Watch National Geographic

[mox 298]

You seem to have gotten stuck on the idea that it matters in what "name" the persecution is. The fact is they killed the priests because they believed in God and the communists didn't. While communist philosophy is complex, God is the only item on which the priests necessarily disagreed.

Words matter though. The whole reason this discussion ensued is because I said something to the effect of "millions and millions of people have died throughout recorded history under the banner of religion, but nobody's ever died under the banner of atheism." And it's true. To deny that it was Communism that drove religious persecution is to deny the history of the matter.

You seem to be contending that the fact that communists didn't believe in God had nothing to do with the fact that they persecuted those who did on the sole basis of religious belief. That, to me, stretches the limits of plausibility.

On the contrary. Atheism is one of the core beliefs of Marxism. So yes, of course, a disbelief in God was part of it, just as collective farming was part of why the farmer who wanted to keep his own farm was killed. But the farmer wasn't killed under the banner of collective farming, he was killed under the banner of Communism. It may sound like it's splitting hairs, but it's really not. Saying religious persecution was done in the name of atheism takes responsibility away from the fact that Communism drove (and continues to drive) a lot of people to do some very bad things. To write it off as atheism is denying the madness that was Communism in Russia.

[visaveteran 1]

On the contrary. Atheism is one of the core beliefs of Marxism. So yes, of course, a disbelief in God was part of it, just as collective farming was part of why the farmer who wanted to keep his own farm was killed. But the farmer wasn't killed under the banner of collective farming, he was killed under the banner of Communism. It may sound like it's splitting hairs, but it's really not. Saying religious persecution was done in the name of atheism takes responsibility away from the fact that Communism drove (and continues to drive) a lot of people to do some very bad things. To write it off as atheism is denying the madness that was Communism in Russia.

I think you want it both ways. Earlier you argued that Hitler was influenced by religion which resulted in his evil actions. But following your own arguments, it was Fascism and the Fascist State, not religion that really drove his actions. So how is Fascism different than Communism regarding our discussion? With Communism you negate the atheistic beliefs as the core issue...but with Fascism you choose to highlight the underlying religious issues as the core.

Edited April 14, 2010 by visaveteran

[Brad and Vika 129]

Please some one interrupt this snooze-fest with a special bulletin, or something....

Edited April 14, 2010 by Brad and Vika

[mox 298]

I think you want it both ways. Earlier you argued that Hitler was influenced by religion which resulted in his evil actions. But following your own arguments, it was Fascism and the Fascist State, not religion that really drove his actions. So how is Fascism different than Communism regarding our discussion? With Communism you negate the atheistic beliefs as the core issue...but with Fascism you choose to highlight the underlying religious issues as the core.

Hitler admitted he was doing it under the "flag" of religion. As I quoted earlier from Mein Kampf: "hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

To my knowledge no such smoking gun exists with regards to Stalin. If somebody could come up with something similar from Stalin, I'd be the first person to change my tune.

[SuperDuper! 230]

I watched part of the special, and those dudes were the awkwardest awkwards who ever awkwarded.

And I thought I was the only one who picked up on this. The guy who bought his girl the round necklace, and she got him a jumping toy cow....Man, that guy had NO GAME. He had multiple opportunities to make eye contact, and hold her arm, give her compliments, etc and so on to try and make it a special emotional connection. He acted like he was just her buddy or something. They had a romantic date in a frozen military boneyard?!

[Brad and Vika 129]

And I thought I was the only one who picked up on this. The guy who bought his girl the round necklace, and she got him a jumping toy cow....Man, that guy had NO GAME. He had multiple opportunities to make eye contact, and hold her arm, give her compliments, etc and so on to try and make it a special emotional connection. He acted like he was just her buddy or something. They had a romantic date in a frozen military boneyard?!

Nodoubt. Andthanks for rescuing the thread.

[SMR 368]

Hitler admitted he was doing it under the "flag" of religion. As I quoted earlier from Mein Kampf: "hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

To my knowledge no such smoking gun exists with regards to Stalin. If somebody could come up with something similar from Stalin, I'd be the first person to change my tune.

First, I think you place way too much stock in why the dictators said they were doing it. But that's mostly tangential.

Really, I agree with most of what you are saying. It's a bad argument to take Russian communists, who believed God didn't exist and thus were a subset of atheists, and use their actions to project on atheists at large. Atheists are a diverse group with many subgroups and demonstrating something about one of those subgroups and then using it to characterize the whole group is disingenuous and pointless.

But why do you want it both ways? No one has ever been killed in the name of religion that I know of. People have been killed in the name of specific religions, but I know of no occurrences of someone being killed in the name of religion at large. (Sure they may say "in the name of God, etc." but it's usually a reference to a specific God.) Why do you feel so comfortable about grouping all religious people together and claiming that any bad actions by any of them demonstrate the evil of the whole group?

That is really the center of what I am arguing. Taking Islamic extremism or the Catholic inquisition or and other example of religious violence and oppression and using it to claim that all religion is evil is silly. It is similar to taking one group of atheists (Russian communists) and using it to demonstrate that all atheists are evil.

[Cixelsyd 1]

First, I think you place way too much stock in why the dictators said they were doing it. But that's mostly tangential.

Really, I agree with most of what you are saying. It's a bad argument to take Russian communists, who believed God didn't exist and thus were a subset of atheists, and use their actions to project on atheists at large. Atheists are a diverse group with many subgroups and demonstrating something about one of those subgroups and then using it to characterize the whole group is disingenuous and pointless.

But why do you want it both ways? No one has ever been killed in the name of religion that I know of. People have been killed in the name of specific religions, but I know of no occurrences of someone being killed in the name of religion at large. (Sure they may say "in the name of God, etc." but it's usually a reference to a specific God.) Why do you feel so comfortable about grouping all religious people together and claiming that any bad actions by any of them demonstrate the evil of the whole group?

That is really the center of what I am arguing. Taking Islamic extremism or the Catholic inquisition or and other example of religious violence and oppression and using it to claim that all religion is evil is silly. It is similar to taking one group of atheists (Russian communists) and using it to demonstrate that all atheists are evil.

People that come to my door while I'm trying relax with the cold 8 oz curl and they need to talk to me about something because they're someone's witness. These are evil people.

[mox 298]

But why do you want it both ways? No one has ever been killed in the name of religion that I know of. People have been killed in the name of specific religions, but I know of no occurrences of someone being killed in the name of religion at large. (Sure they may say "in the name of God, etc." but it's usually a reference to a specific God.) Why do you feel so comfortable about grouping all religious people together and claiming that any bad actions by any of them demonstrate the evil of the whole group?

Well I guess it's easier for me to say that millions of people have been killed in the name of religion than to break it all down by religion every time I want to make the point. I mean sure, I can concede that people haven't been killed in the name of generic religion, but that wasn't ever my point. Whether it's Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other organized theistic belief system, they all have persecution, war, and killing in the name of their god in common. In fact, a really good case could be made that war and persecution is the best way to grow your religion. Sending out missionaries is slow and takes years. Invading, killing the most troublesome (usually young men), and forcing the locals to either adopt your religion or die makes a lot of sense if you need believers quickly.

That is really the center of what I am arguing. Taking Islamic extremism or the Catholic inquisition or and other example of religious violence and oppression and using it to claim that all religion is evil is silly. It is similar to taking one group of atheists (Russian communists) and using it to demonstrate that all atheists are evil.

Now you're the one making nonparallel analogies. Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons are all a subset of Christianity. But atheism is not a subset of Communism any more than economics is a subset of Communism. Communism has the "feature" of atheism, but you can't say that all atheists are Communists like you can say that all Catholics are Christians.

My point about all religion being "evil" (I'm not a big fan of "evil," because I don't believe it really exists, plus it's just way too sweeping) is that it is *always* abused. Always. There's not a single theistic belief system that hasn't been used for ill. But you can't say this about atheism, and the reason is simply that it's a lot harder to get somebody to kill in the name of nothing, than to get them to kill in the name of a God who promises an eternal reward of happiness, virgins, etc.

[SMR 368]

Well I guess it's easier for me to say that millions of people have been killed in the name of religion than to break it all down by religion every time I want to make the point. I mean sure, I can concede that people haven't been killed in the name of generic religion, but that wasn't ever my point. Whether it's Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other organized theistic belief system, they all have persecution, war, and killing in the name of their god in common. In fact, a really good case could be made that war and persecution is the best way to grow your religion. Sending out missionaries is slow and takes years. Invading, killing the most troublesome (usually young men), and forcing the locals to either adopt your religion or die makes a lot of sense if you need believers quickly.

Now you're the one making nonparallel analogies. Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons are all a subset of Christianity. But atheism is not a subset of Communism any more than economics is a subset of Communism. Communism has the "feature" of atheism, but you can't say that all atheists are Communists like you can say that all Catholics are Christians.

My point about all religion being "evil" (I'm not a big fan of "evil," because I don't believe it really exists, plus it's just way too sweeping) is that it is *always* abused. Always. There's not a single theistic belief system that hasn't been used for ill. But you can't say this about atheism, and the reason is simply that it's a lot harder to get somebody to kill in the name of nothing, than to get them to kill in the name of a God who promises an eternal reward of happiness, virgins, etc.

First, I didn't say atheism is a subset of communism. Communism is a subset of atheism. That is true and that is what I was saying.

Second, there are tons of theistic belief systems that have never been used for ill. Anybody who believes in God but has never used that belief as a basis for doing "evil" (a concept that you seem ready to attach to religion while denying that it exists), has such a belief system. That is, you can't claim that all religious people, or all Christians, or even all Baptists have the same belief system. Some of them may have an evil belief system that has been used to cause harm. But most of them are good people with a belief system that encourages good, helping others, service, and other positive qualities that help the community.

You have moved from claiming that all religions are bad since some religions cause harm, to claiming that all religions are bad since some practitioners of every religion have caused harm (a claim I wouldn't acknowledge but see no point in disputing). You're still taking people, putting them in groups and generalizing based on the worst person you can find who could be construed to belong to that group. I have pointed out that if this were good logic, all atheists are oppressive and evil, since some atheists can be shown to be such. But that is really only one of many examples as to why this reasoning is absurd.

[visaveteran 1]

Now you're the one making nonparallel analogies. Catholics, Baptists, and Mormons are all a subset of Christianity. But atheism is not a subset of Communism any more than economics is a subset of Communism. Communism has the "feature" of atheism, but you can't say that all atheists are Communists like you can say that all Catholics are Christians.

You've got it backwards. Communism is a subset of Atheism. So you can say all communists are atheists. If all communists are atheists, they all believe religion is counter to the good of the state. If something is not good for the state, it must be eliminated.

[mox 298]

You have moved from claiming that all religions are bad since some religions cause harm, to claiming that all religions are bad since some practitioners of every religion have caused harm (a claim I wouldn't acknowledge but see no point in disputing). You're still taking people, putting them in groups and generalizing based on the worst person you can find who could be construed to belong to that group. I have pointed out that if this were good logic, all atheists are oppressive and evil, since some atheists can be shown to be such. But that is really only one of many examples as to why this reasoning is absurd.

I've actually been very careful to avoid saying "religious people are bad" because it's too much of a generalization (yes, even for me ). I'm talking about the religious organizations. The Catholic Church is bad, even if Mother Theresa was good. The Mormon Church is bad, even if my Mormon ex-roommate was a really nice guy and wouldn't hurt a fly. Islam is bad, even if Azar Nafisi helped women in Iran learn more than just religious dogma. We can point to any religion and see that there are many good people who consider themselves a part of that religion. The reason that the whole of religion is bad, however, is:

- Religion enforces conformance to a non-changing set of core beliefs. No matter what science shows, if you are a Christian or a Jew then you must believe that the world was created in 6 days, that it is only 6,000 years old, and that there was a flood that covered the earth and destroyed everybody except a handful of people. Certainly you're free to choose what parts you want to believe in, but what gives you the right? In Peter, Jesus says that none of the scriptures are open to personal interpretation. Christians who reject the Old Testament because it tells them to stone their children (Jesus also says disobedient children must die in Mark, btw) or get a good price on their slaves are also rejecting the New Testament. People who try to interpret their chosen religion on their own are woefully out of their depth. You could go crazy trying to wrap your mind around all of the dogma in Christianity alone, let alone trying to come up with your own version. It's dogma that makes religion so dangerous. In fact, just by trying to interpret Christianity on your own, you're leaving yourself open to being killed as a non-believer, as God commands in the bible.

- It is far too easy to convince good people to do bad things. And it doesn't even have to be war. Consider Catholicism's stance on birth control. Because of the Catholic Church's unyielding stance on birth control, AIDS is ravaging hundreds of thousands world wide. STD's run rampant in South America and Mexico for the same reason.

- Anything can be forgiven or justified in the name of religion. All you need to do is convince enough people that "God said so."

Atheists do none of these things. Try telling an atheist that he's not allowed to wear a condom because a non-existent god said he shouldn't, and see what happens. Tell an atheist there was a flood about 5,000 years ago that destroyed the entire planet and she will ask you to show the evidence. Try to explain that the reason you killed a doctor who performs abortions to an atheist, and he'll call you on your bullshit. Now certainly I'm not saying that atheists are just automatically immune to stupidity. There are atheists with gambling and drug addictions, who have credit problems, who buy bigger houses than they can afford, who murder or persecute people, who are dishonest, and who are blights on the rest of humanity. The difference is, there's nobody to excuse their actions. There's no god or devil to blame it on, and there's nobody to conveniently absolve them of their sins. They, and they alone are responsible for their actions, and they alone must face the consequences. You think the Pope will ever face charges for his role in allowing a child rapist to continue raping? He won't. And it has little to do with his status as a head of state.

[mox 298]

People that come to my door while I'm trying relax with the cold 8 oz curl and they need to talk to me about something because they're someone's witness. These are evil people.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons used to be a lot more common site in my home town than they are now. My grandfather used to invite them into his home, serve them a beverage, lunch, whatever, and listen intently to what they had to say. After listening politely and giving them his full attention, he then set about trying to convert them to Methodism. He was reportedly even successful a couple of times.

About once a year or so I'll get a Mormon at my door. They usually show up while I'm either late somewhere, or in the middle of something, so I usually just give them their marching orders. Last year though it was a couple pretty cute ladies, so I made time. After listening to their spiel, I tried my best to convert them to Atheism. And lemme tell you, if you know ANYTHING at all about LDS, it's about the easiest religion in the world to debunk. (read up on Joseph Smith Jr. some time, it will blow your mind that anybody would fall for this ponzi scheme in the guise of a religion--it's almost as crazy as Scientology) I didn't succeed, but I could see the "junior" member at least look a little bit confused. I like to think she maybe did a little further reading on her own after that.

[SMR 368]

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons used to be a lot more common site in my home town than they are now. My grandfather used to invite them into his home, serve them a beverage, lunch, whatever, and listen intently to what they had to say. After listening politely and giving them his full attention, he then set about trying to convert them to Methodism. He was reportedly even successful a couple of times.

About once a year or so I'll get a Mormon at my door. They usually show up while I'm either late somewhere, or in the middle of something, so I usually just give them their marching orders. Last year though it was a couple pretty cute ladies, so I made time. After listening to their spiel, I tried my best to convert them to Atheism. And lemme tell you, if you know ANYTHING at all about LDS, it's about the easiest religion in the world to debunk. (read up on Joseph Smith Jr. some time, it will blow your mind that anybody would fall for this ponzi scheme in the guise of a religion--it's almost as crazy as Scientology) I didn't succeed, but I could see the "junior" member at least look a little bit confused. I like to think she maybe did a little further reading on her own after that.

I'll bite. I'm a Mormon. Considering you think that it's a Ponzi scheme, I assume you know who is getting rich. So who is it? The church has no paid clergy. The church leaders live off their nest eggs they earned in other fields. The founder of the religion was murdered and penniless because he wouldn't deny his his beliefs.

Also, when has the Mormon church as an organization used it's influence for something evil. I acknowledge that members have done bad things, but since you said we're talking about organizations and not individuals, I assume you can cite examples where the church itself, as an organization has been oppressive and persecutory.

[mox 298]

I'll bite. I'm a Mormon. Considering you think that it's a Ponzi scheme, I assume you know who is getting rich. So who is it? The church has no paid clergy. The church leaders live off their nest eggs they earned in other fields. The founder of the religion was murdered and penniless because he wouldn't deny his his beliefs.

Well, to be fair it's probably not quite the Ponzi scheme as the Catholic church is, but then the Catholic church has been doing this for a couple thousand years. But it's all the same; those at the top get richer through the ministrations of those at the bottom. You've been told that LDS officials live only off their non-LDS savings, and heck you could probably even establish a paper trail that proves this, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think that the guys at the top aren't rich because of LDS. In fact, Joseph Smith Jr. died (yes violently) a very rich man who'd managed to satisfy his sexual appetites amongst the many women (I believe 33, including a couple teenage girls) who he called his wives. All because of his position as head of LDS. Brigham Young did very nicely too, parlaying his position as LDS leader to become Governor of Utah, and eventually winding up with a grand total of 55 wives. (seems Brigham Young had an even larger sexual appetite than his predecessor.)

You're correct that Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered. By an angry mob actually, a terrible way to go. Yet another example of religious extremism, this time perpetrated by Christians against Christians.

Mormonism provides us a great view of how religions get started though, since it's so young. But the very essence of the Mormon story is just as crazy as Christianity because it requires a ridiculous suspension of disbelief. From golden tablets that are the very foundation of the religion but that only Joseph Smith ever saw, to the claim that native American Indians are the descendents of ancient Jewish Lamanites, even though scientific DNA testing has proven this to be false beyond a doubt. It's also interesting that when Joseph Smith was translating the scripture from the Book of Lehi, when some of these translations were lost (stolen actually, by a woman who saw through his scam) and he was asked to reproduce them, he claimed God was angry at the loss, and so God forced him to translate from the Book of Nehi, which told similar but different scripture. This was obviously to cover up the fact that he'd been making it up as he went along, and there was no way for him to reproduce the lost pages. If he'd actually been reading from the golden tablets, he could have re-recited the pages word-for-word. According to Mormonism also, the garden of Eden was in Missouri. This is just touching on the tip of the LDS iceberg, I haven't even touched on polygamy or posthumous baptism or any number of other Mormon practices that simply defy belief.

Also, when has the Mormon church as an organization used it's influence for something evil. I acknowledge that members have done bad things, but since you said we're talking about organizations and not individuals, I assume you can cite examples where the church itself, as an organization has been oppressive and persecutory.

Look up the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The short story is that a wagon train crossing through Mormon territory on their way to California was ambushed by the Mormon militia. There was a lengthy siege, and eventually the Mormons convinced the emigrants that they would be allowed safe passage if they layed down their arms. The emigrants agreed, they lay down their arms and abandoned the wagons with all their possessions, and walked away. But it was just a ruse by the Mormon Militia. About 120 men, women, and children were massacred by Mormons, although the youngest children were spared and taken to be raised as Mormon children. The belongings of the emigrants was auctioned off at the Cedar City tithing office. This massacre wasn't just carried out by isolated members either. The very highest ranking members of LDS were involved in its planning and eventual implementation.

(and apologies if my anti-Mormon stance offends you, it's not personal against you, and I certainly don't consider Mormonism worse than any other religion. I know the feeling though, Atheists get it from all sides. )