|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:43 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Mao was a hypocrite. He encouraged the cult of personality which led to the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the genocide in Tibet. Maybe he was an atheist, but his followers (Who never questioned his often simplistic or outright insane ideas) were certainly not. During the cultural revolution (I read a non-fiction book 'bout it) they encouraged everybody to be atheist. Religion was one of the four-olds Atheist in name, but not really atheist. They also encouraged people to follow Mao's every commandment. He was worshipped like a God. He was as good as a god in the minds of the Red Guards. Because lack of a god leaves room for people to worship the state. Pure conjecture. There are countless examples of simultaneous theism and state-worship. They often are one and the same, as I am suggesting China was. Quote: Atheism makes it easier to take power. Again, pure conjecture. In fact, I could make the argument that religion makes it far easier to control people's actions i.e. "take power".
Quote: Quote: Saying that is like saying: Jesus Camp isn't the fault of christianity, because it advocates policies the bible doesn't. Not really. A label like "Christianity" is far more specific than "atheism". You can make a lot of claims as to what makes or does not make a Christian. With atheists it's much more obvious. If you believe in a higher power, then you are not an atheist. Even if that higher power is the figurehead of your government. (The ancient Egyptians, for instance, were theists)
True Christians believe what's in the bible, nothing else. There is no flexibility unless it isn't mentioned in the bible.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: It would take nothing short of a god in a society to do what he did in the Cultural Revolution. He started a revolution against his own government, and yet he was somehow the leader of that revolution while simultaneously being the leader of the counter-revolution. Crazy. It's as paradoxical as any other religion. "Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." Suddenly atheism is wrong? No, I'm saying that cults of personality are as dangerous as they've ever been. But quite a few cults of personality were made by atheists who encouraged their followers to be atheist. You're not really encouraging them to be atheist if you're inviting them into a cult, are you?
government=/= religion, simple as that
Religion means that you feel spiritually that there is a supreme being that in some religions created, and governs the universe, but in all religions is a being of magic that humans can't understand. Of course, there are religions with no gods, but they still believe in magic. Mao's followers may have worshiped him, but they certainly didn't believe he was a magical ******** fairy.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: EDIT: I'd also like to point out that the cultural revolution was actually a move to solidify his power in the party No s**t. stare But you called him a madman I never called him a madman, though I think he was in some respects. I said that the circumstances of the Cultural Revolution were crazy. The sheer influence that Mao had on so many people is scary. That he could compartmentalize so many peoples' psyches into believing he was their friend against the government he was in control of is astonishing, to say the least. And even if I do think he's a madman, I don't see what that has to do with the motives behind the Cultural Revolution. They were pretty apparent to anyone who wasn't part of his cult. Listen, I realize that atheists can do bad things just as much as religious people can. That's not my issue with what you've posted. My issue is that you seem to be suggesting that a lack of religion causes excess strife, and that theism prevents more strife than it causes. I think this is untrue.
Quote: I never called him a madman Quote: (Who never questioned his often simplistic or outright insane ideas)
Ok, I worded it wrong |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:32 am
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 During the cultural revolution (I read a non-fiction book 'bout it) they encouraged everybody to be atheist. Religion was one of the four-olds Atheist in name, but not really atheist. They also encouraged people to follow Mao's every commandment. He was worshipped like a God. He was as good as a god in the minds of the Red Guards. Because lack of a god leaves room for people to worship the state. Pure conjecture. There are countless examples of simultaneous theism and state-worship. They often are one and the same, as I am suggesting China was. Quote: Atheism makes it easier to take power. Again, pure conjecture. In fact, I could make the argument that religion makes it far easier to control people's actions i.e. "take power". Ever seen that picture that right-wingers like to show around with the 3 biggest mass murderers of all time, and say that all of them were socialists? Well guess what 2 of them were? My conjectures have proof, do yours?
Absolutely. The ancient Aztecs, the ancient Egyptians, the Papal States, Communist China...All were run by governments who claimed to be divinely inspired. Church and state were one and the same.
Of the three biggest mass murderers of all time, (presumably Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?) two of them developed strong cults around their images (And, in the case of Stalin, his predecessor). The vast majority of Germans during Hitler's time were Catholic, and Hitler himself professed to be a Catholic. Also, much of the Holocaust was justified on religious grounds.
The point is that people believed in a higher power in all of them. Now, will there be exceptions? Of course there will be. None come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of atheist nations committing horrible atrocities without the presence of any cult of state and/or personality.
I'm just pointing out that religion doesn't exactly prevent anything immoral from happening.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Saying that is like saying: Jesus Camp isn't the fault of christianity, because it advocates policies the bible doesn't. Not really. A label like "Christianity" is far more specific than "atheism". You can make a lot of claims as to what makes or does not make a Christian. With atheists it's much more obvious. If you believe in a higher power, then you are not an atheist. Even if that higher power is the figurehead of your government. (The ancient Egyptians, for instance, were theists) Fail True Christians believe what's in the bible, nothing else. There is no flexibility unless it isn't mentioned in the bible.
Which Bible? There are thousands of versions in thousands of different languages. Not to mention peoples' own interpretations of certain words and phrases.
An atheist is much more easily identified and defined. That's a fact.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: "Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." Suddenly atheism is wrong? No, I'm saying that cults of personality are as dangerous as they've ever been. But quite a few cults of personality were made by atheists who encouraged their followers to be atheist. You're not really encouraging them to be atheist if you're inviting them into a cult, are you? I was hoping we wouldn't have to explain this... government=/= religion, simple as that Religion means that you feel spiritually that there is a supreme being that in some religions created, and governs the universe, but in all religions is a being of magic that humans can't understand. Of course, there are religions with no gods, but they still believe in magic. Mao's followers may have worshiped him, but they certainly didn't believe he was a magical ******** fairy.
I'd challenge you to find a definition from a reputable dictionary that uses the word "magic" in its definition of the word "religion".
No, religion is deeper than that. Religion is the adherence to a doctrine inspired by a higher power. Consider the facts:
-The Red Guards carried "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" (The Little Red Book) around with them; it was required reading in the Party.
-Mao was labeled "savior of the people" and the People Daily even said,"Chairman Mao is the red sun in our hearts. Mao Zedong Thought is the source of our life."
-People bowed three times every morning and every evening before an image of Mao in their workplaces.
-Yes, many did believe that Mao had supernatural powers.
That sounds no different from Christianity or Islam, in my view. They had their own Bible and their own Savior, who was also in every one of them and was the source of life. Not to mention the rituals which sound uncannily like the Muslim Salah.
"If there is no God, people will create one. If you call it a personality cult, a superstition, it is everywhere in world including the West." -Mao Zedong
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: EDIT: I'd also like to point out that the cultural revolution was actually a move to solidify his power in the party No s**t. stare But you called him a madman I never called him a madman, though I think he was in some respects. I said that the circumstances of the Cultural Revolution were crazy. The sheer influence that Mao had on so many people is scary. That he could compartmentalize so many peoples' psyches into believing he was their friend against the government he was in control of is astonishing, to say the least. And even if I do think he's a madman, I don't see what that has to do with the motives behind the Cultural Revolution. They were pretty apparent to anyone who wasn't part of his cult. Listen, I realize that atheists can do bad things just as much as religious people can. That's not my issue with what you've posted. My issue is that you seem to be suggesting that a lack of religion causes excess strife, and that theism prevents more strife than it causes. I think this is untrue. Couldn't this be put somewhere else in your response...
What? neutral |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:11 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Atheist in name, but not really atheist. They also encouraged people to follow Mao's every commandment. He was worshipped like a God. He was as good as a god in the minds of the Red Guards. Because lack of a god leaves room for people to worship the state. Pure conjecture. There are countless examples of simultaneous theism and state-worship. They often are one and the same, as I am suggesting China was. Quote: Atheism makes it easier to take power. Again, pure conjecture. In fact, I could make the argument that religion makes it far easier to control people's actions i.e. "take power". Ever seen that picture that right-wingers like to show around with the 3 biggest mass murderers of all time, and say that all of them were socialists? Well guess what 2 of them were? My conjectures have proof, do yours? Absolutely. The ancient Aztecs, the ancient Egyptians, the Papal States, Communist China...All were run by governments who claimed to be divinely inspired. Church and state were one and the same. Of the three biggest mass murderers of all time, (presumably Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?) two of them developed strong cults around their images (And, in the case of Stalin, his predecessor). The vast majority of Germans during Hitler's time were Catholic, and Hitler himself professed to be a Catholic. Also, much of the Holocaust was justified on religious grounds. The point is that people believed in a higher power in all of them. Now, will there be exceptions? Of course there will be. None come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of atheist nations committing horrible atrocities without the presence of any cult of state and/or personality. I'm just pointing out that religion doesn't exactly prevent anything immoral from happening.
And when you say Communist China, I assume you're saying atheism was the religion that was not separated from the state, and you're saying that secularism is the way to go. But many people in this guild claim that if everyone became atheist than the world would be perfect.
When you say that 2 of the 3 I mentioned earlier, this comes back to the fact that religion=/= government. Cults are always centered on the belief that the person being worshipped was either chosen by the universe, or chosen by a God to lead (Ravinia in the Pendragon series for example), but that's not the case with Stalin or Mao, whether it's true with Hitler is questionable.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Saying that is like saying: Jesus Camp isn't the fault of christianity, because it advocates policies the bible doesn't. Not really. A label like "Christianity" is far more specific than "atheism". You can make a lot of claims as to what makes or does not make a Christian. With atheists it's much more obvious. If you believe in a higher power, then you are not an atheist. Even if that higher power is the figurehead of your government. (The ancient Egyptians, for instance, were theists) Fail True Christians believe what's in the bible, nothing else. There is no flexibility unless it isn't mentioned in the bible. Which Bible? There are thousands of versions in thousands of different languages. Not to mention peoples' own interpretations of certain words and phrases. An atheist is much more easily identified and defined. That's a fact.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: No, I'm saying that cults of personality are as dangerous as they've ever been. But quite a few cults of personality were made by atheists who encouraged their followers to be atheist. You're not really encouraging them to be atheist if you're inviting them into a cult, are you? I was hoping we wouldn't have to explain this... government=/= religion, simple as that Religion means that you feel spiritually that there is a supreme being that in some religions created, and governs the universe, but in all religions is a being of magic that humans can't understand. Of course, there are religions with no gods, but they still believe in magic. Mao's followers may have worshiped him, but they certainly didn't believe he was a magical ******** fairy. I'd challenge you to find a definition from a reputable dictionary that uses the word "magic" in its definition of the word "religion". No, religion is deeper than that. Religion is the adherence to a doctrine inspired by a higher power. Consider the facts: -The Red Guards carried "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" (The Little Red Book) around with them; it was required reading in the Party. -Mao was labeled "savior of the people" and the People Daily even said,"Chairman Mao is the red sun in our hearts. Mao Zedong Thought is the source of our life." -People bowed three times every morning and every evening before an image of Mao in their workplaces. -Yes, many did believe that Mao had supernatural powers. That sounds no different from Christianity or Islam, in my view. They had their own Bible and their own Savior, who was also in every one of them and was the source of life. Not to mention the rituals which sound uncannily like the Muslim Salah. "If there is no God, people will create one. If you call it a personality cult, a superstition, it is everywhere in world including the West." -Mao Zedong
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But you called him a madman I never called him a madman, though I think he was in some respects. I said that the circumstances of the Cultural Revolution were crazy. The sheer influence that Mao had on so many people is scary. That he could compartmentalize so many peoples' psyches into believing he was their friend against the government he was in control of is astonishing, to say the least. And even if I do think he's a madman, I don't see what that has to do with the motives behind the Cultural Revolution. They were pretty apparent to anyone who wasn't part of his cult. Listen, I realize that atheists can do bad things just as much as religious people can. That's not my issue with what you've posted. My issue is that you seem to be suggesting that a lack of religion causes excess strife, and that theism prevents more strife than it causes. I think this is untrue. Couldn't this be put somewhere else in your response... What? neutral |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:28 pm
|
|
|
|
Undecillion f_a_i_t_h_l_e_s_s what is your favorite atheist quote? mine is "Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." – Voltaire dl1371 - "Religion is poison."-Chairman Mao speaking to the Dali Lama, right before launching the genocide in Tibet (in an attempt tor remind us that not all atheists are good) [-Erik-] - Religion is like masturbation. Most of us do it, but wouldn't we all be better off if you just kept it to yourself? I believe that the first quote actually goes like this: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
I'm not sure they're listening anymore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:24 pm
|
|
|
|
Undecillion f_a_i_t_h_l_e_s_s what is your favorite atheist quote? mine is "Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." – Voltaire dl1371 - "Religion is poison."-Chairman Mao speaking to the Dali Lama, right before launching the genocide in Tibet (in an attempt tor remind us that not all atheists are good) [-Erik-] - Religion is like masturbation. Most of us do it, but wouldn't we all be better off if you just kept it to yourself? I believe that the first quote actually goes like this: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:18 pm
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Because lack of a god leaves room for people to worship the state. Pure conjecture. There are countless examples of simultaneous theism and state-worship. They often are one and the same, as I am suggesting China was. Quote: Atheism makes it easier to take power. Again, pure conjecture. In fact, I could make the argument that religion makes it far easier to control people's actions i.e. "take power". Ever seen that picture that right-wingers like to show around with the 3 biggest mass murderers of all time, and say that all of them were socialists? Well guess what 2 of them were? My conjectures have proof, do yours? Absolutely. The ancient Aztecs, the ancient Egyptians, the Papal States, Communist China...All were run by governments who claimed to be divinely inspired. Church and state were one and the same. Of the three biggest mass murderers of all time, (presumably Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?) two of them developed strong cults around their images (And, in the case of Stalin, his predecessor). The vast majority of Germans during Hitler's time were Catholic, and Hitler himself professed to be a Catholic. Also, much of the Holocaust was justified on religious grounds. The point is that people believed in a higher power in all of them. Now, will there be exceptions? Of course there will be. None come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of atheist nations committing horrible atrocities without the presence of any cult of state and/or personality. I'm just pointing out that religion doesn't exactly prevent anything immoral from happening. I never said religion was worse than atheism, what I did say was that religion is bad in some ways and atheism is bad in others. The Holocaust may have been justified on religious grounds, but it was actually racism that inspired it.
Racism which was based on religious grounds.
Honestly, I prefer to just believe that Hitler was a crazy mofo. I was just pointing out that atheism didn't cause the holocaust.
Quote: Also, the Aztecs, and Ancient Egyptians didn't mass murder...
Maybe you should look that up.
Quote: And when you say Communist China, I assume you're saying atheism was the religion that was not separated from the state
No, you don't understand. I'm actually saying that Mao's China was not an atheist nation at all.
Quote: and you're saying that secularism is the way to go. But many people in this guild claim that if everyone became atheist than the world would be perfect.
I don't think any of them think the world would be perfect. I think a lot of them probably believe that without religion one prominent problem humanity constantly faces would be gone. I believe that.
Quote: When you say that 2 of the 3 I mentioned earlier, this comes back to the fact that religion=/= government. Cults are always centered on the belief that the person being worshipped was either chosen by the universe, or chosen by a God to lead (Ravinia in the Pendragon series for example), but that's not the case with Stalin or Mao, whether it's true with Hitler is questionable.
The fact that it's true with Mao is pretty much undeniable. Mao was a living god in China.
Stalin is a bit different. He wasn't able to muster quite the devotion Mao was able to, which is part of the reason why he killed so many people. (Other than the fact that he was completely paranoid) So he rode quite a bit on Lenin's coattails and leaned more on Lenin's cult of personality. He (and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) believed that his brand of "communism" was destined to replace capitalism. That's actually a Marxist principle; the inevitability of communism. I would argue that that belief in divine precedence was certainly religious in nature. Either way, you can't really blame his actions on atheism. It wouldn't have gone any differently if Stalin and the entirety of Russia were devout Catholics; the Holocaust shows us that.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Saying that is like saying: Jesus Camp isn't the fault of christianity, because it advocates policies the bible doesn't. Not really. A label like "Christianity" is far more specific than "atheism". You can make a lot of claims as to what makes or does not make a Christian. With atheists it's much more obvious. If you believe in a higher power, then you are not an atheist. Even if that higher power is the figurehead of your government. (The ancient Egyptians, for instance, were theists) Fail True Christians believe what's in the bible, nothing else. There is no flexibility unless it isn't mentioned in the bible. Which Bible? There are thousands of versions in thousands of different languages. Not to mention peoples' own interpretations of certain words and phrases. An atheist is much more easily identified and defined. That's a fact. That was a bad example here's a better one, saying that is like saying "We can't blame the holocaust on Catholicism because murder is against Catholic faith, therefore they weren't catholics." If everyone believed that this guild would be dead. The rule is: The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition even if the outcome is not even close to the original condition.
You say that like being against murder is one of the central tenets of Cathollicism. If you look at the history of Catholicism, you'll see that that commandment is pretty negotiable. A much more comparable tenet (After all, we're talking about what really defines an atheist here; the lack in belief of a deity) would be the belief that Christ is God.
I think a better example would be that you can't blame, say, the Rape of Nanking on Catholicism because nobody involved in that massacre believed that Christ was God. In the same way, you can't blame the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward on atheism because almost no one in those cases were actually atheist.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But quite a few cults of personality were made by atheists who encouraged their followers to be atheist. You're not really encouraging them to be atheist if you're inviting them into a cult, are you? I was hoping we wouldn't have to explain this... government=/= religion, simple as that Religion means that you feel spiritually that there is a supreme being that in some religions created, and governs the universe, but in all religions is a being of magic that humans can't understand. Of course, there are religions with no gods, but they still believe in magic. Mao's followers may have worshiped him, but they certainly didn't believe he was a magical ******** fairy. I'd challenge you to find a definition from a reputable dictionary that uses the word "magic" in its definition of the word "religion". No, religion is deeper than that. Religion is the adherence to a doctrine inspired by a higher power. Consider the facts: -The Red Guards carried "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" (The Little Red Book) around with them; it was required reading in the Party. -Mao was labeled "savior of the people" and the People Daily even said,"Chairman Mao is the red sun in our hearts. Mao Zedong Thought is the source of our life." -People bowed three times every morning and every evening before an image of Mao in their workplaces. -Yes, many did believe that Mao had supernatural powers. That sounds no different from Christianity or Islam, in my view. They had their own Bible and their own Savior, who was also in every one of them and was the source of life. Not to mention the rituals which sound uncannily like the Muslim Salah. "If there is no God, people will create one. If you call it a personality cult, a superstition, it is everywhere in world including the West." -Mao Zedong OK, maybe my definition of religion does need work. 1. I doubt most believed Mao had supernatural powers
I think you're severely underestimating just how much the Chinese worshiped this guy. You should watch a couple documentaries about it. It's truly terrifying.
Quote: 2. They were most likely forced to bow before Mao, religion is a choice, not a requirement.
I have a friend whose mother grew up in Maoist China. She's lived here for the past 15 years, and just recently decided to take up the piano. She's been having difficulty, though, because she doesn't actually know any of the typical beginner songs. (Mary had a Little Lamb, Three Blind Mice, etc) Why? Because the only children's songs she knows are ones that are about how great and powerful Mao is.
Again, I think you're severely underestimating the influence Mao had. A lot of people died voluntarily for him and his cause. Just look at the Great Leap Forward.
Quote: 3. What would happen in the People Daily didn't say great things about Mao, they'd go out of business. Preachers say great things about God because they actually believe it, sure some newspapers did actually believe that Mao was God, but many were forced.
How on earth do you know what the publisher of the People Daily was actually thinking?
I mean, I could say the exact same thing about the aforementioned preachers,"Oh, they're just saying all those great things about God because otherwise they'll be fired."
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But you called him a madman I never called him a madman, though I think he was in some respects. I said that the circumstances of the Cultural Revolution were crazy. The sheer influence that Mao had on so many people is scary. That he could compartmentalize so many peoples' psyches into believing he was their friend against the government he was in control of is astonishing, to say the least. And even if I do think he's a madman, I don't see what that has to do with the motives behind the Cultural Revolution. They were pretty apparent to anyone who wasn't part of his cult. Listen, I realize that atheists can do bad things just as much as religious people can. That's not my issue with what you've posted. My issue is that you seem to be suggesting that a lack of religion causes excess strife, and that theism prevents more strife than it causes. I think this is untrue. Couldn't this be put somewhere else in your response... What? neutral Well I was just saying that that section of the debate was more focused on what the Cultural Revolution was about, not just "Put whatever you can't find room to put anywhere else here".
I put that part there as a disclaimer. I wanted to say that I think that our difference in opinion is much more minor than it seems to be. It seemed appropriate to put that at the end. I'm sorry if that was confusing or annoying in any way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:43 pm
|
|
|
|
OtakuJeannie Probably OT at this point but George Carlin I used to be an Irish Catholic but then I reached the age of reason I miss him crying
Me too... cry
Speaking of atheist comedians:
Saint Peter: Did you believe in dinosaurs?
Bill Hicks: Well, yeah, there were fossils everywh-*trap door into hell opens up*
Saint Peter: You ******** idiot! Flying lizards? You're a moron! God was ******** with you!
Bill Hicks: It seemed so plausible! Aaaaah! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:43 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Pure conjecture. There are countless examples of simultaneous theism and state-worship. They often are one and the same, as I am suggesting China was. Again, pure conjecture. In fact, I could make the argument that religion makes it far easier to control people's actions i.e. "take power". Ever seen that picture that right-wingers like to show around with the 3 biggest mass murderers of all time, and say that all of them were socialists? Well guess what 2 of them were? My conjectures have proof, do yours? Absolutely. The ancient Aztecs, the ancient Egyptians, the Papal States, Communist China...All were run by governments who claimed to be divinely inspired. Church and state were one and the same. Of the three biggest mass murderers of all time, (presumably Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?) two of them developed strong cults around their images (And, in the case of Stalin, his predecessor). The vast majority of Germans during Hitler's time were Catholic, and Hitler himself professed to be a Catholic. Also, much of the Holocaust was justified on religious grounds. The point is that people believed in a higher power in all of them. Now, will there be exceptions? Of course there will be. None come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of atheist nations committing horrible atrocities without the presence of any cult of state and/or personality. I'm just pointing out that religion doesn't exactly prevent anything immoral from happening. I never said religion was worse than atheism, what I did say was that religion is bad in some ways and atheism is bad in others. The Holocaust may have been justified on religious grounds, but it was actually racism that inspired it. Racism which was based on religious grounds. Honestly, I prefer to just believe that Hitler was a crazy mofo. I was just pointing out that atheism didn't cause the holocaust. Quote: Racism which was based on religious grounds.
Quote: Quote: Also, the Aztecs, and Ancient Egyptians didn't mass murder... Maybe you should look that up.
But it wasn't mass mass murder.
Quote: Quote: And when you say Communist China, I assume you're saying atheism was the religion that was not separated from the state No, you don't understand. I'm actually saying that Mao's China was not an atheist nation at all.
Quote: Quote: and you're saying that secularism is the way to go. But many people in this guild claim that if everyone became atheist than the world would be perfect. I don't think any of them think the world would be perfect. I think a lot of them probably believe that without religion one prominent problem humanity constantly faces would be gone. I believe that.
Quote: Quote: When you say that 2 of the 3 I mentioned earlier, this comes back to the fact that religion=/= government. Cults are always centered on the belief that the person being worshipped was either chosen by the universe, or chosen by a God to lead (Ravinia in the Pendragon series for example), but that's not the case with Stalin or Mao, whether it's true with Hitler is questionable. The fact that it's true with Mao is pretty much undeniable. Mao was a living god in China.
What you're saying is: Since religion is basically government, 'cause you hafta obey dem laws in religion as well as government, we should get rid of secularism 'cause then people will pick a moral religion and we'll all be happy and dandy
Religion is subjective, government isn't
Quote: Stalin is a bit different. He wasn't able to muster quite the devotion Mao was able to, which is part of the reason why he killed so many people. (Other than the fact that he was completely paranoid) So he rode quite a bit on Lenin's coattails and leaned more on Lenin's cult of personality. He (and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) believed that his brand of "communism" was destined to replace capitalism. That's actually a Marxist principle; the inevitability of communism. I would argue that that belief in divine precedence was certainly religious in nature. Either way, you can't really blame his actions on atheism. It wouldn't have gone any differently if Stalin and the entirety of Russia were devout Catholics; the Holocaust shows us that.
Try again?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Not really. A label like "Christianity" is far more specific than "atheism". You can make a lot of claims as to what makes or does not make a Christian. With atheists it's much more obvious. If you believe in a higher power, then you are not an atheist. Even if that higher power is the figurehead of your government. (The ancient Egyptians, for instance, were theists) Fail True Christians believe what's in the bible, nothing else. There is no flexibility unless it isn't mentioned in the bible. Which Bible? There are thousands of versions in thousands of different languages. Not to mention peoples' own interpretations of certain words and phrases. An atheist is much more easily identified and defined. That's a fact. That was a bad example here's a better one, saying that is like saying "We can't blame the holocaust on Catholicism because murder is against Catholic faith, therefore they weren't catholics." If everyone believed that this guild would be dead. The rule is: The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition even if the outcome is not even close to the original condition. You say that like being against murder is one of the central tenets of Cathollicism. If you look at the history of Catholicism, you'll see that that commandment is pretty negotiable. A much more comparable tenet (After all, we're talking about what really defines an atheist here; the lack in belief of a deity) would be the belief that Christ is God.
Why, let me ask you, is it that atheism is set in stone, but catholicism, even though it's clearly defined in the bible is "flexible".
Try again?
Quote: I think a better example would be that you can't blame, say, the Rape of Nanking on Catholicism because nobody involved in that massacre believed that Christ was God. In the same way, you can't blame the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward on atheism because almost no one in those cases were actually atheist.
RELIGION=/=GOVERNMENT!!!!
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You're not really encouraging them to be atheist if you're inviting them into a cult, are you? I was hoping we wouldn't have to explain this... government=/= religion, simple as that Religion means that you feel spiritually that there is a supreme being that in some religions created, and governs the universe, but in all religions is a being of magic that humans can't understand. Of course, there are religions with no gods, but they still believe in magic. Mao's followers may have worshiped him, but they certainly didn't believe he was a magical ******** fairy. I'd challenge you to find a definition from a reputable dictionary that uses the word "magic" in its definition of the word "religion". No, religion is deeper than that. Religion is the adherence to a doctrine inspired by a higher power. Consider the facts: -The Red Guards carried "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" (The Little Red Book) around with them; it was required reading in the Party. -Mao was labeled "savior of the people" and the People Daily even said,"Chairman Mao is the red sun in our hearts. Mao Zedong Thought is the source of our life." -People bowed three times every morning and every evening before an image of Mao in their workplaces. -Yes, many did believe that Mao had supernatural powers. That sounds no different from Christianity or Islam, in my view. They had their own Bible and their own Savior, who was also in every one of them and was the source of life. Not to mention the rituals which sound uncannily like the Muslim Salah. "If there is no God, people will create one. If you call it a personality cult, a superstition, it is everywhere in world including the West." -Mao Zedong OK, maybe my definition of religion does need work. 1. I doubt most believed Mao had supernatural powers I think you're severely underestimating just how much the Chinese worshiped this guy. You should watch a couple documentaries about it. It's truly terrifying. Quote: 2. They were most likely forced to bow before Mao, religion is a choice, not a requirement. I have a friend whose mother grew up in Maoist China. She's lived here for the past 15 years, and just recently decided to take up the piano. She's been having difficulty, though, because she doesn't actually know any of the typical beginner songs. (Mary had a Little Lamb, Three Blind Mice, etc) Why? Because the only children's songs she knows are ones that are about how great and powerful Mao is.
Again, religion is subjective, government isn't.
Quote: Again, I think you're severely underestimating the influence Mao had. A lot of people died voluntarily for him and his cause. Just look at the Great Leap Forward.
Quote: Quote: 3. What would happen in the People Daily didn't say great things about Mao, they'd go out of business. Preachers say great things about God because they actually believe it, sure some newspapers did actually believe that Mao was God, but many were forced. How on earth do you know what the publisher of the People Daily was actually thinking? I mean, I could say the exact same thing about the aforementioned preachers,"Oh, they're just saying all those great things about God because otherwise they'll be fired."
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I never called him a madman, though I think he was in some respects. I said that the circumstances of the Cultural Revolution were crazy. The sheer influence that Mao had on so many people is scary. That he could compartmentalize so many peoples' psyches into believing he was their friend against the government he was in control of is astonishing, to say the least. And even if I do think he's a madman, I don't see what that has to do with the motives behind the Cultural Revolution. They were pretty apparent to anyone who wasn't part of his cult. Listen, I realize that atheists can do bad things just as much as religious people can. That's not my issue with what you've posted. My issue is that you seem to be suggesting that a lack of religion causes excess strife, and that theism prevents more strife than it causes. I think this is untrue. Couldn't this be put somewhere else in your response... What? neutral Well I was just saying that that section of the debate was more focused on what the Cultural Revolution was about, not just "Put whatever you can't find room to put anywhere else here". I put that part there as a disclaimer. I wanted to say that I think that our difference in opinion is much more minor than it seems to be. It seemed appropriate to put that at the end. I'm sorry if that was confusing or annoying in any way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:45 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar OtakuJeannie Probably OT at this point but George Carlin I used to be an Irish Catholic but then I reached the age of reason I miss him crying Me too... cry Speaking of atheist comedians: Saint Peter: Did you believe in dinosaurs? Bill Hicks: Well, yeah, there were fossils everywh-*trap door into hell opens up* Saint Peter: You ******** idiot! Flying lizards? You're a moron! God was ******** with you! Bill Hicks: It seemed so plausible! Aaaaah! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:47 am
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Ever seen that picture that right-wingers like to show around with the 3 biggest mass murderers of all time, and say that all of them were socialists? Well guess what 2 of them were? My conjectures have proof, do yours? Absolutely. The ancient Aztecs, the ancient Egyptians, the Papal States, Communist China...All were run by governments who claimed to be divinely inspired. Church and state were one and the same. Of the three biggest mass murderers of all time, (presumably Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?) two of them developed strong cults around their images (And, in the case of Stalin, his predecessor). The vast majority of Germans during Hitler's time were Catholic, and Hitler himself professed to be a Catholic. Also, much of the Holocaust was justified on religious grounds. The point is that people believed in a higher power in all of them. Now, will there be exceptions? Of course there will be. None come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of atheist nations committing horrible atrocities without the presence of any cult of state and/or personality. I'm just pointing out that religion doesn't exactly prevent anything immoral from happening. I never said religion was worse than atheism, what I did say was that religion is bad in some ways and atheism is bad in others. The Holocaust may have been justified on religious grounds, but it was actually racism that inspired it. Racism which was based on religious grounds. Honestly, I prefer to just believe that Hitler was a crazy mofo. I was just pointing out that atheism didn't cause the holocaust. Quote: Racism which was based on religious grounds. The term you are looking for is "Racism which used religion as an excuse"
Well, clearly you know every single facet and cause of the Holocaust, so I won't both arguing you with about that. rolleyes
Quote: Quote: Quote: Also, the Aztecs, and Ancient Egyptians didn't mass murder... Maybe you should look that up. Good point. But it wasn't mass mass murder.
Again, I would look that up before you say something like that. The facts simply don't support what you're saying.
Quote: Quote: Quote: And when you say Communist China, I assume you're saying atheism was the religion that was not separated from the state No, you don't understand. I'm actually saying that Mao's China was not an atheist nation at all. Good lord...
Again, you imply my statement is false without offering any evidence to contradict or discredit what I've put forth. Mao was the god and head of his own religion.
Quote: Quote: Quote: and you're saying that secularism is the way to go. But many people in this guild claim that if everyone became atheist than the world would be perfect. I don't think any of them think the world would be perfect. I think a lot of them probably believe that without religion one prominent problem humanity constantly faces would be gone. I believe that. I haven't paid any specific attention to you in this guild, but in most threads the general consensus is "Religion should GTFO cuz we atheists are pwnsome"
Well, yes. That's what I said. The world would probably be a saner place if the majority of adults didn't have imaginary friends.
Quote: Quote: Quote: When you say that 2 of the 3 I mentioned earlier, this comes back to the fact that religion=/= government. Cults are always centered on the belief that the person being worshipped was either chosen by the universe, or chosen by a God to lead (Ravinia in the Pendragon series for example), but that's not the case with Stalin or Mao, whether it's true with Hitler is questionable. The fact that it's true with Mao is pretty much undeniable. Mao was a living god in China. RELIGION=/=TO GODDAMN GOVERNMENT! What you're saying is: Since religion is basically government, 'cause you hafta obey dem laws in religion as well as government, we should get rid of secularism 'cause then people will pick a moral religion and we'll all be happy and dandy Religion is subjective, government isn't
Actually, that's my point exactly. Mao's China was not secular. It endorsed the religion of Mao's cult.
And you have to get off this "religion =/= government" thing. The fact is that it depends on the situation. As I've already pointed out, there's a multitude of examples of religion and government being one and the same. Iran, for instance, is officially called the "Islamic Republic of Iran". There's also a multitude of examples of complete separation of the two. Sweden, for instance.
Quote: Quote: Stalin is a bit different. He wasn't able to muster quite the devotion Mao was able to, which is part of the reason why he killed so many people. (Other than the fact that he was completely paranoid) So he rode quite a bit on Lenin's coattails and leaned more on Lenin's cult of personality. He (and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) believed that his brand of "communism" was destined to replace capitalism. That's actually a Marxist principle; the inevitability of communism. I would argue that that belief in divine precedence was certainly religious in nature. Either way, you can't really blame his actions on atheism. It wouldn't have gone any differently if Stalin and the entirety of Russia were devout Catholics; the Holocaust shows us that. So you're saying when Hitler and his catholics do it, it supports your point, but when Stalin and his atheists do it, it could be done by catholics too. Try again?
The difference is the motivation behind the genocides. In Hitler's case, the genocides were at least partially based on religious, antisemitic grounds. Stalin's motivations were almost completely based on paranoia; not on his atheism.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Fail True Christians believe what's in the bible, nothing else. There is no flexibility unless it isn't mentioned in the bible. Which Bible? There are thousands of versions in thousands of different languages. Not to mention peoples' own interpretations of certain words and phrases. An atheist is much more easily identified and defined. That's a fact. That was a bad example here's a better one, saying that is like saying "We can't blame the holocaust on Catholicism because murder is against Catholic faith, therefore they weren't catholics." If everyone believed that this guild would be dead. The rule is: The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition even if the outcome is not even close to the original condition. You say that like being against murder is one of the central tenets of Cathollicism. If you look at the history of Catholicism, you'll see that that commandment is pretty negotiable. A much more comparable tenet (After all, we're talking about what really defines an atheist here; the lack in belief of a deity) would be the belief that Christ is God. Therefore you can't blame all those times (such as the crusades) on Catholics.
...Care to explain?
Quote: Why, let me ask you, is it that atheism is set in stone, but catholicism, even though it's clearly defined in the bible is "flexible".
Because, as I've said numerous times, there are thousands of different bibles in thousands of different languages with billions of different readers. It's also a pretty long book with a lot of lines that are up to interpretation. They're not "clearly defined" at all.
An atheist is not defined by a book of vague, probably mistranslated verses. An atheist is defined as "one who does not believe in a deity". I really don't know how else to explain this to you.
Quote: Quote: I think a better example would be that you can't blame, say, the Rape of Nanking on Catholicism because nobody involved in that massacre believed that Christ was God. In the same way, you can't blame the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward on atheism because almost no one in those cases were actually atheist. Where you are wrong, look ahead, but in case I haven't said it enough: RELIGION=/=GOVERNMENT!!!! Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I was hoping we wouldn't have to explain this... government=/= religion, simple as that Religion means that you feel spiritually that there is a supreme being that in some religions created, and governs the universe, but in all religions is a being of magic that humans can't understand. Of course, there are religions with no gods, but they still believe in magic. Mao's followers may have worshiped him, but they certainly didn't believe he was a magical ******** fairy. I'd challenge you to find a definition from a reputable dictionary that uses the word "magic" in its definition of the word "religion". No, religion is deeper than that. Religion is the adherence to a doctrine inspired by a higher power. Consider the facts: -The Red Guards carried "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" (The Little Red Book) around with them; it was required reading in the Party. -Mao was labeled "savior of the people" and the People Daily even said,"Chairman Mao is the red sun in our hearts. Mao Zedong Thought is the source of our life." -People bowed three times every morning and every evening before an image of Mao in their workplaces. -Yes, many did believe that Mao had supernatural powers. That sounds no different from Christianity or Islam, in my view. They had their own Bible and their own Savior, who was also in every one of them and was the source of life. Not to mention the rituals which sound uncannily like the Muslim Salah. "If there is no God, people will create one. If you call it a personality cult, a superstition, it is everywhere in world including the West." -Mao Zedong OK, maybe my definition of religion does need work. 1. I doubt most believed Mao had supernatural powers I think you're severely underestimating just how much the Chinese worshiped this guy. You should watch a couple documentaries about it. It's truly terrifying. Quote: 2. They were most likely forced to bow before Mao, religion is a choice, not a requirement. I have a friend whose mother grew up in Maoist China. She's lived here for the past 15 years, and just recently decided to take up the piano. She's been having difficulty, though, because she doesn't actually know any of the typical beginner songs. (Mary had a Little Lamb, Three Blind Mice, etc) Why? Because the only children's songs she knows are ones that are about how great and powerful Mao is. And that logic works against you. If she knew a song when she was a child about how pwnsome capitalism is she would be hauled off to jail... or worse. If you sing a song about another religion, God won't strike you down at all.
No, but adherents to Sharia law probably will. People are stoned to death in Islamic countries all the time for somehow insulting Allah. Just like Mao's Red Guards were striking down people who somehow insulted Mao.
Quote: Quote: Again, I think you're severely underestimating the influence Mao had. A lot of people died voluntarily for him and his cause. Just look at the Great Leap Forward. Point made.
What point?
Quote: Quote: Quote: 3. What would happen in the People Daily didn't say great things about Mao, they'd go out of business. Preachers say great things about God because they actually believe it, sure some newspapers did actually believe that Mao was God, but many were forced. How on earth do you know what the publisher of the People Daily was actually thinking? I mean, I could say the exact same thing about the aforementioned preachers,"Oh, they're just saying all those great things about God because otherwise they'll be fired." Preachers can't get fired, they may be scared of eternal punishment, but that's not immediate. I don't know what the publishers were thinking, but I can assure you, if they were thinking "Mao's a fail" and they published it, they wouldn't be thinking much longer.
If you don't know what they were thinking then don't say that they were forced to do anything. That's just pure conjecture with absolutely nothing but your own projections to back it up, and it really highlights the problem with most of your arguments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:35 am
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Ever seen that picture that right-wingers like to show around with the 3 biggest mass murderers of all time, and say that all of them were socialists? Well guess what 2 of them were? My conjectures have proof, do yours? Absolutely. The ancient Aztecs, the ancient Egyptians, the Papal States, Communist China...All were run by governments who claimed to be divinely inspired. Church and state were one and the same. Of the three biggest mass murderers of all time, (presumably Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?) two of them developed strong cults around their images (And, in the case of Stalin, his predecessor). The vast majority of Germans during Hitler's time were Catholic, and Hitler himself professed to be a Catholic. Also, much of the Holocaust was justified on religious grounds. The point is that people believed in a higher power in all of them. Now, will there be exceptions? Of course there will be. None come to mind at the moment, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of atheist nations committing horrible atrocities without the presence of any cult of state and/or personality. I'm just pointing out that religion doesn't exactly prevent anything immoral from happening. I never said religion was worse than atheism, what I did say was that religion is bad in some ways and atheism is bad in others. The Holocaust may have been justified on religious grounds, but it was actually racism that inspired it. Racism which was based on religious grounds. Honestly, I prefer to just believe that Hitler was a crazy mofo. I was just pointing out that atheism didn't cause the holocaust. Quote: Racism which was based on religious grounds. The term you are looking for is "Racism which used religion as an excuse" Well, clearly you know every single facet and cause of the Holocaust, so I won't both arguing you with about that. rolleyes
Racism which was based on religious grounds doesn't even make sense.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Also, the Aztecs, and Ancient Egyptians didn't mass murder... Maybe you should look that up. Good point. But it wasn't mass mass murder. Again, I would look that up before you say something like that. The facts simply don't support what you're saying.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And when you say Communist China, I assume you're saying atheism was the religion that was not separated from the state No, you don't understand. I'm actually saying that Mao's China was not an atheist nation at all. Good lord... Again, you imply my statement is false without offering any evidence to contradict or discredit what I've put forth. Mao was the god and head of his own religion.
I don't know why you keep up with this belief that worshiping Mao is like worshiping God, but to stop any further confusion, I'll get some definitions:
Quote: * a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" * an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" Quote: # # A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: and you're saying that secularism is the way to go. But many people in this guild claim that if everyone became atheist than the world would be perfect. I don't think any of them think the world would be perfect. I think a lot of them probably believe that without religion one prominent problem humanity constantly faces would be gone. I believe that. I haven't paid any specific attention to you in this guild, but in most threads the general consensus is "Religion should GTFO cuz we atheists are pwnsome" Well, yes. That's what I said. The world would probably be a saner place if the majority of adults didn't have imaginary friends.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: When you say that 2 of the 3 I mentioned earlier, this comes back to the fact that religion=/= government. Cults are always centered on the belief that the person being worshipped was either chosen by the universe, or chosen by a God to lead (Ravinia in the Pendragon series for example), but that's not the case with Stalin or Mao, whether it's true with Hitler is questionable. The fact that it's true with Mao is pretty much undeniable. Mao was a living god in China. RELIGION=/=TO GODDAMN GOVERNMENT! What you're saying is: Since religion is basically government, 'cause you hafta obey dem laws in religion as well as government, we should get rid of secularism 'cause then people will pick a moral religion and we'll all be happy and dandy Religion is subjective, government isn't Actually, that's my point exactly. Mao's China was not secular. It endorsed the religion of Mao's cult. And you have to get off this "religion =/= government" thing. The fact is that it depends on the situation. As I've already pointed out, there's a multitude of examples of religion and government being one and the same. Iran, for instance, is officially called the "Islamic Republic of Iran". There's also a multitude of examples of complete separation of the two. Sweden, for instance.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Stalin is a bit different. He wasn't able to muster quite the devotion Mao was able to, which is part of the reason why he killed so many people. (Other than the fact that he was completely paranoid) So he rode quite a bit on Lenin's coattails and leaned more on Lenin's cult of personality. He (and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) believed that his brand of "communism" was destined to replace capitalism. That's actually a Marxist principle; the inevitability of communism. I would argue that that belief in divine precedence was certainly religious in nature. Either way, you can't really blame his actions on atheism. It wouldn't have gone any differently if Stalin and the entirety of Russia were devout Catholics; the Holocaust shows us that. So you're saying when Hitler and his catholics do it, it supports your point, but when Stalin and his atheists do it, it could be done by catholics too. Try again? The difference is the motivation behind the genocides. In Hitler's case, the genocides were at least partially based on religious, antisemitic grounds. Stalin's motivations were almost completely based on paranoia; not on his atheism.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Fail True Christians believe what's in the bible, nothing else. There is no flexibility unless it isn't mentioned in the bible. Which Bible? There are thousands of versions in thousands of different languages. Not to mention peoples' own interpretations of certain words and phrases. An atheist is much more easily identified and defined. That's a fact. That was a bad example here's a better one, saying that is like saying "We can't blame the holocaust on Catholicism because murder is against Catholic faith, therefore they weren't catholics." If everyone believed that this guild would be dead. The rule is: The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition even if the outcome is not even close to the original condition. You say that like being against murder is one of the central tenets of Cathollicism. If you look at the history of Catholicism, you'll see that that commandment is pretty negotiable. A much more comparable tenet (After all, we're talking about what really defines an atheist here; the lack in belief of a deity) would be the belief that Christ is God. Therefore you can't blame all those times (such as the crusades) on Catholics. ...Care to explain?
Quote: Why, let me ask you, is it that atheism is set in stone, but catholicism, even though it's clearly defined in the bible is "flexible".
Because, as I've said numerous times, there are thousands of different bibles in thousands of different languages with billions of different readers. It's also a pretty long book with a lot of lines that are up to interpretation. They're not "clearly defined" at all.
An atheist is not defined by a book of vague, probably mistranslated verses. An atheist is defined as "one who does not believe in a deity". I really don't know how else to explain this to you.What? That you're so stuck up in atheism that it magically fits the definition of whatever point you're trying to make? Face it, atheism does have multiple definitions, for example: if someone believes in magic are they atheist? You say atheism is the belief in no deity, so if I believe in a magical force that doesn't have a conscious mind am I atheist?
Quote: Quote: Quote: I think a better example would be that you can't blame, say, the Rape of Nanking on Catholicism because nobody involved in that massacre believed that Christ was God. In the same way, you can't blame the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward on atheism because almost no one in those cases were actually atheist. Where you are wrong, look ahead, but in case I haven't said it enough: RELIGION=/=GOVERNMENT!!!! Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I was hoping we wouldn't have to explain this... government=/= religion, simple as that Religion means that you feel spiritually that there is a supreme being that in some religions created, and governs the universe, but in all religions is a being of magic that humans can't understand. Of course, there are religions with no gods, but they still believe in magic. Mao's followers may have worshiped him, but they certainly didn't believe he was a magical ******** fairy. I'd challenge you to find a definition from a reputable dictionary that uses the word "magic" in its definition of the word "religion". No, religion is deeper than that. Religion is the adherence to a doctrine inspired by a higher power. Consider the facts: -The Red Guards carried "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" (The Little Red Book) around with them; it was required reading in the Party. -Mao was labeled "savior of the people" and the People Daily even said,"Chairman Mao is the red sun in our hearts. Mao Zedong Thought is the source of our life." -People bowed three times every morning and every evening before an image of Mao in their workplaces. -Yes, many did believe that Mao had supernatural powers. That sounds no different from Christianity or Islam, in my view. They had their own Bible and their own Savior, who was also in every one of them and was the source of life. Not to mention the rituals which sound uncannily like the Muslim Salah. "If there is no God, people will create one. If you call it a personality cult, a superstition, it is everywhere in world including the West." -Mao Zedong OK, maybe my definition of religion does need work. 1. I doubt most believed Mao had supernatural powers I think you're severely underestimating just how much the Chinese worshiped this guy. You should watch a couple documentaries about it. It's truly terrifying. Quote: 2. They were most likely forced to bow before Mao, religion is a choice, not a requirement. I have a friend whose mother grew up in Maoist China. She's lived here for the past 15 years, and just recently decided to take up the piano. She's been having difficulty, though, because she doesn't actually know any of the typical beginner songs. (Mary had a Little Lamb, Three Blind Mice, etc) Why? Because the only children's songs she knows are ones that are about how great and powerful Mao is. And that logic works against you. If she knew a song when she was a child about how pwnsome capitalism is she would be hauled off to jail... or worse. If you sing a song about another religion, God won't strike you down at all. No, but adherents to Sharia law probably will. People are stoned to death in Islamic countries all the time for somehow insulting Allah. Just like Mao's Red Guards were striking down people who somehow insulted Mao.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Again, I think you're severely underestimating the influence Mao had. A lot of people died voluntarily for him and his cause. Just look at the Great Leap Forward. Point made. What point?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 3. What would happen in the People Daily didn't say great things about Mao, they'd go out of business. Preachers say great things about God because they actually believe it, sure some newspapers did actually believe that Mao was God, but many were forced. How on earth do you know what the publisher of the People Daily was actually thinking? I mean, I could say the exact same thing about the aforementioned preachers,"Oh, they're just saying all those great things about God because otherwise they'll be fired." Preachers can't get fired, they may be scared of eternal punishment, but that's not immediate. I don't know what the publishers were thinking, but I can assure you, if they were thinking "Mao's a fail" and they published it, they wouldn't be thinking much longer. If you don't know what they were thinking then don't say that they were forced to do anything. That's just pure conjecture with absolutely nothing but your own projections to back it up, and it really highlights the problem with most of your arguments.
To wrap it all up, I noticed earlier you said that you accepted that atheism had problems too, and you just were mad at me for saying atheism has more problems that religion. If this is true, then why is it that every time I point out something bad that atheism has done, you come up with a weak reason why that wasn't the fault of atheism and how christianity could've done the same thing and how atheism never hurt a fly? Will you grow up and accept that atheism isn't perfect? Honestly, you're being like the people in this guild.
EDIT: I'll also address you're two major arguments here, in case you feel like making the next portion simpler for both of us by only taking these and a few other things:
1. Atheism is clearly defined, other religions aren't. Therefore anything that even hints at worshiping a deity isn't atheist, but if you do something in the name of religion, you're doing it in that religion.
I sense that in this you're doing nothing but twisting the definition of atheism and christianity (because I believe that was the specific example) to fit you're views. A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretation, therefore anyone who needlessly murders is not a christian. Simple as that. And you forgot to address my comment in that section that said: "The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition, regardless of whether the outcome is the condition or if it isn't." In other words: Atheism leaves room for a God, therefore if someone worships the state because they need a God, whether you interpret that as atheist or not it is the fault of atheism.
2. State "worship" or a cult of personality is the same thing as worshiping a deity.
A cult of personality forces you to be loyal to that leader, I say again, religion is subjective. I'll admit that when you pointed out that an adherent of Sharia law would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just like a Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about the nationalists was a good point, but there's a problem with that. A Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just as a Sharia law adherent would if you sang a song about Christianity. Quite simply, whenever there's lack of separation of church and state, two things are condemned by the state: 1) Other religions, 2) Allegiances with an enemy country. Number two is endorsed in just about every country (and they'd be out of their minds not to endorse it). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:50 pm
|
|
|
|
Good idea; it was getting kinda tricky navigating through all that quote junk. And we were page-stretching. Kind of wish you had put that at the beginning, though, since I responded to all of the other things before I saw that. sweatdrop
Quote: To wrap it all up, I noticed earlier you said that you accepted that atheism had problems too, and you just were mad at me for saying atheism has more problems that religion. If this is true, then why is it that every time I point out something bad that atheism has done, you come up with a weak reason why that wasn't the fault of atheism and how christianity could've done the same thing and how atheism never hurt a fly?
Because the examples you've used aren't actual examples of atheistic regimes. Yes, their leaders may have been atheists, but their followers who actually did the killing were not. Using them as examples of atheistic societies is simply disingenuous and actually kind of offensive. Those examples are one of the reasons atheists are the least trusted minority in the US.
If you want an example of an actual atheistic regime that killed people, then look at Pol Pot. I won't argue with you there. There was no cult of personality or religious observation at all in his regime.
Stalin, Mao, and Hitler's regimes were not truly atheist.
Quote: EDIT: I'll also address you're two major arguments here, in case you feel like making the next portion simpler for both of us by only taking these and a few other things: 1. Atheism is clearly defined, other religions aren't. Therefore anything that even hints at worshiping a deity isn't atheist, but if you do something in the name of religion, you're doing it in that religion. I sense that in this you're doing nothing but twisting the definition of atheism and christianity (because I believe that was the specific example) to fit you're views. A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretation, therefore anyone who needlessly murders is not a christian. Simple as that.
Fine, let's take that premise for a second and see how it holds up to a little bit of logic:
1. In order to be a Christian, you must obey any and all interpretations of the Bible.
2. Some people interpret the Bible to be against gay marriage (http://www.evangelsociety.org/francisco/gaychange.html) while others interpret it to be for gay marriage (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm)
3. Nobody can obey both of those interpretations at the same time.
4. Therefore, nobody is Christian.
Quote: And you forgot to address my comment in that section that said: "The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition, regardless of whether the outcome is the condition or if it isn't." In other words: Atheism leaves room for a God, therefore if someone worships the state because they need a God, whether you interpret that as atheist or not it is the fault of atheism.
I'm not sure I understand the argument. If I'm reading correctly, what you're saying is that if someone converts from atheism into some sort of theism, then whatever they do while they are a theist is the fault of atheism?
If that's what you're saying, (I may be misinterpreting) let's do another bit of logic:
1. If you are an atheist and convert to theism, anything you do while you are a theist can be blamed on your atheism.
2. All children are born atheist.
3. The vast majority of children convert to theism.
4. All of those children do bad things and good things.
5. Therefore, all bad things and good things done by theists can be blamed on their prior atheism.
6. Therefore, the vast majority of bad things and good things done by people can be blamed on atheism.
I think I'm misinterpreting you, though, so I apologize in advance.
Quote: 2. State "worship" or a cult of personality is the same thing as worshiping a deity. A cult of personality forces you to be loyal to that leader, I say again, religion is subjective.
Maybe the problem here is that the word you're looking for is "optional", which isn't true. I know a lot of people who were baptized when they didn't believe in God, and there are many people in religious nations who are forced to obey religious laws they don't believe in.
Quote: I'll admit that when you pointed out that an adherent of Sharia law would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just like a Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about the nationalists was a good point, but there's a problem with that. A Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just as a Sharia law adherent would if you sang a song about Christianity. Quite simply, whenever there's lack of separation of church and state, two things are condemned by the state: 1) Other religions, 2) Allegiances with an enemy country. Number two is endorsed in just about every country (and they'd be out of their minds not to endorse it). sweatdrop
I'm confused; how does this contradict my argument at all? This seems like a very clear summary of my argument. Mao's China was not secular, and you've just explained to me why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:31 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar Good idea; it was getting kinda tricky navigating through all that quote junk. And we were page-stretching. Kind of wish you had put that at the beginning, though, since I responded to all of the other things before I saw that. sweatdrop
Quote: Quote: To wrap it all up, I noticed earlier you said that you accepted that atheism had problems too, and you just were mad at me for saying atheism has more problems that religion. If this is true, then why is it that every time I point out something bad that atheism has done, you come up with a weak reason why that wasn't the fault of atheism and how christianity could've done the same thing and how atheism never hurt a fly? Because the examples you've used aren't actual examples of atheistic regimes. Yes, their leaders may have been atheists, but their followers who actually did the killing were not. Using them as examples of atheistic societies is simply disingenuous and actually kind of offensive. Those examples are one of the reasons atheists are the least trusted minority in the US. If you want an example of an actual atheistic regime that killed people, then look at Pol Pot. I won't argue with you there. There was no cult of personality or religious observation at all in his regime. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler's regimes were not truly atheist.
Quote: Quote: EDIT: I'll also address you're two major arguments here, in case you feel like making the next portion simpler for both of us by only taking these and a few other things: 1. Atheism is clearly defined, other religions aren't. Therefore anything that even hints at worshiping a deity isn't atheist, but if you do something in the name of religion, you're doing it in that religion. I sense that in this you're doing nothing but twisting the definition of atheism and christianity (because I believe that was the specific example) to fit you're views. A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretation, therefore anyone who needlessly murders is not a christian. Simple as that. Fine, let's take that premise for a second and see how it holds up to a little bit of logic: 1. In order to be a Christian, you must obey any and all interpretations of the Bible. 2. Some people interpret the Bible to be against gay marriage (http://www.evangelsociety.org/francisco/gaychange.html) while others interpret it to be for gay marriage (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm) 3. Nobody can obey both of those interpretations at the same time. 4. Therefore, nobody is Christian.
Quote: Quote: And you forgot to address my comment in that section that said: "The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition, regardless of whether the outcome is the condition or if it isn't." In other words: Atheism leaves room for a God, therefore if someone worships the state because they need a God, whether you interpret that as atheist or not it is the fault of atheism. I'm not sure I understand the argument. If I'm reading correctly, what you're saying is that if someone converts from atheism into some sort of theism, then whatever they do while they are a theist is the fault of atheism? If that's what you're saying, (I may be misinterpreting) let's do another bit of logic: 1. If you are an atheist and convert to theism, anything you do while you are a theist can be blamed on your atheism. 2. All children are born atheist. 3. The vast majority of children convert to theism. 4. All of those children do bad things and good things. 5. Therefore, all bad things and good things done by theists can be blamed on their prior atheism. 6. Therefore, the vast majority of bad things and good things done by people can be blamed on atheism. I think I'm misinterpreting you, though, so I apologize in advance.
1. A society is atheist
2. The society feels the need for a force to guide them so they look towards a leader
3. The society turns into a dictatorship
4. Bad things happen
Quote: Quote: 2. State "worship" or a cult of personality is the same thing as worshiping a deity. A cult of personality forces you to be loyal to that leader, I say again, religion is subjective. Maybe the problem here is that the word you're looking for is "optional", which isn't true. I know a lot of people who were baptized when they didn't believe in God, and there are many people in religious nations who are forced to obey religious laws they don't believe in.
Quote: Quote: I'll admit that when you pointed out that an adherent of Sharia law would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just like a Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about the nationalists was a good point, but there's a problem with that. A Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just as a Sharia law adherent would if you sang a song about Christianity. Quite simply, whenever there's lack of separation of church and state, two things are condemned by the state: 1) Other religions, 2) Allegiances with an enemy country. Number two is endorsed in just about every country (and they'd be out of their minds not to endorse it). sweatdrop I'm confused; how does this contradict my argument at all? This seems like a very clear summary of my argument. Mao's China was not secular, and you've just explained to me why. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
