty Albanians...

Your logic is flawed here, but you brought me back on board with "those damned, dirty Albanians..."

what's next?



I don't agree with his hypothesis about the tragedies in Albania, especially when so many people there are, and always have been, Muslim (Jew-saving Muslims, by the way...unsung heroes of the Holocaust, frankly), but foreseeing a dogmatic, agenda driven sect of atheism come to the forefront with a massive contingent of blindly following disciples isn't hard to imagine.

Stalinism is a sect of Communism which is a socioeconomic philosophy. They are not "sects" of atheism even if they have atheism as an attribute or component.

As it turns out, it is the dominant one and the one most people associate with Communism.

If you're lucky enough to find a high school kid who knows who Stalin is, I can nearly guarantee they'll have no idea who Trotsky is. Even most of the young people here have no idea who he is, and these are the "smart, informed" young people

what else you got?


In fact, it's not even necessary to imagine. This is the state of modern day atheism - it's a religion.

(next person to tell me irony is dead is getting smote by God...)

How many atheists understand the Christianity against which they're rebelling or the science they claim as a suitable replacement for it?

When you don't understand or know something but believe in it anyway, that's faith; blind faith, even. Faith is a characteristic of theist religions.

Like I said, I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor...

http://www.youtube.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 1:45:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 1:17:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:19:14 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:20:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:10:35 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:


There is no need for us to continue further,

Why? You haven't conceded the argument yet.

I do not agree with your semantic argument and language structure.....You are claiming atheisim can not do anything because it is simply non belief.....Heres a little eye opener for you buddy........Those with non belief ( The atheists), Killed, tortured, and imprisioned, and punished those who had belief or faith

You wouldn't claim that they were void of beliefs.

And you wouldn't claim that these crimes were not the cause of beliefs.

And you conceded that atheism is doubt.

And it's more than obvious that the these beliefs were those of violent communists. They *believed* the best way to deal with the problems of religion in Albania (real and perceived) was to exterpate religion altogether.

This is voilent anti-clericalism, i.e., state atheism. It's not atheism, per se or an extension of atheism.

....Ie' those who hold no belief, Atheists, Killed punished and tortured people who had beliefs.....Call it communism, call it stallinism, call it voodo magic, whatever
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 1:45:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 1:23:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:52:42 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:42:36 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

Perhaps atheism doesn't, but a lot of atheists do.

Yes, and since everyone involved in this tragedy was Albanian, then we can conclude that being Albanian was a causal factor too. Those damned, dirty Albanians...

Your logic is flawed here, but you brought me back on board with "those damned, dirty Albanians..."

what's next?

Yes, the logic is flawed. That's my point. And, by analogy, so is yours.




I don't agree with his hypothesis about the tragedies in Albania, especially when so many people there are, and always have been, Muslim (Jew-saving Muslims, by the way...unsung heroes of the Holocaust, frankly), but foreseeing a dogmatic, agenda driven sect of atheism come to the forefront with a massive contingent of blindly following disciples isn't hard to imagine.

Stalinism is a sect of Communism which is a socioeconomic philosophy. They are not "sects" of atheism even if they have atheism as an attribute or component.

As it turns out, it is the dominant one and the one most people associate with Communism.

If you're lucky enough to find a high school kid who knows who Stalin is, I can nearly guarantee they'll have no idea who Trotsky is. Even most of the young people here have no idea who he is, and these are the "smart, informed" young people

what else you got?

Not sure what else I need, except an understanding of what relevance this little critique of high school kids has to do with anything.



In fact, it's not even necessary to imagine. This is the state of modern day atheism - it's a religion.

(next person to tell me irony is dead is getting smote by God...)

How many atheists understand the Christianity against which they're rebelling or the science they claim as a suitable replacement for it?

More than Christians, for what it's worth.
http://www.npr.org...


When you don't understand or know something but believe in it anyway, that's faith; blind faith, even. Faith is a characteristic of theist religions.

Like I said, I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor...

http://www.youtube.com...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 2:10:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 1:45:15 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/28/2013 1:23:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:52:42 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:42:36 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

Perhaps atheism doesn't, but a lot of atheists do.

Yes, and since everyone involved in this tragedy was Albanian, then we can conclude that being Albanian was a causal factor too. Those damned, dirty Albanians...

Your logic is flawed here, but you brought me back on board with "those damned, dirty Albanians..."

what's next?

Yes, the logic is flawed. That's my point. And, by analogy, so is yours.

not so much. I made a statement that was both true, and not contradictory of itself...check that one out again...I think I'm good.




I don't agree with his hypothesis about the tragedies in Albania, especially when so many people there are, and always have been, Muslim (Jew-saving Muslims, by the way...unsung heroes of the Holocaust, frankly), but foreseeing a dogmatic, agenda driven sect of atheism come to the forefront with a massive contingent of blindly following disciples isn't hard to imagine.

Stalinism is a sect of Communism which is a socioeconomic philosophy. They are not "sects" of atheism even if they have atheism as an attribute or component.

As it turns out, it is the dominant one and the one most people associate with Communism.

If you're lucky enough to find a high school kid who knows who Stalin is, I can nearly guarantee they'll have no idea who Trotsky is. Even most of the young people here have no idea who he is, and these are the "smart, informed" young people

what else you got?

Not sure what else I need, except an understanding of what relevance this little critique of high school kids has to do with anything.

It's an illustration of the difference between reality and perceived reality.

What's more real - the truth or the lie that 94% of people believe to be the truth?

That was the point.



In fact, it's not even necessary to imagine. This is the state of modern day atheism - it's a religion.

(next person to tell me irony is dead is getting smote by God...)

How many atheists understand the Christianity against which they're rebelling or the science they claim as a suitable replacement for it?

More than Christians, for what it's worth.
http://www.npr.org...

Given how little Christians know, not much. (also, that survey was, from everything I can ascertain, a comparative religion 101 quiz. Atheists, on average, still don't truly understand the nature of God and religion, though again, you're absolutely correct in pointing out that most Christians don't either, but that is completely beside the point, is it not?)


When you don't understand or know something but believe in it anyway, that's faith; blind faith, even. Faith is a characteristic of theist religions.

Like I said, I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor...

http://www.youtube.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 6:48:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 2:10:48 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 1:45:15 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/28/2013 1:23:04 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:52:42 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:42:36 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:06:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:50:44 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:48:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
How did atheism "cause" these atrocities?

Excuse me? Are you serious........

Extremely. You see, atheism has no dogma or directives with which to influence someone vis-a-vis religion. If you bothered to look a bit deeper, you could have seen the causal factors here. From the references in that wikipedia article:

Perhaps atheism doesn't, but a lot of atheists do.

Yes, and since everyone involved in this tragedy was Albanian, then we can conclude that being Albanian was a causal factor too. Those damned, dirty Albanians...

Your logic is flawed here, but you brought me back on board with "those damned, dirty Albanians..."

what's next?

Yes, the logic is flawed. That's my point. And, by analogy, so is yours.

not so much. I made a statement that was both true, and not contradictory of itself...check that one out again...I think I'm good.

I'm sure you do. Otherwise I doubt you would have made the comment.





I don't agree with his hypothesis about the tragedies in Albania, especially when so many people there are, and always have been, Muslim (Jew-saving Muslims, by the way...unsung heroes of the Holocaust, frankly), but foreseeing a dogmatic, agenda driven sect of atheism come to the forefront with a massive contingent of blindly following disciples isn't hard to imagine.

Stalinism is a sect of Communism which is a socioeconomic philosophy. They are not "sects" of atheism even if they have atheism as an attribute or component.

As it turns out, it is the dominant one and the one most people associate with Communism.

If you're lucky enough to find a high school kid who knows who Stalin is, I can nearly guarantee they'll have no idea who Trotsky is. Even most of the young people here have no idea who he is, and these are the "smart, informed" young people

what else you got?

Not sure what else I need, except an understanding of what relevance this little critique of high school kids has to do with anything.

It's an illustration of the difference between reality and perceived reality.

What's more real - the truth or the lie that 94% of people believe to be the truth?

That was the point.

Still don't see how that pertains to the fact that Stalinism is a sect of communism, not atheism.




In fact, it's not even necessary to imagine. This is the state of modern day atheism - it's a religion.

(next person to tell me irony is dead is getting smote by God...)

How many atheists understand the Christianity against which they're rebelling or the science they claim as a suitable replacement for it?

More than Christians, for what it's worth.
http://www.npr.org...

Given how little Christians know, not much. (also, that survey was, from everything I can ascertain, a comparative religion 101 quiz. Atheists, on average, still don't truly understand the nature of God and religion, though again, you're absolutely correct in pointing out that most Christians don't either, but that is completely beside the point, is it not?)

Not if we're talking about what atheists understand about the Christianity they're rebelling against.



When you don't understand or know something but believe in it anyway, that's faith; blind faith, even. Faith is a characteristic of theist religions.

Like I said, I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor...

http://www.youtube.com...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:23:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 6:48:36 PM, drafterman wrote:

I'm sure you do. Otherwise I doubt you would have made the comment.

Well, now that we've got that settled...

Still don't see how that pertains to the fact that Stalinism is a sect of communism, not atheism.

Stalinism has about as much to do with Communism as the NBC Sit-Com, Community. Stalinism was a sect of Totalitarian Dictatorship, not Communism, and yet, people associate it with Communism because it has a tiny one of its roots there.

Just like neuvo-atheism is barely true atheism.

I'm an atheist. I do not give a f*c what Christians decide to believe or not believe in. I simply don't believe in a deity like they do (by the way, there are ~2700 deities that neither they nor I believe in, so we're like THAT close to believing the same thing).

Militant atheism is redunkulous. Let it go, man (not you, necessarily, but them...Tyson, in the video I posted...or maybe the other one I posed in the religion room, gave the only convincing argument I'd ever heard for agnosticism. Know what it was? It was that he didn't want to be associated with atheism. Works for me...he is the 1st person I consider agnostic, if only because he's the 1st person who has put forth a case for agnosticism that wasn't stupid...good work Neal...)

Not if we're talking about what atheists understand about the Christianity they're rebelling against.

OK...you and I are both sponsoring contestants in an academic tournament. My "guy" is an aardvark, and yours is a marmot. Would you say one is the odds on favorite to win?

I guess what I'm saying is that they're all stupid, and I expect more from atheists, even if you've set the bar at the incredibly low mark of "knows slightly more than Christians."

To me, to be an atheist and truly understand that choice, you've got to be significantly more spiritually knowledgeable than the average Christian, and also have a firm grasp of science.

Scoring in the 65th percentile on a simplistic comparative religion quiz doesn't quite get you there in my book...but, that's just my book. You're free to have your own book if you so choose.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:40:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:23:23 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 6:48:36 PM, drafterman wrote:

I'm sure you do. Otherwise I doubt you would have made the comment.

Well, now that we've got that settled...

Still don't see how that pertains to the fact that Stalinism is a sect of communism, not atheism.

Stalinism has about as much to do with Communism as the NBC Sit-Com, Community. Stalinism was a sect of Totalitarian Dictatorship, not Communism, and yet, people associate it with Communism because it has a tiny one of its roots there.

Cool, then we agree that it isn't a sect of atheism.


Just like neuvo-atheism is barely true atheism.

I'm an atheist. I do not give a f*c what Christians decide to believe or not believe in. I simply don't believe in a deity like they do (by the way, there are ~2700 deities that neither they nor I believe in, so we're like THAT close to believing the same thing).

Militant atheism is redunkulous. Let it go, man (not you, necessarily, but them...Tyson, in the video I posted...or maybe the other one I posed in the religion room, gave the only convincing argument I'd ever heard for agnosticism. Know what it was? It was that he didn't want to be associated with atheism. Works for me...he is the 1st person I consider agnostic, if only because he's the 1st person who has put forth a case for agnosticism that wasn't stupid...good work Neal...)

Not if we're talking about what atheists understand about the Christianity they're rebelling against.

OK...you and I are both sponsoring contestants in an academic tournament. My "guy" is an aardvark, and yours is a marmot. Would you say one is the odds on favorite to win?

I guess what I'm saying is that they're all stupid, and I expect more from atheists, even if you've set the bar at the incredibly low mark of "knows slightly more than Christians."

Well, I didn't set that bar, you did.


To me, to be an atheist and truly understand that choice, you've got to be significantly more spiritually knowledgeable than the average Christian, and also have a firm grasp of science.

How can you gain knowledge about something (spirituality) that doesn't exist?
That's like being an expert on unicorns. Not, like, an expert on the myths of unicorns, but an expert on real unicorns.


Scoring in the 65th percentile on a simplistic comparative religion quiz doesn't quite get you there in my book...but, that's just my book. You're free to have your own book if you so choose.

Well, now that I have your permission...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:23:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 1:45:09 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 1:17:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:19:14 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:20:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:10:35 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:


There is no need for us to continue further,

Why? You haven't conceded the argument yet.

I do not agree with your semantic argument and language structure.....You are claiming atheisim can not do anything because it is simply non belief.....Heres a little eye opener for you buddy........Those with non belief ( The atheists), Killed, tortured, and imprisioned, and punished those who had belief or faith

You wouldn't claim that they were void of beliefs.

And you wouldn't claim that these crimes were not the cause of beliefs.

And you conceded that atheism is doubt.

And it's more than obvious that the these beliefs were those of violent communists. They *believed* the best way to deal with the problems of religion in Albania (real and perceived) was to exterpate religion altogether.

This is voilent anti-clericalism, i.e., state atheism. It's not atheism, per se or an extension of atheism.

....Ie' those who hold no belief, Atheists, Killed punished and tortured people who had beliefs.....Call it communism, call it stallinism, call it voodo magic, whatever

Did Is say I concede? No. I said I do not agree with you. Convincing yourself doesn't prove anything, I am not convinced, and nethier do I need your verification.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:54:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/1/2013 10:23:42 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 1:45:09 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 1:17:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:19:14 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:20:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:10:35 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 10:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:27:31 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:08:54 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:28:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:


There is no need for us to continue further,

Why? You haven't conceded the argument yet.

I do not agree with your semantic argument and language structure.....You are claiming atheisim can not do anything because it is simply non belief.....Heres a little eye opener for you buddy........Those with non belief ( The atheists), Killed, tortured, and imprisioned, and punished those who had belief or faith

You wouldn't claim that they were void of beliefs.

And you wouldn't claim that these crimes were not the cause of beliefs.

And you conceded that atheism is doubt.

And it's more than obvious that the these beliefs were those of violent communists. They *believed* the best way to deal with the problems of religion in Albania (real and perceived) was to exterpate religion altogether.

This is voilent anti-clericalism, i.e., state atheism. It's not atheism, per se or an extension of atheism.

....Ie' those who hold no belief, Atheists, Killed punished and tortured people who had beliefs.....Call it communism, call it stallinism, call it voodo magic, whatever

Did Is say I concede? No. I said I do not agree with you.

I was saying that we should continue the discussion until you concede the argument.

Convincing yourself doesn't prove anything, I am not convinced, and nethier do I need your verification.

Until you've dealt with my arguments, you aren't justified in your belief that the atrocities in Albania were the result of atheism.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 11:16:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The point here is that johnlubba needs to apologize to every atheist for the actions of all Radical Muslims, because they're theists and so is he, which is essentially his argument for why all of atheism is tarred by the actions of the Albanian Stalinists.

Just as all individual religious sects take on MORE than simple theism, Communistic governments take on MORE than simple atheism.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.