bluefugue

Stalinism and Maoism were not "atheisms." They were political philosophies first and foremost, and atheism was a subordinate aspect of these philosophies -- not the primary one. In fact, both Stalinism and Maoism were based in part on cults of personality which most atheists I know would find distasteful.

Dr Rick

...such as this, perhaps?:

<strong> [ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

missus_gumby

On my way to work today (22nd March) there was a short item on (British) Radio 4 concerning what the children of Emannuel College think about the origins of the earth. Of those heard from, it is now abundantly clear that the school is teaching biblical, young earth creationism over that of natural science. In fact, one young interviewee stated that evolution (he didn't seem to be able to distinguish between the origins of the univeres and evolution) was an atheist lie. Note that he did not say it was a scientific lie.

I would suggest that not only are the teachers of Emannuel college indoctrinating their pupils (at the British taxpayers expense) into their version of religious dogma, but are also poisoning the well against what they consider to be any alternative (read: wrong) explanation.

Some children attending a muslim school in Leicester were also heard from. The girl that was asked about where the Earth (note: not the universe) came from, stated that it was the 'big bang'. She qualified this by saying the 'big bang' was started by her god, allah.

Martin

Pandora

Over the last few days, I've been seeking out opinions on this issue both here in Italy and with friends and family in the UK.

The Italians go with the Pope. Evolution and Big Bang are fact, but God started it all. They find the whole idea of fundies and creationism a bit weird and to be discouraged. So far, Okay.

The Brits on the other hand scared me. Everyone seems to have fallen into a kind of apathetic, "look at all points of view, everyone has a right to believe what they want and we should respect that and they might have a point you know" stance. They also don't seem to care.

I'm beginning to feel that it's turning into a two horse race. The only people that are interested are the atheists and the fundies.

The other problem is that Tony Blair's pathetic response may well lead the way for Britain being considered an easy recruiting ground for outside evangelical groups and will ultimately lead to the expansion of creationism in the UK.

Why do people disregard proper scientific research ..."It's only theory, there's no proof you know." and yet spend huge sums on money and "I know it's true because this friend of my mum's friend was cured of cancer because it" when it comes to any old rubbish like crystal healing, astrology, aromatheraphy and chair arranging.

Other one I love:
"Ooh no, I don't take medicines, I don't want all those chemicals in me and you can't trust the drug companies you know."

As they knock back half a dozen homeopathic remedies. "Well, they're natural you know and if it's natural it can only be good for you."

Yeah right - anyone for a nice amanita phalloides omlette?

Sorry, bit of a rant - but I've had enough of watching the UK become overrun by quacks, charlatans and religious maniacs.

Karen M

Good Morning Stonetool

No offence, but I don't think you understand the distinction being made here :

They are not denying that Stalin killed many people. They are not denying Stalin was an atheist. They are just saying that Stalin oppressed and killed people because he was power-hungry, he wanted to control the government, and he was an asshole in general. The fact that he was an atheist and the fact that he was a jerk are two seperate things. There are also people who are jerks who happen to be Muslim, and people who are jerks who happen to be Christian, and people who are jerks who happen to hold other beliefs.

Unless you are claiming that Stalin specificly killed these people to help promote atheism or in the name of atheism(rather than for his own greed or want of government control), then I don't see how your arguement is valid?

The people who go on crusades, suicide bomb, or blow up abortion clinics arn't doing it to get money. They arn't killing people because they are trying to cover up something. They arn't even killing these people out of simple revenge for anything their victims might have done to them in the past. These terrorists are specificly killing these other people because they believe that God demands it of them. They are specificly killing these people in the name of their religion.


See the difference?

Karen

Alexis Comnenus

Karen,

I'm afraid you are the one sounding like an apologist here.

Stalin killed to promote an ideology of which atheism was a substantial and important part (read some Marx if you don't believe me). Our suicide bombing friends are killing to promote an ideology of which Islam is a substantial and important part. But they also believe (rightly) that US/Israel have politically and economically oppressed them and are fighting back in the most effective way they know. If they were atheists (as many of their Red Brigade etc allies are) they would still be killing and fighting for their political aims and would still show fanatical bravery.

Religious people need to face up to evil done in the name and because of religion but atheists need to do the same thing about the evil done to enforce atheism.

Regards

Alex

stonetools

thank you, Alexis. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
touche and right on.One just could just as well as argue that " the people who engaged in the Crusades and the Inquisition did it to support a political and economic system of which Christianity was an impotrant part, but there is no warrant in pure Christianity for what they did ."
That argument doesn't work for me and it should'nt work when athiests turn it right around to defend excesses by atheists.
Horseshit is still horseshit, whether in pro Christian garb or pro athiest garb

Karen M

Greetings Alex


&gt;&gt;&gt;Stalin killed to promote an ideology of which atheism was a substantial and important part&lt;&lt;&lt;

No, he killed because he wanted power, and he wanted to kill anyone who threatened that power.


&gt;&gt;&gt;(read some Marx if you don't believe me).&lt;&lt;&lt;

This sounds like you are talking about socialism.

1. Not all atheists are socialists nor are all socialists atheists.

2. Are you claiming that Stalin killed to promote socialism rather than to maintain his power over the government?


&gt;&gt;&gt;Our suicide bombing friends are killing to promote an ideology of which Islam is a substantial and important part.&lt;&lt;&lt;

No, they are killing to specificly promote their entire brand of Islam altogether.


&gt;&gt;&gt;If they were atheists (as many of their Red Brigade etc allies are) they would still be killing and fighting for their political aims and would still show fanatical bravery.&lt;&lt;&lt;

In the case you are referring too, perhaps the atheists would attack people, but this would be because they want to stop being oppressed. They would NOT be attacking to promote atheistic worldview or because atheism requires it. People who kill homosexuals for the one reason that they happen to be homosexual are doing this specificly because they think that their God or their religion demands it.


See the difference now?

Karen

stonetools

Nope. AS William of Occam would say,
"A difference that makes no difference IS no difference". The fact is, Stalin and Mao really did kill and imprison millions of religious folks because of their religion. Stalin really did dynamite thousands of churches and Mao really did torture many Buddhist monks. They may not have used the magic words you demand, " we do this in the name of atheism". They would say things like "uprooting tribal superstition" or " We are ridding ourselves of regressive elements".
But no one doubts that they were targeting religion, or that they did it out of their belief in a political ideology of which atheism was an important part.They really did consider religion to be like a cancer to be rooted out ( come to think of it, I've heard similar sentiments here).
If you want athiesm to escape responsibilty for Mao and Stalin ( and I understand fully why you would want to ), then let Christianity off the hook for the Crusades and the Inquisition and Islam off the hook for 911. Then no one would be responsible for anything and we'll all be guilt free and happy
Sounds like a great world, doesn't it?

Karen M

Hello stone


&gt;&gt;&gt;One just could just as well as argue that " the people who engaged in the Crusades and the Inquisition did it to support a political and economic system of which Christianity was an impotrant part, but there is no warrant in pure Christianity for what they did ."&lt;&lt;&lt;

This is a false analogy. The Crusades and the Inquisition were directly influenced by Christianity [or the individuals beliefs about what Christiantiy said]. They were specificly inacted to kill or drive away anyone who was not Christian because the individuals in charge believed that was what their religion demanded.

A correct analogy would be that I can not say that Hitler mass murdering people was modivated by Christianity simply because Hitler was a Christian. Hitler was not killing people to promote Christianity or because of anything which he believed his religion told him to do; he was killing them because he wanted to take over the world and he wanted the aryan race to feel superior.


Karen