Samhain

Um, read my previous post on this issue. We don't "define it away." As I stated before, in my previous post, atheism is hardly ever a cause for anything. Atheists don't commit atrocities, such as genocide, holy war, murder in the name of atheism, that's absurd. "I'm going to kill you for my disbelief in something" - How moronic is that? Things like that don't happen in the name of atheism on a large scale, if at all, but they certainly do in the name of God/Allah/Yahweh etc.


This is clearly an ad hominem attack, and you are begging the question. Bad form. First off, we cannot attack atheism as a whole for things that a few power hungry men did who ruled over communist nations. Yes, communism was based partly off of atheism, but just because it was based off of atheism does not mean that any of the atrocities done were in the name of atheism. These things were done in the name of communism. Just because it was an atheist system does not mean that it was done because of atheism, since it clearly was not, and not only that, but these acts were only committed by a select few who ran these communist nations for a short period of time, theists (largely Christianity and it's various factions) have a track record thats been running for thousands of years in every continent in the world.

Marx saw a problem with there being a higher authority than the state, and his fear was warranted, I think. If the church is a higher authority than the state, then what is to keep man to following laws which may not be considered as "crimes" in a "holy" tome. Which would man be more inclined to believe in such a dilemma? The "mighty and all powerful creator" or the state? Of course, for the theist, this is not even a question since man's only power "derives" from God himself. So God would be the higher authority in that case. I think that Marx found it hard to have the State rise to the same "authority level" for the common man as the church without abolishing the church completely.

We haven't "defined away" anything. It is just not even an issue here of how many deaths were in the name of communism. Sure, there were millions of deaths, sure, communism was partially based off of atheism (amoung many other things which would be considered "good" by most people if taken out of context of communism), but this does not prove that all of these deaths took place in the name of atheism. This straw man argument of yours really proves nothing, especially since you came into this discussion with a bias against communism. Communism isn't evil, but it just gives an evil man too much power to do what he wants. And regardless of what you think about Communism, it does not prove that any act took place in the name of atheism.

This straw man argument is taken largely out of context. If the thread were called "Which has caused more evil, religion or communism" your points would be relevent, but since this thread is atheism and theism, your points do not belong here.

Also, I would refer you to several things: The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, The colonization of the Americas by Europeans, 9/11, the IRA, etc. The list goes on and on, all of these done in the name of religion, and these don't even count what was done by God in the Bible.

That's fine, it still in the name of the state, not in the name of atheism. Atheism has never been used as an excuse for anything like this. At least they aren't lying about their true motives behind this. They want to raise up the state of communism, fine, does it justify the deaths of that many people? No, and it was viewed as an heinous act at the time. Now, with religion, it gives a lot more leeway when one says that "we do this in the name of God." For the majority, the common theists that is, this would be sufficient at the time, and would not think twice about it. And as for the theists who actually ponder whether or not this act would be condoned by God, they would fall in line when they see the majority already taking up arms, so to speak. You see, using God's name can justify a lot, especially when people get emotional about it at the time. A perfect example is the war in Afghanistan as a result of 9/11. No one really questioned much about whether this was the right thing to do or not because people were too wrapped up in their emotions and in punishing the "wicked."


No, it is not valid in this argument or in this thread, we are specifically looking at the "evils" done. But in answer to your question anyway: You must first prove:
(1) that the knowledge of the commandments (which are basically just a set of moral values) could not have been realized without religion
(2) that these commandments have truly caused more good than harm and...
(3) that holding religion's commandments above the commandments of any government is beneficial.

1. And has there not been good done in the absence of any kind of theistic belief (atheist or theist). All good deeds are not necessarily done out of the name of any religion itself or lack of religion for that matter. There are more than plenty of good deeds done in the world devoid of all theistic or atheistic reasoning.

2. Does the "good" done by religion outweigh the "evil" caused by it? This is what one must examine to determine whether or not religion is a benefit or harm to society. With the track record of religion, my opinion is no, but hey, that's why it's my opinion I guess.

3. Oh yes, and tremendous good? Things like televangelism, faith healing, and the like?

Yes, but if religion was never realized, don't you think man would have found some reason to do these things for his fellow man anyway, just out of the "good" of their own being? This is called Post hoc, religion did not necessarily mean the invention of hospitals, therefore your attempt at justification for religion fails.


Try to stay away from fallacies in logic, please. You have proved little, if anything in your response, try to think of some reasons why ATHEISM is more "evil" than theism, and we'll continue.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

fromtheright

Samhaim,

Nothing of what you said responds to my original point, which was to return to the question, not whether evil was committed in the name of atheism, but whether more evil has been committed by theists or atheists.

How ridiculous. I have not attacked anyone. Communism is an atheist system. And no, I haven't begged the question, it was simply a direct response to the original question, not what you wish the question had been. Again, evil done by atheists/theists, not in the name of atheism/theism. Communism is atheist, Communists performed evils = atheists performed evils. Seems pretty simple, at least based on the original question.

Yes I do because I, as do you, have the capacity to see facts and make judgements about them. The facts point to a system which relegated man as an instrument to the state and saw it as morally correct to repress and punish free speech as opposition to the State. If one cannot see an evil system and develop a bias against it, then can one recognize evil as evil anywhere. "By your fruits you shall know them." Communism was an evil system.

Talk about a straw man. Again, I refer you back to the original question. I know it wasn't posed the way you would like it or the way you have imagined it, but you keep responding to a different question.

I accept your point that it is not relevant to the debate but I must respond to your "conditions" which are absolutely irrelevant to my question, which was whether in considering the balance of evil/benefits of atheists/theists one can consider the good actions done by religionists in obedience to the precepts of that religion. None of your three points, and least of all the third, have any bearing on that question. I was not raising the commandments themselves but simply whether those religious commandments moved religionists/Christians to carry out actions valuable to society or individuals within a society.

I don't deny any of that. Again, I was simply seeking to enter into the balance sheet the good done by theists.

Nice effort to evade the point, but it doesn't work. I didn't deny any of these things, and in fact acknowledge them. Is it that hard for you to acknowledge any of the beneficial actions done by Christians?

Yes, maybe eventually these things would have been done but they weren't being done and certainly not on the level they were done by religionists. All you have raised as an alternative is a "maybe it would have happened without religion"--the fact is it did happen with religion. I'm not sure what the logical fallacy at work here is but it sounds simply like a dream world.

Why don't we simply continue with the original question which you have done a clever, though unsuccessful, job of avoiding?

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Samhain

First of all, I must ask, did you read this entire thread? Many of us found that the original question was not something even remotely relevant because of the ratio of theists to atheists in the world at any given time. Atheists have been a very small faction of people since the beginning of history. Therefore the original argument is not relevant because we can obviously see that since more people in the world are theists, then more evil would come from theists. Therefore the argument cannot possibly be feasible. We already established this before. If the amount of theists to atheists was even remotely comparable, not just today, but throughout history, then the question would have been established accordingly. As it stands now, though, because of the fractional amount of atheists in the world compared to theists, this question is faulty, and therefore we must disregard it and establish a more objective question. Hence we ask: which has more potential or flexibility to cause harm to the world: atheists, or theists? Or: Which of these, either atheism or theism, constitutes a behavior which indicates that their religious beliefs or lack of can be or has been the one and only source of an evil act.

You attacked what various communist leaders did because they were atheists, this does not prove anything in regard to what we established should be the proper question in this situation (which, as you can see, was pretty much agreed upon until you brought up the original, fallible point). Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption but you say: because communism is a system with some attributes of atheism, it must therefore be true that atheism is evil because of what communists did. Begging the question. Your assumption is that these actions were done because the reason which they were atheists. This proves nothing. These are things which communists did in the name of communism, not in the name of atheism. Your argument is nothing more than a Red Herring in my book, because it fails to display any concept of what the more acceptable question in this situation is. And yes, I'll say it again, we have established which is a more appropriate question with regard to the evils of atheism and theism.

I see nothing "evil" in the system of Communism itself. I see evil in the way that man carried out those actions. Communism was misguided in the sense that the ruler of the state would be able to care for it's citizens properly, which was falsely demonstrated by Stalin. That does not mean that Communism itself is evil. I do not believe that Nietzsche was an evil man just because his writings were misinterpreted by the German-Nazi state. The difference is, I see Communism as a system which did not provide enough fail-safes to insure that it would be correctly ruled, but which had good intentions. You view Communism as evil because of the things that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao have done through Communism.

Many of us already responded to the original question, but we found it lacking and fallible (a theist was the first to point this out - Tercel: Page one, Post four), so we decided that it must be changed to be a more objective question and not one based off of population of theists vs. atheists. Once again, this was to try and give the theists a little more room.

The point is that this is another post hoc argument in which you are also shifting the burden of proof. It cannot be proven that any religious commandments "inspired" (or whatever word you would like to use) anyone to do good. It has been proven through atheism that it is possible for one to do good without religious basis, so your question is not relevant. One cannot know whether or not these things were the ultimate cause of "inspiration" to do good to others. If one such a person could be inspired without the religious basis then it shows the point is not relevant. Therefore, while I admit my requirements #2 & #3 may not have been relevant to your question, #1 is still entirely relevant. My point is that if you assume that something is true through religious basis, then you better be able to back it up logically at the same time, or it truly does not have any relevance to the argument at hand, because it the end it is only assumption. If you can prove it then I will consider counting it as relevant, if not, do not assume that just because you believe it makes it true.

If you are so worried about the question at hand, then why do you divert. Unlike the modification we made to the original question, whether or not good has been done through religion has absolutely no relavancy at all. We are not discussing "good" we are discussing "evil."

Organizations like Nova have caused quite a stir with proving many "faith healers" as charlatans out to steal money from the naive man, and I have not seen one yet who is genuine. Also there have been quite a few televangelists who have been caught extorting money for their own private funds, instead of actually puting them into funds which they claim that they will go. I don't deny any good done by Christians, in fact, I praise it because it truly seems so rare, especially nowadays. I do, however despise anyone who preys on people and steals their money because the person has a certain firm belief, and is naive enough to think that all who "follow God" are good. This truly sickens me.

I can't recall a time in history when religion didn't exist in some form. Remember, we have had religions and gods since the time of Homer, and while they may not be the same as the religions today, they are still religions which show an objective form of morality and mind-control nonetheless. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle saw this as well, mind you. Therefore the claim that it "wasn't happening without religion" cannot be considered as true because you could hardly begin to prove it. If you can, I'd be accepting to anything that you say if it's done from a view of logic and reason and not faith and assumption.

Because as I said numerous times before, the original question has no value as is (or in a literal sense) because of exactly what Tercel and Don Morgan (the original poster) have said on the matter:

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

fromtheright

Samhaim,

No, I confess I didn't read the entire thread but did kind of skim through it and did note the direction that it took. I have no problem with the original question, which you said bothered some due to the ratio of theists to atheists, that because there are more theists it is expected they have committed more evil. I would argue that despite the smaller numbers of atheists they have committed far more evil, albeit in a shorter period of time.

Further, it seems absurd to argue about the evils committed by atheism as it is simply the absence of belief. This is why it makes more sense to debate about the impact of atheists vs. theists. That is why it seems ridiculous to argue that pointing out the evils committed by Communists is an ad hominem attack, if the debate is regarding "ists" and not "isms.


We simply disagree. Communism is evil because it replaces the State (or the Party) for man as sovereign, it sees no system of right and wrong except for what advances the State/Party/revolution. I'm not one of those who would argue that it "looks good on paper" because its philosophical basis in Marxism/Leninism was evil. I don't think that with its roots there could be any effective fail-safes that would not change the nature of Communism.
Was Nazism an evil system?

You needn't state my views for me. Communism is an evil system that tended to advance evil men, not evil because of those men. By the way, it didn't start with Stalin. Lenin was not some angel of light whose vision was corrupted by Stalin. Stalin simply took an evil system and took it to new levels. As I recall, Dzerzhinsky's Cheka was created under Lenin.

If you honestly contend this, I believe you do it in the face of history. I've cited a few examples of Christians doing good, because they were motivated by Jesus's injunctions to do so.


How can one not know? If monasteries and religious institutions set up hospitals and charitable institutions because they said that they were motivated by Jesus, how can you deny that this was their inspiration?

Another failed effort to dodge the point, which was simply that good has also been done by Christians, not to deny that atheists have also done good.

I first started the discussion about good actions by stating I wasn't sure if it was relevant and my willingness to not discuss that. If you don't want to discuss that any further, then please say so, but this has been an exchange between the two of us on that issue so far.

Again, I acknowledge this and am equally outraged and contemptuous of these scoundrels, perhaps more so because they do make religion look bad.

The good things of Christianity I cited weren't occurring nearly to the extent they did under Christianity. Please point me to examples that they were occurring on nearly the same scale before Christianity.

I disagree with Don. I doubt that you would be raising the Inquisition or wrongs done by horrible Europeans on Native Americans if they were only committed against one or two individuals. I also would argue that the numbers do matter if you happened to be one of those numbers, a victim of either atheists or theists. Actually, I think the scale of the evils committed by atheist Communism is part of the evidence against atheists/Communists.

Samhain

Ok, so, I'm guessing that, by your assumption that deaths done by communism were a direct result of atheism, you'll want to see evidence to show that theists are worse (and as the original question states it's not just by death counts). Here is the answer to your original question:

1. The Crusades
2. The Inquisition(s) (not only were there an estimated 60,000 deaths attributed to the Spanish Inquisition alone (this does not include the other various Inquisitions carried out by the Catholic church over a span of 500-700 years), but there were also mass amounts of tortures, tortures went on which you would not even believe, it's disgusting). Try this link for some info on some of the tortures which took place: <a href="http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/racking.htm" target="_blank">web page</a>
3. The various witch trials in Europe and America.
4. Holy wars between Palestine and Israel.
5. The hundreds upon hundreds of other holy wars or wars of religion which have taken place over the span of 2000 years.
6. Mass suicides of religious cult members.
7. The Holocaust (perhaps not the WHOLE state of Nazism, but the "Solution" was to wipe out an entire religous group).
8. Suicide Bombers/Bombings and other various acts of terrorism in the name of religion.
9. 9/11
10. Child molestations by priests.
11. Female circumcision or genital mutilation.
12. Slavery.
13. Censorship!!! (I cannot emphasize this one enough).


Give me a break. You truly think that Communism alone is going to be able to keep up with thousands of years of majority rule by theists? Ridiculous. Not only that, but almost all of these things were not only done by theists, but were also a direct result of theism itself. Try proving that about Communism. As I said, the original question, and your argument lack. You better come out with more than Communism in this argument.

Ugh...Ridiculous. Read the Communist Manifesto, you will see that Communism was designed in order to try and help people, and destroy the caste/class system. Communism, as Marx viewed is, was purely an economic standpoint. He viewed the Capitalist system as "evil" because it refused to regard or recognize anyone without monitary means. Communism is, in a sense, like capitalism with its relationship to the government. In America there is a democratic government with an economy based off of capitalism. In "Communist" countries there is usually some kind of facist-party based system of government with an economy based off of communism. Communism was originally created to try and destroy the gap between the rich and powerful and the the poor and the weak; Marx wanted all men to be treated equally, and have equal power/money under a government. Unfortunately the governments chosen have destroyed the good that Communism sought to do, and instead, created ridiculous stereotypes and prejudices against Communism. Get your facts straight. Nothing Marx wrote ever stated: Kill anyone who does not agree.

I did not claim that it was not a cause at all, I only pointed out that you cannot prove that it was the SOLE cause, and therefore, this argument is not relevant. This is also why the original question is not relevant because one cannot prove that any actions were done "solely" because one was a theist or an atheist. One can only prove the actions which were done solely because of atheism or theism.

Could Muhammed have been their inspiration? Could Buddha have been their inspiration? Could a yeti inspire them? Could they inspire themselves? If you cannot answer no, with evidence, then the fact that they happened to do it in the name of Jesus proves nothing, since they could have just as easily done it using themselves as inspiration.

It doesn't bother me to discuss it. I was just pointing out that you changed the subject for no real apparent reason, other than to avoid the original argument (which you cannot prove), and pretty quickly, might I add.

Um, how about the advances of Rome? Or of Greece? Or of Athens?

fromtheright

Samhaim,

I don't dispute it, but am curious as to your historical source.

"Hundreds upon hundreds"? And what is your source (yes, I'll admit the Bible is a source for several)?

Incredible! You are going to cite the attempt to eliminate an entire religious (actually, it was racially based) group as an evil of theism? Are you blaming that on the Jews?

As to the wars between Palestine and Israel, I accept for the purpose of the question posed, that it is waged by theists and to perhaps a large extent caused by theism, but it doesn't involve Christians or in the name of Christianity. The same goes for suicide bombers and female circumcision.

And, if we accept your standard in this debate i.e., in the name of theism, child molestation by priests doesn't count, (the same goes, to a large extent, for slavery) though by my standard I accept that it does.

Keep your arguments straight--I said Marxism-Leninism, not Marxism. But, since you raised the Communist Manifesto, read it yourself:

It wasn't "designed in order to try and help people", it was predicted as a stage of class struggle.

Again, spare me the straw man--the Communist state was evil and no Soviet leader hesitated to eliminate and silence opposition, basing it on Communist "gospel".

Since you wish to continue the discussion of good things done, the examples I cited were things done by monks and religious institutions/societies. You continue to contend that they did these things for other motives. On what do you base your assertion?

I seriously doubt that they inspired Catholic/Fransican/Dominican monks.

"Could have"? Does that not equally apply to the tortures and killings of the Inquisition or any other evil or good, or any other action that had an outside motivation? That is a rather bizarre argument. This seems another limitation on the original thread--now evils must necessarily be in the name of atheism or theism? You might then want to re-visit your list of the evils of theists/ism as a several of them "could have" been done for another motive. I would rather stick to the facts, though, rather than maybe's, could have's, and conceivably's.

Go back and read my posts; better yet, feel free to quote any of them--I raised it as a valid component of a balance sheet when comparing the "ists" or the "isms". And no, I didn't avoid the original argument--the original argument was the point of my post to begin with. I refer you back to the first, excuse me, original post in this thread. Again, I don't mind not discussing the good, either.

Since the examples I was talking about were hospitals and charities, are you saying these existed nearly to the extent in Rome and Greece by the State or in the name of secularism/atheism or even paganism/pantheism (though I guess that would help my, theistic, side, huh?) as they were done by Christians later?

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Samhain

Ok, I will disregard statements made as to evils taken place during the middle ages. These things are only estimated by some historians since no truly accurate records have been kept. But, regardless of death counts in numbers, this is still an evil, and the Inquisition did exist, so we can count that one.

As far as the holy wars. The term "holy war" has been used quite liberally, especially in the past few hundred years. Many holy wars have been fought without deaths or much violence. There are many who claim to be fighting holy wars for God, while they use non-lethal methods. Such examples would be organizations like the KKK or some Neo-Nazi organizations. As these two examples, their members will state that they are fighting a war to cleanse the world of racial impurities. While the "hundreds upon hundreds" may not be accurate, it is not meant to be, but it's not surprising at how many people will fight "holy wars" in order to perpetuate hate and ignorance.

First, just curious. The Hebrew people are a race, Judaism is a religion, yes? There are Hebrews who can be Christians, yes? And Germans who can be Jews, no? Is it possible to convert a race of people? Why then do some Christian missionaries try to convert Jews? Just curious.
I don't blame this on the Jews in any case, of course, it's ridiculous to believe it was their fault. But when a person targets a religious group, could this have been prevented if that religious group was not in existence? If Judaism did not exist, would anti-semitism be a problem?

Um, yea, I was shifting to your point of view of this argument. Remember? "Here is your answer to the Original question:"
Well, in any case, yes, although I do not think that the original argument is really relevant, I was answering it anyway since you think it matters.

Yes, a class struggle which was portrayed to show the shift of the struggle of the class system from Capitalism, to Socialism, and eventually to Communism. Communism being the ideal system, in Marx's view.

Spare you the straw man? You have been the one taking atheism out of context with regard to Communism. Remember what the dynamics of a straw man argument are?
(1) Person A has position X (X = Atheism)
(2) Person B presents position Y (A distorted version of X (Communism is Y in this case)
(3) Person B attacks position Y (Communism)
(4) Therefore X (Atheism) is false/incorrect/flawed

See, this is why I feel the original argument is flawed.

The more I think about it, the more I believe this is more of a case of Questionable Cause Fallacy. Communism and evil are often associated because of the evils done by communist leaders, Therefore Communism must be a cause of evil.

As I said numerous times before: the fact that one cannot truly know things which have been done by theists were directly a result of their thesitic beliefs shows the ridiculousness of the original argument. We cannot begin to prove that these things were done directly as a result of theism, either good or bad. The point I've been trying to get through to you is that in regard of the bad, theism gives the masses a powerfully persuasive reason of why something evil they have done is "good" because they do it for "God." This is why the original argument doesn't matter. There are people who will be "evil" and people who will be "good," my point is, if religion was non-existent, then people would not have a persuasive excuse or reason to be evil like they would with theism and they would be judged directly off of their actions not as their "good intentions" to destroy all of the non-believers.

Ok, you want facts? What evil, if any, has ever been done in the name of atheism? Has anything evil ever been done where the person said "I do this [mass murder, suicide, genocide, etc.] for my non-belief?" Of course not, that's absurd, and yet, things like this have been done in the name of theism. I do not deny that good things have also been done in the name of theism. But other good things have been done in the name of atheism. Many of our religious freedoms, are kept that way as a result of atheism, and censorship of thoughts and ideas in America is also attempted to be kept at a minimal level because of atheists/ism. This is why I believe that this argument is more relevant. Good and evil will still happen, but no one will be tricked or fooled into believing that evil is done because of good if theistic beliefs were not so strong. Anything which one "believes" in can be a very powerful and persuasive, and sometimes blinding thing.

fromtheright

Samhaim,

Absolutely amazing. In one breath you state it wasn't their fault and then state that it could have been prevented if the group wasn't in existence, that anti-Semitism exists because there are Jews. You're blaming persecution of a group on the fact that the group exists. I also guess that Hitler's attempt to eliminate Gypsies and his hatred of Slavs is to be blamed on the fact they exist also.

It seems to me that what you have done numerous times is to refuse to accept the obvious, that religious orders performed good deeds because they are religious orders. What evidence would you accept that this is the case?

Sorry, I had to boldface that as you seem to have spent a lot of time trying to prove the bad things were done "directly as a result of theism", while refusing to accept that the good things were also.

I do agree that it is absurd, which is why I believe that framing the argument in terms of "in the name of" an "ism" makes less sense than done by "ists". If you are saying more evil has been done in the name of theism because as another poster earlier said, people are scumbags, and need a cause to perpetuate their evil, then yes, (you may now be breathing a "finally") I would agree with you but that is because (1) people are scumbags and will twist, ignore, and abuse systems of belief oftentimes for their own ends (though I do not deny that such evil is often done by those who considered themselves True Believers) and (2) and because it proves the absurdity of that line of argument for the reason you stated, that it is absurd that one would perform an evil for a nullity.

I do still maintain that it is valid to argue that evils performed by atheist Communists was and is evil done by atheists. It is a system that argues that there is no morality outside of advancing the Revolution, ergo, it is acceptable to murder opponents of the State because it rules out any morality which states "Thou shalt not kill."

Respectfully,

Gene

Samhain

Isn't this a logical assumption?

I do not mean to state that we should all conform and become one big mindless group of humans, but it is obvious that for one to have hate of something, one must know that that something exists, correct? I'm taking this from a perfectly logical standpoint. It would be different if it was beyond their control. I do not blame them, and I do not blame Slavs and Gypsies either. I do not feel that it is correct for someone to target a group for genocide, but if the group was non-existent, then it could not possibly be targeted. The point I am trying to make is that it can work both ways. If there was one religion, they could not target another religious group. The wars between Palestine and Israel would cease, etc etc. I don't think what I have said is an evil assumption. It's taken from cold-hearted logic. I don't wish for anyone to change their beliefs, or to change "groups," but, in my honest opinion, even though it is not their fault, it does, logically, give one more group to persecute, yes? Is this offensive in some way? I just don't see it.

Proof that it could/would not have been done otherwise.

Not quite. What I was trying to prove exactly is that theism is another excuse to make evil actions seem "good" and that these things cannot be proven to be a direct result of theism, but can be proven to be used as an excuse for evil behavior.

I'll give you this, yes, these acts were done by atheists, true. I think that Communism has been largely misjudged in this respect, though. I'd state that Marx had little to do with this, but I think we have concluded that. Lenin was the one who formed the government around the economics and actualized a system which allowed for these evil acts (largely since little else was added to Marx's theories). Marx's Communism, as I see it, was never meant to run solely by itself without some equally complex system of government restraining the leaders. But Lenin seemed to actualize it this way, and China/Cuba/etc. followed this example. Once again, I say, leading to a harsh dictatorship under the economic system of Communism. I feel a great injustice has been done to Marx by naming this form of government after his ideologies, but that's just my opinion. I just guess I see so many of the good things done under democratic socialism, and feel that this was more of what Marx wanted than the twisted version of dictatorship communism.

fromtheright

Samhaim,

I do understand the logic of your point re genocide of religious groups, though, as I said, Hitler's Final Solution was directed to Jews as a race, not a religion. But even accepting it as religiously based, what I take offense at is that you would use this to put into the column of evils to blame theism for, that because a religion is targeted for persecution, it is the fault of that religion for existing in the first place. Why not blame anti-Semitism on anti-Semites rather than the Semites? I do see a logical and a moral problem with that position.

I've already argued against your "could have been" reasoning, suggesting that you deal in the world of reality and facts. You immediately announced your readiness to do so, yet here you are again.