Well let's see, since you're a "christian," and Jesus is your "god," and "no one shall come to the father except through me," and all that jazz, it shouldn't make any difference to you whether the "tiny minority" in question consists of atheists, agnostics, buddhists, muslims, scientologists, jainists., or whatever. They're all wrong, and ultimately hellbound, are they not?

Unless of course that "tiny minority" to which you refer represents a portion of the populace in cloud cuckoo land.

The reason I asked about the GDR as opposed to the USSR is because it is interesting how the numbers are so disproportionate. The former GDR had 88% whereas Russia had 27% (just 2 percentage points more than Israel!). The question is Russia, which was under state capitalism for at almost 70 years and endured possibly the most ruthless dictator in history, less susceptible to atheism than the GDR? I'm also glad I had a look at the numbers. Countries like Israel, and the Netherlands are in close proximity to Russia. So how do we explain this?

Furthermore, according to the site, accurate numbers from currently state capitalist regimes are unavailable. And they note:

"Officially released statistics from some Communist governments are often merely manufactured estimates without an empirical or statistical basis."

There are still questions to be answered before rush to the conclusion that "most-atheists-have-been-coerced-by-oppressive-regimes."

And I have no ideological stake in this debate, by the way. Why would I promote persecution of a particular religious group? What gain is there? What is so important that I would be "desperate" (as you put it) to show? That's why your suggestion that I am defending the Chinese baffles me.

Being a skeptic is not limited to questions of religion--it extends to political systems as well. And I think that Maoism is a terrible ideology. So I would not at all be offended if it turned out that persecution did produce the most atheists. I have no emotional attachment to the word "atheism." "Atheism" is just a state of nonbelief in a god. It is not a set of codified ideologies. It is not good or bad--it's just atheism.

[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited July 03, 2001).]

Explaining them is not necessary for the point we are discussing. I never claimed that atheism only gained adherents in coercive, oppressive regimes. Certainly some people become atheists of their own free will. But all the evidence indicates that atheist has gained most of its adherents through governmental oppression and indoctrination.

And compared to China and the former USSR, Israel and the Netherlands have tiny populations. Their atheists make up only a fraction of the world's atheistic population.

No inquiry will be perfect. But I don't think that means that all the numbers don't mean anything. The trends seem pretty clear. The most atheistic countries in the world are those that have governments that oppressed theistic belief and indoctrinated atheism the most.

No rush here, I've just looked at the data. So far you've given me absolutely no reason to think this is untrue. You just seem to hope the numbers might be wrong.

I don't think you are promoting the persecution of a particular religious group. But I think you don't want to admit that atheism has advanced the most in those countries that supported it by persecuting its opponents and indoctrinating their populations.

I have no problem with your disassociation with atheists with whom you have political disagreements. You still think their atheism is correct, but you don't share their oppressive attitudes on how atheism and religion should be treated and handled by the government. While you agree with them that there is no god, you disagree with them on freedeom of religion, freedeom of speech, and democracy. More power to ya.

One has to be careful with cases like France, because everybody who is baptized a Catholic gets counted as one, even if that person is otherwise indifferent to religion.

If the poll relied on Church statistics and not poll numbers you might be correct. But it is really irrelevent to the point. The issue is not how many Catholics, but how many atheists. And the numbers tell us that atheists are most likely to be found in countries with governments that actively force atheism on their citizens.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited July 03, 2001).]

The point has hardly been rejected. It is undisputable. Athiesm has been most succesful when backed up by oppressive governmental coercion. In those countries were atheism has prospered the most, the government of that country has actively promoted it and oppressed its opponents.

Like I said, Layman, only a complete sicko would regard forced indoctrination as a "success" and "prosperity." I have always maintained that Christianity is a form of nihilism, and you have brilliantly proved it here.

Christianity is not a competing authoritarian system.

It isn't? We'll talk about that in a second.

The underground churches in the former Soviet Union and communist China are in no way competeing authoritarian regimes.

Not yet.

They are not intent on seeking power or imposing a theocracy. They want to worship God. They are not free to do so.

On the contrary, they are free to do so, so long as they register with the State. For there is, as I have said repeatedly, and as you have refused to acknowledge, a State Church in Communist China. This issue isn't atheism, it is power and control, on both sides.

The rest of your diabtribe is rather pointless and besides the point. Most atheists in this century don't share your puprotedly nonevangelistic anti-indoctrination brand of atheism. 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.

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?

I didn't think so. I note that as soon as those regimes were overthrown, the policy of forced indoctrination of atheism ended.

Certainly not. You are letting your own bigotry show here. Despite my categorical statements to the contrary, you presume to know that I am really an evil theocract intent on establishing a theocracy. You presume that despite my denouncement of government oppression and my support for freedom of religion, I secretly want to hunt down skeptics, imprison them, beat them, and
murder them. But the only basis for your presumptive knowledge of my innermost thoughts is that I am a Christian.

A demonstration of your anti-religious bigotry could not be more clear. I'm not like the majority of atheists have been this century. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Sweeping nonsense. You have no evidence that the "majority of atheists" supported the policies you pretend to condemn. All you can say for sure is that the governments of Communist countries promoted atheism through forced indoctrination. Since there is no record of non-Communist atheists performing such acts, the conclusion is that they did it as Communists, and not atheists. That is why you have no case, either.

As for bigotry, don't make me laugh. If Christianity is not about forced indoctrination, power and control, why do they start by indoctrinating children? Why is the presentation of information at Christian schools so unbalanced? Why do missionaries import their political stances and struggles to the populations they evangelize? Why are most Churches heirarchical in structure, with authority centralized at the top? Why do so many Christian sects exclude and denigrate others, such as the way Protestant sects attack the Catholics, and the Orthodox exclude missionaries from Russia? Why is the control of the minds and bodies of others so important to Christians? And most importantly, why do you personally take "forced indoctrination" as a measure of success? And so on. Christianity is an authoritarian system. It doesn't have to be, and I have no quarrel with it when it isn't. But generally, it is about power and control, just like its cousins Islam and Communism.

BTW, charging me with bigotry is simply an admission that you have no argument at all, and now have to resort to whining, pleading, and insults.

I am the one denouncing the atheistic forced indoctrination in the former USSR and communist China. You, KCTAN, and Le Pede are the one's soft peddling it and, in some cases, seeking to justify it.

Show me where I have sought to justify it. And you are not "denouncing" forced indoctrination, but proclaiming it a success. "Success" was the very word you used.

Well now. You seem to have missed the point again.

That's because you don't have one. As we both know, a number of atheists were executed during the Revolution, not merely one.

Rather than respond to the evidence I put
forward that the Reign of Terror included atheistic oppression of Christianity,..

What evidence? You merely made claims. I cited evidence, such as the first article of the Convention which clearly showed that the French Revolutionists were anti-Christian deists. The major leaders of the CPS were religionists of one kind or another.

...you have referred me to an atheist that was execude during the French Revolution. I didn't say that no atheists were killed during the Reign of Terror.

Well, no, if you had acknowledged that, it would have undercut your point, as it does.

Your argument, near as I can tell, is that the Revolution suppressed Churches and took their property, and killed some clergy, so that means that they were atheists who killed Christians. You haven't actually put forward any evidence that shows that Danton, Marat and Robespierre were atheists. You just claimed that that is the case. Far from that, the only avowedly atheist group, the Herbertists, who were passionately atheistic, got themselves executed by the Robespierre.

I said that the CPS, mostly composed of atheists and skeptical agnostics and NO Christians, oppressed Christianity

Sure, it oppressed Christianity. It was composed of anti-Christian deists who also executed atheists. Guess what? Being anti-Christian isn't the same as being atheist, except in the minds of Christian apologists.

Of course, anything is possible with those wacky atheists on the CPS. Robsepierre himself fell prey to his own invention. The CPS became famous for eating its own.

Yes, it reminds one of the way early Christians killed each other and suppressed each other's writings, declared each other heretics, and then started 20 centuries of religious warfare, still ongoing today. Of course, anything is possibly with violent, authoritarian belief systems.

Now, as for the CPS, its leader was Robespierre. Robespierre was a Deist who believed in a religion of nature. Also true of Danton, and Marat. Carnot appears to have gone from Catholic to atheist at some point, but I don't know when, and in any case he organized the military and had little part in the executions (and at one time was a target of the Revolution). So I am a bit mystified. Who were these atheists leading the French Revolution astray? The only atheists I know of offhand, Hebert and Chaumette and their followers, were executed by the in-crowd, few of whom were atheists, and most of whom believed religion was good for the state, as shown in the First Article the Convention adopted. In fact, religion was so important it came first. So, let's have lists of names and maybe a sketch of how they shaped policy.

The article on the FRev at Britannica is here. Funny, but it doesn't mention atheism. Wonder why that is?

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...=2500#2500.toc

The Reign of Terror article here identifies the Herbertists (the atheists) as being to the Left of the Reign of Terror crowd, and again does not mention atheism.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?idxref=177643

Nor does the Catholic Encycopedia article on it mention the prominent role played by atheism:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13009a.htm

Nor the Columbia, which doesn't even mention religion in its article collection:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles...72Outcome.html

If atheism played such a prominent role, why is it not mentioned in these articles?

Again, the Convention supported religion (from the Cath. Ency. article)

The Convention desired to have this speech translated into all languages and adopted a decree of which the first article was: "The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul".

Also, from the Cath. Encyclodedia entry on France:

On 21 November, 1793, Robespierre, speaking from the Jacobin tribune of the Convention, protested against the violence of the dechristianizing party, and in December the Committee of Public Safety induced the Convention to pass a decree ensuring freedom of worship, and forbidding the closing of Catholic churches. Everywhere throughout the provinces civil war was breaking out between the peasants, who clung to their religion and faith, and the fanatics of the Revolution, who, in the name of patriotism threatened, as they said, by the priests, were overturning the altars. According to the locality in which they happened to be, the propagandists either encouraged or hindered this violence against religion; but even in the every bitterest days of the terror, there was never a moment when Catholic worship was suppressed throughout France.

When Robespierre had sent the partisans of Hébert and of Danton to the scaffold, he attempted to set up in France what he called la religion de l'Etre Suprême. Liberty of conscience was suppressed, but atheism was also a crime.

Both the Assembly and the CPS advocated freedom of worship, although the CPS was more grudging about it, and placed restrictions on it, subjecting it to State security.

Besides, all this argument about the French Revolution is really quite silly. If this is the only putative non-Communist oppression of theists by atheists you can come up with, you are in serious trouble. I can put twenty centuries of Christian-on-Christian and Christian-on-non-Christian violence against it, and forced indoctrination of whole peoples. By your standards, the destruction of aboriginal culture in a thousand places and the forced indoctrination of those people into Christianity is a "success" and "prosperity." I'll leave it to the readers to judge who has the problem in this thread.

Michael

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

The problem here is that people are treating "atheism" as it is something important. It is no more important than calling someone a "theist." KKK members are theists. Branch Davidians are theists. People who don't have an organized religion but believe in a god are "theists." I would argue that no one on this message board would say that the spread of atheism is an inherently good thing. The spread of critical thinking is, however a good thing. And most atheists (that have reached atheism by their own choosing) would argue that atheism is the most logical product of critical thinking. Those that reject belief in a god because the state apparatus has told them to has not reached their conclusions voluntarily and through inquiry. I suspect that the most important thing to people on this board, and throughout the secular web in general is skepticism. Most probably believe that nontheism is a natural extension of skepticism, and with me the ends and the means are important.

Now I was skeptical of Layman's conclusions--partially because of the implications of his statements, and partially because of the fact that his point was confusing. His implications, from time to time, were that most people are atheist because of government coersion. He also said that atheism has "spread" primarily because of persecution. This is quite different from saying that there are more atheists in state capitalist regimes (which is what he says his main point is). This is not under dispute.

The confusion is why I asked questions about the difference between the GDR and former USSR, etc. That's why I pointed out that results from state capitalist regimes are inconclusive. If there are discrepancies between the numbers in say, the GDR and former USSR that would suggest that there are other factors determining whether individuals becoming atheist besides state coersion.

In order to determine conclusively whether or not most atheists have become atheists because of state coersion is to take the approximate number of atheists before state capitalism and the number of atheists post-state capitalism. This would also have to be known before we could know how well atheism has "spread." If there has just been a small increase in atheism, that would cast serious doubt on whether or not atheism "spread" mostly because of indoctrination. There may be other factors in its "spread" e.g. the nontheistic nature of religions in Asia, the radical working class in revolutionary Russia.

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

Or it could simply be the level of education knowledge attain is higher than before.

The more people know about things, the less superstitious they become (on the whole).

While the Soviet educational system did have some areas of superiority, especially in science and mathematics (which might lead one to atheism), to many western ones, in the main the reason so many Russians were atheists was because the Communists wanted to replace the Christian brand of authoritarian beliefs with their own. That bare fact is largely true -- it is hard to account for the prevalence of atheism in the old GDR otherwise!

http://www.ekd.de/bulletin/2277_3311.html, the bulletin of the Evangelical Church in Germany, attributes the failure of the old GDR to return to its formerly religious ways to church politics and the fact that atheism is now deeply-rooted in the population. Obviously there is more to this than mere oppression. Demographic effects play a huge role -- it will years before that population will once again be brought under Christian influence, if ever.

But if we use the figures at Adherents.com, Russia is at 27% atheist, while the Netherlands is at 24. Hardly a huge difference. So even in Layman's amoral terms, it ain't much of a "success."

http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/religion.htm has a discussion of the data. Since the number of believers grew fourfold in the three years after the collapse of Communism, we can only note that the atheism figures for Russia are WAY overblown, and in fact the numbers generated under the Soviet regime are bogus.

Imagine that.

Layman's is spin on these numbers, however, is simply rambling allegations that have grown wilder and wilder as the thread drags on. Like this one below:

"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."

One wonders where he is getting this particular bit of data, namely, that "most atheists" have supported oppressive governments. Did most Russians, Germans, North Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese support the Communist state? Did they do so as atheists??

or

…atheistic Committee for Public Safety…

The only atheists on the CPS were eventually executed, and atheism was outlawed by the CPS and the Convention.

Michael

You really will stoop as low as possible to try and win an argument. I've repeatedly condemned the atheistic oppression imposed by these governments. You are the one who seems to be defending it. It appears that the only line of attack you think will work is to portray me as approving of these methods. Desparate and pathetic. I used to think better of you.

My what a civil libertarian you are Turton. The establishment of a state run church controlled by atheists and the oppression of those who refuse to join it is considered the freedom of worship to you? And the communist party itself is officially atheist. Even if a memember of the state church you will find your "rights" infringed and your options closed.

It is a masterpeice. Set up a mock church dominated by those who hate Christianity. Force all Christians to register with the overtly state their religious viewpoint and identify themselves as potential enemies of the state. It gives good cover to pathetic atheist sympathizers like you who want to cover their eyes to the religious persecution of Christians. You had previously said that you were sympathetic to the underground church in China. Now it appears you are chiding them for not recognizing that their atheist overlords will grant them the freedeom they desire so long as they abandon their dreams of political donimination. Dreams that they do not have. I've met such leaders.

And the existence of a disfavored church subject to atheist control doesn't eliminate the indoctrination and offical atheistic line taught in China's education system. The full force of the government backs the atheist line. It is taught as the truth and opposing viewpoints are squashed. Christians can't buy radio or television time. They aren't free to distribute whatever literature they wish.

This is your idea of freedom to worship? That is chilling. Perhaps this IS how you atheists want the church.

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. I'm sure there are atheists critical to the regime. I never said their weren't. In fact, I never said that all atheists act as oppressors. There are certainly many atheists in the United States that chose their beliefs of their own free will and would condemn the actions of their fellow atheists in China. You don't appear to be one of them, however, as you soft pedal Chinese oppression of Christians.

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.

I "pretend" to condemn? What a bigot you continue to reveal yourself to be Turton. And a chilling one at that. Knowing the secret desires of you opponents heart. Ignoring his denials, because you know that secretly I am evil because I am a Christian.

But I'lll refine the statement. Majority of atheists in power. My main point is unchallenged: most atheists were produced in and by countries that actively promoted it through indoctrination and oppression of opponents.

I notice you do not deny the charge of bigotry. In fact you seem to justify it by pointing out how your opposition is. Of course that is what bigots usually do. They think their bigotry is completely justified.

I see now you are comparing the parent's right to raise and educate their children to the forced indoctrination of youth by atheistic governments. I don't see the two as morally equivalent. Parents do have the right to direct the upbringing of their children. You can raise yours to be cute little atheists, I can raise mine to be cute little Christians. Then we can compete for them in the market place of ideas when they mature.

Having a heirarchical structure is not the same as having an authoritarian regime, or a totalitarian government. Large organizations have heirarchies. The ACLU has one. NOW has one. Even the SecWeb has one. This is a red herring.

As for missionaries importing their political stances, you will have to give me evidence that most missionaries do this? And to the extent it is true, most of those missionaries' political stances are democractic. Hardly authoritarian or totalitarian.

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?

And you conclude by once again accusing me of personally approving of the atheist oppression of theists. I do not. I've been clear about that. Your committment to the idea is indicative of your bigotry and your desparation.

No such admission has been made. Besides, you haven't really even denied the charge. You have just attempted to justify it.

And as I explained above, your continued distortion of my opinion is ample enough evidence that you really can't refute the main point: Most atheists were produced in countries that forcibly indoctrinated atheistic beliefs and oppressed its rivals.

You have defended the idea that the atheists in China are right to be suspicious of Christians because they are a competeing authoritarian political movement. You have made the outrageous statement that Christians are granted the freedom to worship in China and ignored and downplayed their persecutions of Christians and violations of freedeom of speech and freedom of religion.

And it is just more demonstrative of your bigotry that you ignore all of my words of explicit denial, and distort and focus on only my use of one word to find my secret, hidden motive. The use of the term "success" is in no way an indication of the approval of what the atheists have done to the thiests in the former USSR and communist China. No more so than it would be an approval of Nazi Germany to say that Hitler "succeeded" in taking Poland in one month. Like I said, this is just another skeptic attempting character assisination against a theist. It's a pathetic, transparent one. But perhaps it has become habitual.

Again. I did not deny that atheists were killed in the revolution. I was focused at the Reign of Terror, in which the CPS, dominated by agnostics and atheists, moved against Christians. I also noted that the CPS turned on its own and that the Revolution was a swinging pendelum of extremes.

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.

No, I have repeatedly focused on the Reign of Terror. During the Reign of Terror's actions against Christianity, and the attrocities I referred to, Will Durant records in the Age of Nepolean, pg 741-746, that the CPS was made up mostly of agnostics and atheists. They are the ones who undertook the actions I specified against Chrsitianity. They were agnostics and atheists. And I specifically pointed out that Robespierre was largely responsible for reigning them in and ending the overt hostility to Christianity in general. He attempted thereafter to foster a type of nationalistic deism that failed.

I'm not using their anti-Christian actions to prove they were atheists Turton. You are missing the point. I am relying on my historical source which states that they were agnostics and atheists, and then I detailed very specific anti-Christian actions taken by those atheists and agnostics.

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

You are comparing the beginning of the revolution and assuming it stayed the same throughout its endurance. That is not true. During the Reign of Terror, as reported by Will Durant, most members of the CPS were agnostics or atheists. They had a general hostility to Christianity. They eventually were reigned in by the diest Robespierre, as I noted, who was eventually himself executed by the CPS.

Perhaps because most encyclopedias are broad glosses of history. Perhaps you could explain why Will Durant does note that the CPS was made up mostly of atheists and agnostics? That would be a better place to start. His coverage of the revolution is probably broader than that of my encyclopedais.

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.

See above. I was discussing about specific actions taken by the CPS during a specific time frame. I never said the entire French Revolution was atheistic and I specifically noted that Robespierre moved to end the atheist/agnostic attack on Christians and advocated a form of deism. But I appreciate you fleshing out the other parts of the story.

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. Of course, it seems that the only times that atheists have had such control over the government is during the Reign of Terror and in communists governments. So I'd say that they have a pretty poor track record overall. But this was really a tangent that you wanted to take. I never said this was my main point.

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.

And I have no idea where you think I advocated the anhiliation of native cultures all over the planet. It was certainly never a topic I raised. Must just be more mudslinging on your part, because I think that such atrocities are atrocities. Committed by whomever, to whomever.