Watch National Geographic

[visaveteran 1]

You didn't cite your source visaveteran, and dear lord but that's a vast and dense wall of text. Provided a continuing civil tone, I'm interested in what you have to say, not an anonymous diatribe on whatever that was all about. But if it's all about how Communism is bad mmkay, well as I've caveated several times, I am not defending Communism. I am only explaining Marxist ideology regarding religion. If the author of your piece disagrees with me, I highly recommend a reading of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. It's spelled out pretty much exactly as I described.

I was required to read the Manifesto and study Marx and others in college.

The long piece I posted before can be summed up with this passage:

"This is the program of International Communism, to overthrow capitalism and Christianity, and ultimately to establish universal atheistic materialism.

The philosophy is called in abbreviation Hismat or Diamat for historical materialism or dialectical materialism. This concept is the idol of Communism. The Communist is devoted to Hismat -- his life is totally dedicated. He lives for its advancement. Hismat is his god, and the Communist Manifesto is his creed. A world struggle now exists between the devotees of Hismat and the worshippers of God Almighty. The conspiracy has vowed to bury all Christians and destroy God's name from the face of the earth!"

So, it looks like atheists did wage war on Christians.

[mox 298]

Again, without a citation, it carries no weight. A citation would be much appreciated.

[visaveteran 1]

Again, without a citation, it carries no weight. A citation would be much appreciated.

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume8/TM008115.html

[mox 298]

So you're using an article written in 1964 for a Christian magazine, to make the point that Communist atheism's goal is to destroy Christianity?

From the website you sourced the article from:

We are a group of Christians aspiring to teach the word of God, to inform brethren regarding the Lord’s work in various parts of the country, and to strengthen and encourage Christians.

And this quote from the article:

What is Communism? It is many things, but simply stated we may say that it is a philosophy of life expressed in a dedication to the advancement of socialism with an ultimate goal of achieving world domination.

is just plain red scare propaganda--apropos for anti-Communist propaganda from 1964, but hardly scholarly. There is no such stated goal of world domination either in Marxism or Soviet Communism. The author is using his own personal opinion as a cornerstone of his thesis. The rest of his article just seems to be a rant about how Communism rejects God and must therefore be evil with a smattering of quotes from 1950's era US government publications.

vv, there's nothing scholarly or credible about this article. It's just a 46 year-old op-ed.

Also, I thought it was strange that all of his sources came from the US Government printing office, so I looked them up. Here are the dates his sources were published:

The Communist Conspiracy, 1956

Facts on Communism, 1959

Soviet World Outlook, 1959

[visaveteran 1]

So you're using an article written in 1964 for a Christian magazine, to make the point that Communist atheism's goal is to destroy Christianity?

From the website you sourced the article from:

And this quote from the article:

is just plain red scare propaganda--apropos for anti-Communist propaganda from 1964, but hardly scholarly. There is no such stated goal of world domination either in Marxism or Soviet Communism. The author is using his own personal opinion as a cornerstone of his thesis. The rest of his article just seems to be a rant about how Communism rejects God and must therefore be evil with a smattering of quotes from 1950's era US government publications.

vv, there's nothing scholarly or credible about this article. It's just a 46 year-old op-ed.

Also, I thought it was strange that all of his sources came from the US Government printing office, so I looked them up. Here are the dates his sources were published:

The Communist Conspiracy, 1956

Facts on Communism, 1959

Soviet World Outlook, 1959

Well, you quote the Communist Manifesto. How old is that? What time frame do you prefer? You go way back but I can't. Set the boundaries and I'll follow.

[mox 298]

I don't follow. I'm using TCM because it's central to the argument. It was or is the cornerstone of government and society in no less than 5 countries. If you're going to talk about Soviet policy, you have to start there.

Go back as far as you want. If you can find something in Plato's Republic (written about 2,400 years ago) that supports the position that wars and/or persecution have been carried out in the name of atheism, for example, I'm all ears. The op-ed you cited was written for a Christian magazine 46 years ago to warn Christians that Communists want to eradicate Christianity and take over the world. You have to admit that it's pretty biased, and factually incorrect. It would be like me quoting Michael Moore back in the gun thread. Michael Moore, like this Gene Frost fellow, uses facts selectively to support the argument he wants to make, rather than formulating an argument based on facts. You just can't have a meaningful conversation with sources like that.

[Brad and Vika 129]

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

We need a RUB sex thread.

i wonder if you meant for it to sound that way.

[SMR 368]

I don't follow. I'm using TCM because it's central to the argument. It was or is the cornerstone of government and society in no less than 5 countries. If you're going to talk about Soviet policy, you have to start there.

Go back as far as you want. If you can find something in Plato's Republic (written about 2,400 years ago) that supports the position that wars and/or persecution have been carried out in the name of atheism, for example, I'm all ears. The op-ed you cited was written for a Christian magazine 46 years ago to warn Christians that Communists want to eradicate Christianity and take over the world. You have to admit that it's pretty biased, and factually incorrect. It would be like me quoting Michael Moore back in the gun thread. Michael Moore, like this Gene Frost fellow, uses facts selectively to support the argument he wants to make, rather than formulating an argument based on facts. You just can't have a meaningful conversation with sources like that.

Mox, you make some good points but I see a problem with how you break things into religion vs. Atheism. When you talk about religion, I think you need to make a distinction between people who are using religion as a method to control people or make them go to war, and people who are devout followers of a religion. When a person knowingly invents a holy cause in order to compel a people to war or when a person proclaims themselves a God (like the Japanese Emperor), that could be construed as atheism. The Emperor is surely aware of his mortal status and only a conviction that God does not exist could cause one to abuse him with such impunity. That is, I would contend that those that abuse religion to control people to their own ends are practicing a sort of atheism. But I suppose that is a philosophical question.

But even more to the point, in both Russia and China under communism, many people were abused, executed, persecuted, and lost property because of their religious convictions. Read about the Orthodox Church under communism, Староверцы, or the Falung Gong. Religious people have been persecuted for their faith by people that are openly atheistic. That is, crimes have very much been committed in the name of atheism.

I understand what you are saying about how religion is used to make good people do bad things, but I think you need to realize that atheism is also a belief system that is abused to this end.

Edited April 12, 2010 by SMR

[mox 298]

Mox, you make some good points but I see a problem with how you break things into religion vs. Atheism. When you talk about religion, I think you need to make a distinction between people who are using religion as a method to control people or make them go to war, and people who are devout followers of a religion.

I don't see a difference. The first step to being a pawn of religion is to actually be a member of that religion. You're far less likely to strap a bomb to your body if you don't actually believe in the religion that you're being asked to die for. You are very unlikely to kill an abortion doctor if "God" isn't telling you to do it. If we didn't have the "devout followers" we wouldn't have the leaders.

When a person knowingly invents a holy cause in order to compel a people to war or when a person proclaims themselves a God (like the Japanese Emperor), that could be construed as atheism.

First, the flaw in your argument is that there's no way to tell the difference between a religious leader who really believes what they're saying, and one who's just grifting, unless they actually admit to it.

Second, knowingly running a religious confidence scam could not be construed as atheism, because atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god. The confidence scammer may very well be an atheist, but their actions are not "atheist" in nature. I mean, you wouldn't say a confidence scammer who is pretending to be Muslim is acting as a Christian would you? So why would you say they're acting as an atheist?

The Emperor is surely aware of his mortal status and only a conviction that God does not exist could cause one to abuse him with such impunity. That is, I would contend that those that abuse religion to control people to their own ends are practicing a sort of atheism. But I suppose that is a philosophical question.

In the case of Hirohito, it's not clear whether he knew of his mortal status or not. Remember that he was basically brainwashed into believing he was a god from childhood. Even after the allied occupation, Hirohito never backed away from his claim to divinity. Perhaps just face-saving, but it doesn't really matter. Hirohito, regardless of whether he knew he was divine or not, used religion as a means to aggressively expand Japan's territory.

This is in fact the beauty of religion. It doesn't matter if you believe what you're saying/doing or not, the outcomes are the same. You just need to invoke god, and nothing else has to make sense. (a great example of this are those bumper stickers that say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." That's about the most frightening thing I've ever read.)

But even more to the point, in both Russia and China under communism, many people were abused, executed, persecuted, and lost property because of their religious convictions. Read about the Orthodox Church under communism, Староверцы, or the Falung Gong. Religious people have been persecuted for their faith by people that are openly atheistic. That is, crimes have very much been committed in the name of atheism.

I'll direct you to my previous posts (here and here), where I show that these crimes were NOT committed in the name of atheism. They were committed in the name of Marxist philosophy. Saying that the persecution of religion in the Soviet Union was committed in the name of atheism is like saying that the US homestead act in the 19th century was committed in the name of atheism. Stalin didn't want people thinking about atheism any more than he wanted them thinking about Christianity. He wanted them thinking about the state.

I understand what you are saying about how religion is used to make good people do bad things, but I think you need to realize that atheism is also a belief system that is abused to this end.

I've yet to see the atheism belief system abused in any meaningful way. Possibly some bar fights have been started over atheism, but I've seen nothing to suggest large scale atheist crusades of oppression and intolerance. And I'm in pretty good company too. Read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, or The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor Stenger. Neither one of these noted scientists have seen any evidence of atheist atrocities either.

[visaveteran 1]

I don't follow. I'm using TCM because it's central to the argument. It was or is the cornerstone of government and society in no less than 5 countries. If you're going to talk about Soviet policy, you have to start there.

Go back as far as you want. If you can find something in Plato's Republic (written about 2,400 years ago) that supports the position that wars and/or persecution have been carried out in the name of atheism, for example, I'm all ears. The op-ed you cited was written for a Christian magazine 46 years ago to warn Christians that Communists want to eradicate Christianity and take over the world. You have to admit that it's pretty biased, and factually incorrect. It would be like me quoting Michael Moore back in the gun thread. Michael Moore, like this Gene Frost fellow, uses facts selectively to support the argument he wants to make, rather than formulating an argument based on facts. You just can't have a meaningful conversation with sources like that.

Your original comment was "people do evil things due to religion." I pointed out the communists (AKA atheists) did evil things (among them crushing religion). So, how did religion make the USSR do evil things?

I'm not versed enough to argue this subject in a way that it deserves...so I'm letting it go. And I don't think there's a lot of interest in this topic anyway. No one else has joined the discussion.

[visaveteran 1]

And I don't think there's a lot of interest in this topic anyway. No one else has joined the discussion.

Correction: I see SMR posted a comment.

[mox 298]

Your original comment was "people do evil things due to religion." I pointed out the communists (AKA atheists) did evil things (among them crushing religion). So, how did religion make the USSR do evil things?

Actually I never argued that religion made the Soviet Union "do evil things." I argued that religion was the cause of most war and persecution in the world, and you said atheism was a driving force behind the Soviet persecution of religious organizations. I argued that this wasn't true. I agree that religion didn't drive Stalin, but neither did atheism.

[visaveteran 1]

Actually I never argued that religion made the Soviet Union "do evil things." I argued that religion was the cause of most war and persecution in the world, and you said atheism was a driving force behind the Soviet persecution of religious organizations. I argued that this wasn't true. I agree that religion didn't drive Stalin, but neither did atheism.

You've moderated your position somewhat. You were more sweeping in your original comment that "people do evil things due to religion. Now you back away and say "most." So people can do evil things and religion has nothing to do with it. Yes, my original point.

Edited April 12, 2010 by visaveteran

[mox 298]

You've moderated your position somewhat. You were more sweeping in your original comment that "people do evil things due to religion. Now you back away and say "most." So people can do evil things and religion has nothing to do with it. Yes, my original point.

Hmmm...if I gave the impression that I was saying that people only do evil things due to religion, then I clearly wasn't getting my point across. I said at the very beginning of this discussion that bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things. I never meant to imply ALL of the worlds evils have been caused by religion. But I would suspect (with nothing to back this opinion up) that the vast majority of the world's large-scale evils have been caused by religion. In that vein, this post is a only-slightly-tongue-in-cheek analysis of how many people God killed in the bible. Dude killed a lotta people.

BTW I do want to thank you for maintaining a civil tone throughout this discussion.