hinduwoman

For heaven's sake, none of these atheists murdered anyone to promote the greater glory of atheism. Christians did: sure there were a lot of political and economic factors involved in something like Inquisition, but the persecutors sincerely believed in what they were doing and the whole thing was possible because majority of Christians believed it is ok.

Yes, syphilis was brought from America, but white men sent smallpox infected blankets to Indians. I agree that some Christians resisted such evil, but the point is what churches had condemned this displacement and persecutions of Indians?

It was an African leader who said, "When the missionaries came, they had the bible and we had the land. Now they have the land and we have the bible."

lpetrich

I did some searches, and I could not find anything. Any good keywords to use in searches? However, I can imagine them saying that the story of Krishna is a blatant ripoff of the Gospels; him being an incarnated deity with a specially-announced birth, there being a king who knows who he will be and who tries to kill him when he was a baby, him being raised in some distant land, etc. However, such similarities are common hero-myth features. Jesus Christ and Krishna both fit Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile quite well.

I read it long ago, and I couldn't make any sense out of it; why do you come to that conclusion?

theophilus

This is patently false. The only place where there were significant European settlements was in southern Africa. These areas, especially South Africa, were largely unsettled and it was a matter of Africans moving down from the north while Europeans were moving up from the south. There were no "thriving" native civilizations which were displaced by the colonists. Just being "on" the continent first does not give automatic land rights.

daemon

First off, as a nitpick, it is Marxist communism specifically which states strong antireligious bias. However, this does not negate the fact that atheism is not a worldview or motivating philosophy; it is a statement of a lack of belief. One cannot found anything upon atheism, and you will find no atheists who do so, though admittedly some rather odd ones have tried to.

Claiming that things done in the name of communism equate to things done in the name of atheism makes about as much sense as equating the Inquisition with non-Muslims.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: daemon23 ]</p>

Datheron

I love this:

Therefore, it is completely justified that we imperialistically rule over smaller native civilizations because the "right to land" does not apply to their existence. Oh, the bias of an Anglo-centric conquest...

hinduwoman

Ah yes, let me get the argument:

Whatever is done in the name of communism is done in the name of atheism since one of the components of communism is atheism.

However when devout Christians murder to spread the greater glory of Christ it is not done for christianity.

Only faith can make this argument without blushing.

So I claim, these communists were so corrupt that they do not deserve the name of atheists.

hinduwoman

IPetrich,
Some of the stuff I found about christians I came across accidentally. Also there are a lot of hindus living in america who complain of christians trying to convert them in such ways. (But apparently not in England).

The christians who are hindus do not say specifically why they are dissatisfied with Christianity. They say hinduism speaks to them, whatever that means.
I suppose they mean you can pick and choose your belief. Also some seem to like Gita very much: I suppose it is more consistent and morally innocuous compared to the whole Bible.

lpetrich

Communism is a LOT more than atheism, even though it does include atheism. It might be described as a quasi-religious belief system, and the official cults of personality are certainly suggestive of a religious angle. Simply consider how North Korea's leaders were described as working miracles (seriously!).

Seems to me that they'd claim that Jesus Christ was a myth if they thought that that would get them some converts.

Seems like that they have some intuitive feeling that Hinduism is true.

I'm not very familiar with the Bhagavad Gita; any good summaries of it?

Also, I wonder how they explain Jesus Christ -- do they consider him an avatar of Vishnu or something like that?

LinuxPup

I think it was St. Augustine (I think) who said something to the effect of "No philosophy should be judged by it's abuses." I think that's a good rule of thumb. A philosophy should be viewed and discussed by it's intrinsic qualities, and how it corresponds to reality (truth). If you say look at how the Christians killed many in the crusades, or how communism killed millions this past century, I think it would be wise to see if the philosophies of atheism and Christianity reflect the action taken on by it's followers. If you have a match, then you can commend/shun this philosophy, otherwise you're stuck with the individual(s).

hinduwoman

Gita is what Krishna tells about the nature of God and the universe to Arjuna. Briefly put: Brahman is present in all objects; nothing happens without his willing it to be done; neither the slayer slays nor the slain dies for it is all his doing; whoever worship whatever god sincerely worships the supreme reality and so all religions are eqaully valid paths to salvation; everyman must do his duty; true virtue is to do one's duty without hoping for reward; whenever righteousness will be persecuted an avatar will appear to rescue the good and punish the evil-doers.

Actually, I had to leave out large chunks because it was simply too mystical.

But the point is it is not self-contradictory and compared to the stuff in the OT it is very good.

Any one who seems to be spiritually inclined seems to go ga ga over it, including Emerson, Yeats, T. S. Eliot. So I suppose it is very good or religious minded people.