You may think that atheism isn't important, but the atheists ruling communist China and the former Soviet Union did not agree with you. It is their opinion which is important, not yours. They obviously did think it was important. They made it communism's official belief and put the power of the state behind it to propogate the belief.

And, Adherents.com explicitly stated that religous affiliation dropped during communism and rose thereafter. Of course, if you can demonstrate that 50 years of oppressive government indoctrination and persecution of theists didn't result in a rise in atheistic belief, then my point is in doubt.

Toto

I would just like to question an assertion that Layman made, that there is any atheist literature from communist countries. I don't know of any. All of the books on atheism that I know of or that I see inthe SecWeb library or here are by philosophy professors, ex-theists, or writers in democratic countries. The only one to show any influence from Communism is Ayn Rand, who rejected most of what Communism was about. My impression is that communists do not write about atheism - they assume it, and spend more time on their competing quasi-religious ideology.

And Layman's references to Will Durant don't sound right. Agnosticism as a philosophy of life was not around in the 18th century - the word was invented in the late 19th century by Thomas Huxley, so I doubt if there were any real agnostics in the French revolution. This leads me to question the rest of what Durant says.

Well, if it's not in the SecWeb library it must not exist Toto. Thanks for the correction.

And when you reach a level of prestige comparable to Will Durant, or have done a tithe of the historical research he has, then your unsupported assertion might be worth something. Until then I'll just keep in mind your assertion that Luke changed Matthew's references to the census and that all scholars believe that Acts' author was Luke's redactor.



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited July 04, 2001).]

turton: Back to your usual ignorance and sweeping nonsense. Do you have any credible evidence that "most atheists" in the countries you refer to (a) supported the regime and (b) supported the policy of forced indoctrination of atheism?

Most atheists are a product of the regime. The communist party is officially atheistic. Since they don't allow Christians to move up in their ranks, it's certainly the most reasonable conclusion that the oppressors are atheists.

Shifting the ground once again. You said "most atheists" you didn't say "atheists in high positions." I guess this is an admission that you have no evidence on how "most atheists" viewed these governments, since rather than adduce any facts, you simply end with a personal insult.

…You don't appear to be one of them, however, as you soft pedal Chinese oppression of Christians.

I think, given your highly naïve views of the Christian church and its history in China (and the Far East, and its involvement with western intelligence agencies, to give just one example), as well as your nigh-on total ignorance of Chinese history, you shouldn't be making stupid comments like this. Only one person in this conversation has put himself on the line by working in an anti-Chinese independence movement, and it isn't you.

Yes it did, thank God. I never claimed that a majority of the former Soviet people had converted to atheism. I only claimed that the majority of atheists in the world were produced in and by oppressive governments that persecuted theists.

No, Layman, you claimed that the majority of atheists supported those policies. Here are your own words:

• Most have supported oppressive governments that have actively sought to promote atheism by indoctrinating the young in the earliest levels of school and oppressing theists.

You haven't a shred of evidence for this absurd charge…I think a retraction is in order here.

My main point is unchallenged: most atheists were produced in and by countries that actively promoted it through indoctrination and oppression of opponents.

Your main point is like saying the earth is round. So? The same is true of Christianity, which was indoctrinated in nearly every country where it was a majority, and in many colonies controlled by Christian powers where the belief didn't even exist. What is your point? We've already agreed that indoctrination is wrong; I think indoctrination in specific religious beliefs is wrong, you only think atheistic indoctrination is wrong. We've also seen that your numbers are suspect.

During the time I specified, most members of the CPS were agnostics or atheists. The CPS was notable for killing off a great many of the leaders of the French Revolutionatists, so I don't think appealing to those persons' beleifs save you anything.

Layman, during that time most members of the CPS were religionists of one kind or another, and all of the leaders were. Perhaps you should broaden your reading. Maybe you can explain why this committee of atheists executed its atheists and outlawed atheism (punishable by death). Durant is obviously wrong (there's a shock, maybe you should crack open some histories yourself, big guy); the CPS was made up of Deists and religionists of one sort or another, plus the atheist Herbertists who were pushed out and executed. They were all united by anti-Christian feeling, but they all have different takes on the issue.

Yes, there are certainly similarities to atheist atrocities against Christians and Christian atrocities against other Christians.

There are no atheist atrocities against Christians. The CPS wasn't atheist but Deist, and the Communists had their own religion called Communism.

Perhaps you could explain why Will Durant does note that the CPS was made up mostly of atheists and agnostics?

How about -- error?

You won't find everything mentioned on the internet in detail Turton. Sorry. Sometimes you have to crack a book. Thanks for spending so much time running internet searches in another desparate attempt to counter my facts. Sorry you couldn't find anything to do so.

What facts? So far, as I have demonstrated through citation of actual names, we have seen that the leaders of the Revolution and later, the CPS, were all Deists. All you have is a popular history. As I have said a hundred times, the only atheists got executed DURING THE TERROR in March of 1794. So how could the Reign of Terror have been an atheist project? It was not of course, it was a Deist project. Yes, that's right, DURING THE TERROR the atheists were killed. I do not know what France Durant was referring to, but it wasn't the one we're discussing.

Well, you claimed that the only time atheists have oppressed others was when they were communists. I offered specific examples of actions taken by atheists and agnostics on the CPS during the Reign of Terror. You have failed to refute those.

On the contrary, you have failed to offer any evidence, other than an obviously incorrect claim from Will Durant. Puzzling how those horrible atheists made atheism a crime punishable by death, and executed atheists during the reign of terror. Yes, that's right, Layman, during the Reign of Terror. You said:

• No, I have repeatedly focused on the Reign of Terror.

Well, Herbert et al were executed during the Reign of Terror, because they were atheists. So explain to me why the "atheists" executed atheists DURING THE REIGN OF TERROR. Also, so far, you haven't mentioned anyone in the CPS who was actually an atheist. Only the Herbertists were, and they didn't last long, being a minority and one soon out of favor with the Deists like Robespierre running the show.

My main point is that the majority of atheists have been produced in and by those countries that forcibly indoctrinated their populations into atheism and oppressed atheism's competitors.

No, Layman, your main point was that this was a "success." Nobody I know regards it as a "success." I suppose, though, given the widespread indoctrination in Christian countries starting at the primary school level -- I assume you are appalled as I am that Christian religion is forcibly indoctrinated at the primary school level in many African countries, as well as in many European countries -- I guess you must regard that as a "success" as well. In Kenya my kids were beaten and lectured to if they did not become Christians, unless they were Muslims, which was also protected by the State. Ironically, the only religion not protected by the state was african traditional religions. Go figure.

Basically, your "point" consists of an observation that Communism had to be indoctrinated, a point nobody is disputing. We note that once it was over, things quickly reverted to normal and the level of atheism fell off. I suspect that such social trends are normal; if someone had converted them at gunpoint to Catholicism or Daoism, they all would have become Orthodox again once the regime fell. Identity is hard to erase. The anomaly would be the persistent high levels of atheism in the GDR, for which other social factors may be called in to explain. After all, if Russia's percentage of atheists is 27%, and the Netherlands 24%, it looks as though your "success" is no success at all.

Further, you list many East Asian countries, but give no figure for atheism (which was and is widespread in Confucian E. Asia) in those countries prior to Communist takeover. Are you counting any sort of supernatural belief (folk-buddhism, animism, folk-Daoism, whatever), or just beliefs in "gods?" Finally, you propose no method for sorting out truth from lies in this area -- sorry, but as I know from actually doing research under authoritarian and post-authoritarian regimes (not only do I crack books, I do actual research), people lie habitually to people who poll them.

In short, even your so-called "point" isn't much of a point, and may not even be true.

But let's get back to the discussion at the top. Christianity is an authoritarian system depending heavily on indoctrination of the young, not just by parents, but by schools and other social settings. Whenever Christian organizations have had the power, they have attempted to change the education system to reflect these views -- happens quite often in the US at the local level. I'll give you a clue. Crack open Durant and see who ran the schools before the Revolution. Do you approve of such forced indoctrination? You wrote:

And disagreement and theological battles between Christian sects does not mean Christianity is inherently authoritarian or totalitarian. It means we disagree with each other. Are Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians totalitarian because they have political battles?

The Demipublicans don't kill each other when they disagree. They don't suppress each other's writings, outlaw each other's preachers (as the Orthodox have done in Russia, to give a pertinent example), lock up each other's believers, and exile those they can't kill. Do you honestly believe that if the secular government had not intervened, the LDS and the Christian Churches wouldn't still be going at it with guns and swords? Maybe they would have been like the Protestants and the Catholics, coming to an accommadation from sheer exhaustion after killing each other for a couple of centuries.

You are right that violence by itself does not indicate authoritarianism. But in this case, the violence springs from authoritarian beliefs that only Christians are right.

Your claim that Christian missionaries are democratic betrays a distressing lack of acquaintance with missionary behavior in the real world. Nearly all the Churches are willing to ally with authoritarian regimes in order to carry out missionary work, and they do not oppose them; indeed, many strongly support them. Such regimes generally realize how useful the authoritarian Christian religion is for controlling large populations and for destroying local centers of resistance to outside domination. When western companies have wanted open foreign countries to western penetration, they have often fostered alliances with missionaries. Christian missionary cooperation with western intelligence agencies is a well-known fact and need not be explored here. What do you think missionary work is, Layman? It is people going to places like Africa and convincing the locals that their beliefs are evil and their culture is worthless. It is wholesale destruction of local customs and cultures. Why do you think that colonial governments instilled Christianity? Because they knew full well its authoritarian leanings, and what an excellent cover it was for wholesale destruction of undesirable cultures.

Why do you think periodically missionaries are attacked and killed? Because even pagans have a limit to their tolerance for the racist, ethnocentric nonsense missionaries spout. There is no experience more enlightening than to have a bunch of idiots from Campus Crusade for Christ explain to oneself how evil the demon-worshipping Kenyans were, with the underlying tone of white-on-black hatred.

Further, what Christians mean by "religious freedom" is freedom for Christianity and destruction for everyone else. You're right, Layman, I am not sympathetic to US Christian complaints about the Chinese government. By conducting conversion campaigns in China, your people are not only destroying local cultures, customs and beliefs, they are also putting those people at risk from retaliation by the government. Yes, Layman, real people who otherwise would have lived get really killed because of your missionary idiocy. I don't have much sympathy for leaders in western states like the Christian Churches and the FLG leader Li, who get their followers killed so they can feel self-righteous, and generate even more cash flows for their Churches, which is the main thing, of course. My heart goes out for the poor dupes who follow your brutal religion, and get themselves killed so you all play the heartstrings of your flocks, garner more publicity and generate still more cash, missionary activity, and another round of killings. The cycle never ends, and Christians pay no attention to the dead, only to the living bodies, because, after all, that is the measure of "success."

One need only contrast the Christian missionary obsession to convert regardless of the human cost with the academics who work carefully to ensure that their Chinese informants, who often risk their lives for speaking with foreigners, do not come to harm for their truth-speaking. No, Layman, your churches are neither moral, nor ethical, and have no great love of humankind.

I have no doubt that people at your level (the bottom) have a sincere belief that conversion is in the best interests of those people. But I cannot agree that the people who are running the show really love anything other than their own wealth and power, and I feel extremely sorry for the poor ordinary Chinese who are ground down between two merciless authoritarian belief systems.

http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/p...y/rockyaho.htm

is a right-wing Christian magazine review of a book the links between the Rockefeller oil fortune, the CIA, and missionary activity in S. America.

Michael


[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited July 04, 2001).]

Getting back on topic for just this one post.

I never have seen the argument on the Shroud about the AMOUNT of blood (red paint) on cloth. I cut myself on the wrist once and blood completely covered my whole arm (just a vein). His whole arms at least down along the bottom sides of his arms should have been shown.

Next is the blood on the hair area. It clearly shows a "patch" of blood on his hair as if it were on a flat surface. Wrong, blood flows along the individual hair follicles.

I don't even have to be a scientist to just look at the photo and come to those conclusions.

One last point because I did work at a funeral home. Dead bodies don't bleed! Someone had to have cleaned him up after the removal from the cross. The puncture wound from the side should have bleed him like a rabbit. So after the clean up, why the traces of blood from a man in an upright position?

Ok, back to Layman's parade

This isn't exactly true. A simple rise is not enough. If the number of atheists that the stats increased by is significant enough to argue that most atheists have been produced by oppressive regimes, then that is a good indicator.

When Layman argues that the church is controlled by the CP, this just means that it's not the theism he wants to see. Theism, controlled by the state or not is still theism.

But I was cruising the net and found this article:

http://www.pcusa.org/pcusa/today/features/feat9711a.htm

It pretty much argues what I've been arguing. The view of a monolithically oppressive Chinese government is exaggerated. Statements like:

"the Bible is the second most widely published book in China"

and this:

"There is no general persecution in China, says Han Wenzao, president of the China Christian Council. 'But with China being so vast, you cannot expect the policy of religious freedom to be applied equally everywhere. However, the situation is not as bad as some of the Western media say.'"

And finally:

"The government's main concern with regard to Christianity is about public order...There's not much promotion of atheism and materialism anymore"

calls into question Layman's assertions.

Furthermore, I would like to see some stories of "spies" in religious groups, and particularly registration as an "enemy" of the party.

Toto

The SecWeb Library is as a good source of books on atheism as you will find. I notice that you have not produced a single example of a book on atheism from the Soviet Union. I assume that there are none.

Does prestige equal accuracy? (Answer = no) The consensus of experts is usually correct, but even then has been wrong.

Will Durant was brilliant, but he was a popularizer and not an expert on any particular part of history. He wrote about all of civilization. He's entitled to a few errors, assuming that you even quoted him correctly.

I try to acknowledge my errors and move on.

BTW, Layman, your "point" is absurd. If you think Buddhists are atheists, then there were hundreds of millions of them in China prior to the Communist takeover, and hundreds of millions afterward, for largely demographic reasons.

Buddhists do not worship gods. I guess that makes them atheists. Some do incorporate demons and other supernatural elements into their thinking. I guess that makes them theists. You chose.

In short, your point rests solely on definitional grounds.

In fact, the majority of atheists in this century were produced by perfectly ordinary methods of social indoctrination.

G'day.

Michael

Oh, and I'd like to point out that the article above comes from the Presbyterian Church, USA. When I make the same arguments I'm accused of supporting persecution of Christians. Layman, is the Presbyterian church supportive of the CP too?

Turton, neither I nor my sources were counting "Buddhists" as "atheists." Even the sources you supplied, Adherents.com, clearly distinguishes between the two and noted that the Chinese government persecuted Buddhism as well as Christianity.

So no, I'm not counting Buddhists as atheists.

Why are you having such a hard time accepting that the former USSR and communist China have produced the greatest number of atheists? Are you really denying this? Or are you denying that they persecuted theists and fostered state coerced indoctrination?