Atheism is the best?
Forgot one.
15 We can eat anything we want.
Bacon, pork, Most Jewish people and Muslims don't eat it.
Cows, Indians don't eat beef.
Maybe they are on to something because beef and pork are not too health to eat, but they do taste good.
Shell Fish, Christians are not supposed to eat them, but I have not met one that doesn't, unless because they don't like the taste.
Maybe some don't eat shell fish?
Comment has been collapsed.
16 We can eat anytime we want. No need to fast or not eat some kind of food on certain days or times of day.
Comment has been collapsed.
17 You can love who you want. No leader telling you who you can and cannot love.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can believe in science, no one telling you not to believe in it.
Someone already tell me to not trust science so much because.... (no real argument so i don't remember ^^ )
Comment has been collapsed.
Because science is ultimately going to fail us when the Nazi Zombie Werewolves who also happen to be Vampires attack ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Stop making laws based on your religion, please.
Well, if atheist makes a law based on his own beliefs it's no different. I should probably mention now that I am an atheist myself. Therefore I think a law should give everobody as much freedom as possible, not trying to make anyone think in the way the law creators are thinking.
I would like religious people to stop trying to shove their religion on everyone else.
That would also apply to atheists :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but I am referring to laws. I don't know of any laws being passed by atheists? Do you?
I am referring to laws restricting peoples liberty based of their religion.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do, during Brézhnev era in Russia, or in the 2nd Republic of Spain
Comment has been collapsed.
Why Brezhnev? Not Khrushchev? Not Andropov? The only period when christianity was forbidden in the USSR was 1929-1942.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because the persecution in all URSS against all religion (also islam and judaism) under his rule, for example in Lithuania.
Comment has been collapsed.
Another example, catholic priests were considered foreigner agents (for the loyalty to Rome) in national territory, for that rason they could be prisioned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bullshit. Baltic republics were always considered half-soviet, and lived mostly by themselves. The policies there were very mild. In 60-s there were 1179 intact catholic churches in Baltic, and only 69 of them were closed. It's the motherfucking Wikipedia.
It always wonders me, why we, Russians, know a lot about European history, and why we hear all kinds of weird stupid bullshit about ourselves? It's, like, we want to be a part of Europe, but we're getting spits in the face.
Comment has been collapsed.
Baltic was invaded, anexionated and dominated illegally by the force, they don't have the autonomy of other regions like Hungary (also nice to remember the persecution against the church after the Revolution of 1956)
Another ex: 1970s constitution forbides all non procommunists orgs, so religion = banned
We could wasted all the day talking about this and I suppose you will still defending the URSS religious politic because I asume you support It, but that don't change the fact of the religious persecution under URSS time like in other places as Cambodia (also nice tolerant people that Red Khmers).
I also wonder why you suppose the rest of Europe don't know history and why you think I Talk about Russia when I talk about URSS and his terrible religious politics.
My final argue is: atheism it's as dangerous as religion in their extremist versions and It also reflex un the law. To prove It we have many examples in the history, like URSS, 2nd Republic of Spain, Mexico, or France.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're just another foreigner telling fairy stories about my country, are you aware of that? You know theoretical pieces of information which you've read here and there, while I live here and I know my country, I know it's history better than you.
I am Orthodox myself, one of my ancestors was a priest and was repressed in 30-s (and repressed is not what you think, he was not shot - repression is every suppression of civic rights, in this case he was denied of the right to work, but he still worked as an accountant, though). Then he was rehabilitated, as the majority of priests.
USSR was anti-religious only for a short period, 1929-1942. Orthodox Church was revived in 1942 and worked ever since, learn it by heart. Stalin allowed it to work again when he understood that religion is very important for the people to win the war. You don't know it and still telling me something, it's just laughable. Catholic and Lutheran churches in Baltic countries never stopped to work. Of course there was a discussion in the society about the backwardeness of the religion, there was a propaganda, but since the early 70-s there was a strong religious revival in the USSR.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, looking back at the school history books published in my country while we were under the communist rule and what is being written now, I can see how even a citizen of said country could end up being misled, confused and whatnot.
We here could see the difference in what media and educational agencies were writing prior and after the change of regime (not gonna delve into whether we are not being fed same bullshit but from different point of view now) and as such we are now more vary of propaganda (or so I believe). Did a shift like that happen in Russia as well? Because if it did not it might explain how Stalin is still considered as someone who Russians should be proud of among other things.
In the end it is victors who write down the history so maybe take everything with a grain of salt?
Comment has been collapsed.
Believe it or not, Russia is a country with a freedom of speech. Everywhere I see an energetic discussion about history, politics and future. Sometimes it even frightens me, when nationalistic monarchy sympathizers argue with leftists (commies and socialists). The view on Russia's history is not established yet, and it's a problem for education. Putin clearly dislikes USSR, but he does not dare to intervene.
Stalin is not actually popular. The pendulim has swang backwards. In 80-s and 90-s intelligentsia told us that Stalin killed millions of people. Turned out, during his rule only 700k were shot, including criminals, war deserters, etc. Compared to casualties of China's Cultural Revolution with the same scale of changes it's nothing, and after all we've won the war and created a nuclear bomb. In schools teachers try to talk about Stalin as of manager with some issues. Neither good, nor bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not like I take Wiki as an undisputed source but:
Estimates on the number of deaths brought about by Stalin's rule are hotly debated by scholars in the field of Soviet and communist studies. ... Some historians attempt to make separate estimates for different periods of the Soviet history, with casualties for the Stalinist period varying from 8 to 61 million.
Glad to hear that things are looking better as far as freedom of speech in Russia is concerned though.
Comment has been collapsed.
8 to 61 million
Total bullshit. These "estimates" made by people who do not know the difference between executed and repressed. And I know the source of 61 (absolutely idiotic number) - one of Solzhenytsyn interviews, he was talking about repressed, and took the number out of his ass. He's a good writer, I like his early novels, but he's not a historian, and "The Gulag Archipelago" is a pile of badly written trash.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not gonna argue about this since I do not have enough knowledge and sources to do so. In my point of view Stalin was a monster on par with Hitler but I am not gonna push that onto you so let's agree to disagree on this point.
Have a good day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Stalin was a monster on par with Hitler
False memetic statement, inserted in the minds of the young people by the professional "human rights defenders". Stalin will never be placed with Hitler, never ever. There will be discussion, yes, it will last for centuries, like with Napoleon in France.
Right now there is a great racket in the World, including Russia, about "ethnic cleanses" in Burma against so-called Rohingya. I am reading some articles of the experts on the history of the matter. Turns out, most of the "info" that media give us are just lies. In Burma they hate BBC, even liberals, because BBC lies. When violence is restricted, humanism becomes an instrument of influence and control. Think about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Atheism is not a religion. No more than anarchy is a government form.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never said that. I've only tried to say that atheism is a set of beliefs and religion is a set of beliefs. And that we shouldn't enforce our beliefs on somebody, regardless what point of view we represent. It's hard to do so though so in difficult cases freedom should be chosen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Atheism isn't a set of beliefs either, it's a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. Atheism itself has no beliefs to force upon others. It naturally follows that atheists would therefore follow science and reason (which are also not beliefs, but processes by which we can establish objective truth), but that's not necessarily true either. For example Buddhism has no god therefore Buddhists are technically atheists and don't necessarily follow science, though science is generally compatible with Buddhist beliefs. You can also technically be an atheist but still believe in ghosts, an afterlife, reincarnation, Big Foot, psychics, leprechauns etc, though again it tends to follow that atheists are so because of their skeptical mindset, which would tend to preclude such supernatural beliefs.
Calling religion a "set of beliefs" is also a gross understatement. The main point of religion is not just belief, but faith, which is specifically belief without proof. This is not on the same level as 'believing' humans evolved from primates or that gravity will cause a dropped rock to fall to the ground, which are beliefs based on evidence.
I do agree with the principal that one shouldn't force their beliefs upon others. However I don't see anything wrong with calling people out when they believe in things that oppose science or reason. Telling someone why you reject their claims and why they shouldn't believe them is perfectly valid; specifically telling them what they should believe instead is wrong, though you're welcome to present the evidence and let them decide for themselves, and even draw the conclusions for them if they wish so. Nor is there a problem with establishing and enforcing a secular society.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is difference between making law "don't kill humans" and "don't steal from other humans", and "don't eat meat on Friday" and "don't buy contraception pills".
First is considered as normal and accepted no matter where you live. Second is trying to force believes of handful of humans on rest of the society.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm telling about situation fanatic atheist vs fanatic religious person and you're giving me example of normal atheist vs fanatic religious person. Normal religious person won't enforce their religion on you. I have a friend who is very religious. He even don't want to practice yoga because he feels it is against his religion. But he never tells me not to go and do some yoga. And he never tells me I shouldn't eat meat on Friday. And we are the best friends despite he's very religious and I'm an atheist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Atheist bump :) Although, I don't think the average religious are the ones that cause most of the issues. Think fanatics (of whatever creed or cause) tend to be the ones causing problems. We all need a more open minded approach to lots of issues and others points of view. And learning to discuss as opposed to telling the other person why their opinion is wrong. Pretty hard as emotions get in the way :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you. But really difficult when you say, i am open to your views and listen carefully, then ask them to listen and be open. And they just won't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, think the art of discussion or debate is being lost :(. And governments go for easy options that appear to appease the majority. These are battles that will be with us humans for ever...we do so love to argue and tell others why they are wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm irritated O.o You know you can believe in god and still live your live without any of the stuff you mentioned? Believing in god doesn't force me to go to church, doesn't force me hate on anyone, doesn't force me to reject science etc ..... Most of your so-called benefits are available for people believing in one or more god(s) as well.
Additionally, it appears to me that you are not describing people believing in god in general but religious people or even worse extremists which you can find by the way in every organization (for instance Atheists: "Stop believing in god! He doesn't exist dumbass.") Also you should not confuse belief with religion as an institution.
This is either some kind of bait or poorly thought through. But on a General postion I'm with Sundance85 here. I'm agnostic. I think it is a reasonable Position as scientist.
Comment has been collapsed.
My list refers to the benefits of being Atheist. Sure, you can be agnostic and that is different. Yes, I was referring to religious people. If you are agnostic, I am not sure why you are irritated.
"This is either some kind of bait or poorly thought through"
No, was well thought through. I think you are reading into what I wrote what is not there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, the definition of benefit is an advantage over something else in comparison. As you declare yourself as atheist the something else would be the non-atheists. Also mind that this is not reading something into the text but purely based on the general definition of the words.
As such declaring all those points as benefits over all non-atheists is wrong. Nothing more, nothing less. As you have admitted yourself, the general problem of your text is that it poorly generalizes all non-atheists although you mean a neglible minority, at least for the first half of your text. While reducing it afterwards to only religious people the group you adress is still to large.
Comment has been collapsed.
huh? It is my list of benefits. totally funny you saying my list is wrong. lol.
yes there is Theism and Atheism. two sides.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, that is not what you have written. You have written "This is my perspective" and those "are the benefits of being an atheist". And then comes the list. So you say that in your opinion atheists have those listed advantages over non-atheists. And yes, what you written is wrong because you can have such stuff without being atheist and as such it is not a benefit. Again, this is not reading into something but only objectively reading exactly what you have written. Also if it would be "your" list then you would have written "I don't have to hate on anyone" but you have chosen the generalized formulation.
Welp, but it seems you use the words in another way than their actual meaning. As such you are free to believe what you want even if your belief is not believing in god.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I list one of the benefits of being bald as "no need to spend time grooming hair in the morning" that does not mean that someone with a crew-cut also does not have that same benefit. supercollider is correct, you are reading too much in to it.
Some people with certain hair styles will also have that benefit, but that has nothing to do with the fact that being bald has that benefit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Christian bump! :)
Not going to post much else, but I do have to say that anyone who thinks Christianity relies on fear has never encountered a real Christian. Christianity is about love, God's love for us and our love for others. Unconditional, fearless, genuine love. Anyone who tells you otherwise has never actually read the book or had an encounter with the God they claim to follow
Comment has been collapsed.
I was raised christian. My family are mostly christian catholic. Every sect is different. but many religions use fear, not all. So it doesn't apply to you. i have read a lot of the bible and it is not all love. There is a lot of killing in the book. I agree with the Jesus parts, but the old testament is pretty harsh. Thanks for you point of view.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, you mean to say that no true Christian relies on fear?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I mean the Bible literally says our faith is a response to God's love for us, and "there is no fear in love, because perfect love casts out all fear." So someone who is trying to use fear to manipulate people is speaking and acting contrary to the tenants of the faith they claim to follow.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do believe in Hell. I know that a lot of modern conceptions of it come from conflation of Hell with Tartarus that happened during the early and mid medieval periods, but it is a Biblical statement that unrepentant sinners go to a place utterly separated from God after death. Considering God is the source of all that is good, there is nothing good in the place they are, and in one passage it's even described as a place of fire and great torment. That's Biblical.
What's not Biblical is trying to tell people: "You need to believe in God, or you're going to go to hell!" That's not what Jesus taught, that's not what He told His disciples to teach. There is no "good news" in that. That doesn't inspire people to love, forgiveness, and peace.
Do you think the early Christians went through torture, crucifixion, starvation, burning, and being eaten alive by lions and other animals because they were thinking "If I give up being a Christian to not die or to stop being tortured, then I'll go to Hell whenever I do die! I don't want that!" ? Do you think the thousands of Christians imprisoned, tortured, and killed every year for their faith choose to die for their beliefs because they're afraid of going to Hell? I don't believe it. I believe they keep to their faith under threat of death because they have experienced the love of God for them and when you have that, death holds no fear for you. If I or any other Christian dies, we go to be with Jesus. Why should we fear death or Hell or anything else?
Comment has been collapsed.
Many people of many different religions have been persecuted or killed because of their religion, so that is obviously not any kind of proof that their beliefs were actually true (since many of those religions are contradictory).
I don't believe that fear is the reason that most people are religious (I believe it is due to indoctrination), but I do believe that it is the reason that they remain ignorant of any argument against their belief and therefore maintain their belief.
Your last two sentences seem to indicate that only Christians have no reason to fear Hell. Are you saying that non-Christians are the ones that should fear Hell?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying anyone should fear Hell. My whole point has been that Christianity is not, according to its tenants laid out in the Bible, reliant on fear and indeed is opposed to fear tactics. Christianity is about the love of God for humanity, and how we choose to respond to that.
I was responding you your one line response about my not believing in Hell, which I had not brought up at all. If you want to discuss what I've said, then I'm open to discussion, but honestly, Hell is not an important point in Christian theology, despite what some televangelists would have you believe. It's barely given any time at all in the Bible. When I discuss my faith with people, I don't bring up Hell at all, because I don't consider it important to my faith.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you accept Jesus as your savior, you will have everlasting life, if you don't then you will not. So if you want to "live" forever, then you need to believe in Jesus and be a Christian. Isn't that what the Bible says?
So at the very least, you will not go to Heaven if you don't believe in Jesus and you will either just cease to exist or be in someplace that is not "good". Do you think that some people will not be afraid of what happens to them if they don't believe?
I'm not saying that religion is all about fear, I'm just saying that many religions use fear (not necessarily hitting you over the head with it) to keep people from leaving the faith.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I'm saying that fear has never kept me from leaving, especially the time I did. It's not what brought me back to the faith, either. Lack of grace and love from the people around me claiming to be Christians drove me away, and experiencing that grace and love from others was what brought me back. Fear wasn't and isn't part of the equation.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm glad for you, but fear is a big part for others. One of the biggest issues for former Christians who have become Atheists (due to a lack of good evidence that a god or gods exist) still sometimes have an irrational fear of what will happen after they die, even if they know it is not logical. Beliefs that you've been taught since you were a child can be difficult to shake.
Comment has been collapsed.
You empious, blasphemous hatemonger!! Odin will punish you! You will never see the gates of Valhalla! Also, the other 4000 estimated currently worshiped deities will also take turns to administer proper punishment for your words! :V
Comment has been collapsed.
Have a bump.
Just a note, I'm not used to seeing someone proselytize towards atheism. Interesting.
Comment has been collapsed.
not proselytizing, i guess it might seem like it. just informational for everyone.
not trying to get people to join, then donate, then have them go on missions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh, I understand the term to be convert generally (which can include all or none of the above), but yes, you are much less zealous than many on the other side. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
personally I'm an atheist but, while I did go through a phase of trying to convince everyone that they should be too (and by everyone I mean the two or three religious people I knew enough not to be too shy to talk to) I eventually came to see that some people do get a great deal out of their religious beliefs
some people do abuse the faith of others to manipulate them. some use their faith as a weapon to attack others. some use it as a pedestal to place themselves above others and look down on them. but any useful tool can also be misused
all religious groups, including atheism, have their extremists that give them all a bad name. but most are just people who happen to believe in something personal to them that comforts them and which does no harm to anyone else
Comment has been collapsed.
"all religious groups, including atheism, have their extremists that give them all a bad name"
coming from an atheist, that is a very strange statement.
Atheism is not a religion and we don't have extremists.
Where did you hear/read this?
There are crazy people that do crazy violence that may very rarely say they are atheist, but that is totally different than organized extremists. I hope you see that.
Also I am not trying to convince anyone, I think that is what you are implying. Not totally sure though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Atheism also has extremists. The difference is that atheist extremists call you an idiot online for believing in a god. Extremist religious people meanwhile take over an entire country and literally burn thousands of people for believing in a slightly different god. I get how the two can seem equally irritating to a privileged person in a western country. To those of us living in the middle east where ISIS taking over your home is a daily fear, thanks, I prefer atheist extremism/.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are no atheist extremists. I mean, if you are going to use the same definition as "Religious Extremist"? You stating "atheist extremists" are someone that calls you an idiot online is going way beyond the definition and then everyone at some point would be an Extremist.
My definition comes from this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_extremism
People that will commit physical violence for their political or religious views. There are huge amounts of evidence of organized violent Religious Extremism and currently there is none for atheism.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's where you are wrong. There are plenty of examples of extreme atheism in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-religious_campaign_during_the_Russian_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1921%E2%80%931928)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)
And go to China and tell them you are a catholic even TODAY, 2017, the place where they are building your mobile phone.
https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010/148863.htm
Although it's better than before
Under the atheism espoused by Mao Zedong, houses of worship were shut down; Buddhist pagodas, Daoist temples, Christian churches, and Muslim mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; and sacred texts were burnt
http://books.google.com/books?id=mofX6zdChgcC&pg=PA132&dq=china+militant+atheism&hl=en&ei=I_z2TZmePMGW0gGr_5CHCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=china%20militant%20atheism&f=false
In Cuba you could be fired if you were religious
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130108154
Although if you want a modern example
On 10 February 2015, Craig Stephen Hicks, a supporter of Atheists for Equality, "shot dead three Muslim students execution-style near to the University of North Carolina campus on Tuesday after posting anti-religious sentiments online
“A man allegedly shot dead three Muslim students execution-style near to the University of North Carolina campus on Tuesday after posting anti-religious sentiments online. Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, shot dentistry student Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his new wife Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, in their heads over an ongoing parking dispute at their quiet condominium complex in Chapel Hill around 5pm, police said. But the women's father, Dr. Mohammad Abu-Salha, said even though parking might have triggered the killings, Hicks had long targeted the family because of their religion and culture. 'It was execution style, a bullet in every head,' Abu-Salha told the News Observer. 'This was not a dispute over a parking space, this was a hate crime. ... There have also been questions over whether Hicks' anti-religious stance - which he freely shared on social media - had also been a factor in the murders. On a Facebook page in his name, Hicks shared a number of anti-religion posts, describing himself as a supporter of 'Atheists for Equality'. A banner about 'anti-theism' is prominent on his page. Hicks posted a photo from United Atheists of America on February 8, which has the title 'why radical Christians and radical Muslims are so opposed to each others' influence when they agree about so many ideological issues'. On the page he is listed as married and having studied to become a paralegal at Durham Technical Community College. Records show his wife works at UNC Hospital. Most of the pictures he has posted in recent months criticize a number of religions, including Christianity. Other recent pictures he has published include one of a loaded revolver. In one post allegedly written by Hicks and shared by CNN, he wrote: 'When it comes to insults, your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I.'”
Even in the examples you pointed out as atheism, there are voices that consider them to be too extremist
“I feel that atheism may be acquiring precisely those characteristics that atheists so dislike about religion intolerance, dogmatism, righteousness, moral contempt for one's opponents. Dawkins also tells us that "there are very few atheists in prison". He suggests that "atheism is correlated with higher education, intelligence or reflectiveness, which might counteract criminal impulses". What begins to emerge – and it lurked strongly behind the anti-religion side of the Intelligence Squared debate – is the idea that atheism is an elite state, a superior order of being, a plane of enlightenment denied to thickoes.”
Not attacking atheism. I just want to point out that there are assholes everywhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I was sure that Atheism has extremists too. But I didn't know it was this bad O.o Thanks for the Information.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is not a really fair list. Most of your examples have more to do with communism than atheism. Yeah, the USSR and China and Cuba are dangerous to people who disagree with them. How is atheism responsible here? Try to go to China and tell them you recognize Taiwan as an independent country, and see what happens. (And for the record, I just spent a whole month in China with my family this very summer. Everyone knew we were Catholics. Most of our neighbors were muslim arabs. Guess how much discrimination we faced? Zero. So not sure what your point is).
Other than communist atrocities, you have... 3 deaths? Compared to the literal millions of christianity and islam? Three deaths and some pretentiousness? Come on, man. That atheist killing three people was news-worthy. I'd bet over three people are killed by isis in my country every day and no one even really talks about it(I'm from Lebanon, not Syria or Iraq so we're not even where the fighting is strongest).
Comment has been collapsed.
If you are tourist, you can be a christian, muslim, or whatever. They don't care. They want your money.
It's the part where you are a chinese catholic where it may be a problem. I gave you the link. Read it. There is a chinese cardinal in the catholic church, but the Vatican don't want to say who, because they are afraid he would suddenly "disappear". And this is a cardinal, in 2017, in the place where they are building your smartphone.
And in China, USSR, Cuba, they have/had plenty of human rights abuse because of communist. But they were places where the atheism was/is the official religion. And you would be targetted if you weren't atheist. Stalin himself ordered the monks of a monastery to be hanged to substitute the bells. Obviosly I can't give you an example of the western world committing an act of extreme atheism by the state, since they are secular countries and they respect human rights.
OP said "Atheism is not a religion and we don't have extremists" I just looked at an official hate crime to prove the statement wrong. There are other hate crimes which you can easily find.
I am not saying atheism is wrong. I just want to point out, again, that extremism is bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
IMO in communist countries the persecution of religion had a goal of making the Leader people's "God" (cult of personality) and taking away the power from the church rather than being about wanting people to be Atheist.
Apart from that, definitely agreed that any kind of extremism is bad and there are indeed extremists between people who do not believe in god.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's very true there are assholes everywhere. But you are mostly posting about history those incidence are not attributable to atheism. There are no atheist extremists. See my post above.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not that hard to understand
Three twin brothers. Ivan, Boris and Leon.
Ivan, hard working person, atheist, hates the goverment, and speaks against it. Arrested and sent to a gulag for crimes against the state.
Boris, hard working person, religious person, never does anything against the goverment. Arrested and sent to a gulag from crimes against the state (the fact that atheism was the official religion, meant that religious people were actually commiting illegal acts)
Leon, hard working person, atheist, never does anything against the goverment, lives a long life.
Were the communists goverments targetting ONLY religious people? No.
Were the communists goverments targetting SPECIFICALLY religious people? Yes.
Allan Todd, Sally Waller (2011). Origins and Development of Authoritarian and Single Party States. Cambridge University Press. “By the time of the Nazi invasion in 1941, nearly 40,000 Christian churches and 25,000 Muslims mosques had been closed down and converted into schools, cinemas, clubs, warehouses and grain stores, or Museums of Scientific Atheism.”
So, there were people closing churches and mosques and opening in their place museums of Scientific Atheism. How is that not atheist extremists?
Sabrina P. Ramet (1993). Religious Policy in the Soviet Union. Cambridge University Press. “Local public and voluntary organisations – the Komsomol, the Young Pioneers, workers' Clubs and, of course, the League of Militant Atheists – were encouraged to undertake a whole range of anti-religious initiatives: promoting the observance of the five day working week, ensuring that priests did not visit believers in their homes, supervising the setting-up of cells of the League of Militant Atheists in the army. Public lampoons and blasphemous parades, recalling the early 1920s, were resumed from 1928. One of the main activities of the League of Militant Atheists was the publication of massive quantities of anti-religious literature, comprising regular journals and newspapers as well as books and pamphlets. The number of printed pages rose from 12 million in 1927 to 800 million in 1930.” What the, there was actually a League of Militant Atheists? Isn't that a little, I don't know, atheist extremist?
"In an extreme case from the 1920s, the government promoted the khudjum campaign, a movement that encouraged women to voluntarily discard the paranja, as the veil is called in the Turkic-speaking regions, but also brought gangs of militant young atheists to Central Asia who physically assaulted women, often tearing the veil from their faces in the streets of Tashkent, Samarkand, and other cities". —Global Security Watch
What about China?
“Seeking a complete annihilation of religion, places of worship were shut down; temples, churches, and mosques were destroyed; artifacts were smashed; sacred texts were burnt; and it was a criminal offence even to possess a religious artifact or sacred text. Atheism had long been the official doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party, but this new form of militant atheism made every effort to eradicate religion completely.”
Sure, they can send you to prison for plenty of other reasons. But being not a good atheist is definitely not good for your health
They are just communist. Well, then, let's go to Europe, not communist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War
6000 people murdered in six months. Their crime, being catholic. That was the crime. Punishable by death. That was not done by the goverment in this case, but by extreme revolutionaries that considered the best way to get the golden land, atheism, was to murder all the christians.
Hugh Thomas, La República Española y la Guerra Civil, pg. 257, ISBN 84-7530-847-X
"There are no atheist extremists"
“A man allegedly shot dead three Muslim students execution-style near to the University of North Carolina campus on Tuesday after posting anti-religious sentiments online. Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, shot dentistry student Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his new wife Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, in their heads over an ongoing parking dispute at their quiet condominium complex in Chapel Hill around 5pm, police said. But the women's father, Dr. Mohammad Abu-Salha, said even though parking might have triggered the killings, Hicks had long targeted the family because of their religion and culture. 'It was execution style, a bullet in every head,' Abu-Salha told the News Observer. 'This was not a dispute over a parking space, this was a hate crime. ... There have also been questions over whether Hicks' anti-religious stance - which he freely shared on social media - had also been a factor in the murders. On a Facebook page in his name, Hicks shared a number of anti-religion posts, describing himself as a supporter of 'Atheists for Equality'. A banner about 'anti-theism' is prominent on his page. Hicks posted a photo from United Atheists of America on February 8, which has the title 'why radical Christians and radical Muslims are so opposed to each others' influence when they agree about so many ideological issues'. On the page he is listed as married and having studied to become a paralegal at Durham Technical Community College. Records show his wife works at UNC Hospital. Most of the pictures he has posted in recent months criticize a number of religions, including Christianity. Other recent pictures he has published include one of a loaded revolver. In one post allegedly written by Hicks and shared by CNN, he wrote: 'When it comes to insults, your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I.'” He was officially condemned for a hate crime, that is, a crime against religion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Too many words. And all outdated.
Again, There are no atheist extremists
Comment has been collapsed.
A dead 19 year old girl says otherwise.
But whatever. I am tired of showing examples. Clearly you have the characteristics that atheists so dislike about religion: intolerance, dogmatism, righteousness, moral contempt for one's opponents.
“I feel that atheism may be acquiring precisely those characteristics that atheists so dislike about religion intolerance, dogmatism, righteousness, moral contempt for one's opponents. Dawkins also tells us that "there are very few atheists in prison". He suggests that "atheism is correlated with higher education, intelligence or reflectiveness, which might counteract criminal impulses". What begins to emerge – and it lurked strongly behind the anti-religion side of the Intelligence Squared debate – is the idea that atheism is an elite state, a superior order of being, a plane of enlightenment denied to thickoes.”
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude. He's not going to change his opinion. Presenting evidence and logical arguments will have no effect.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow... you're very well informed. Thanks for the reminder that the problem isn't religion or the lack thereof it's just crappy people who will take what they believe and use it as justification to commit terrible acts against other people. It's always funny to me how the most rabid proponents of both sides of the arguments don't realise how similar they look to the casual observer. Extreme atheists and extreme believers both try and beat their ideas into the heads of the 'other side', ignoring even the suggestion that what the other side believes may have a hint of merit or some benefit to how the others live their lives. They are proud and blind to even the idea that they could be wrong in some small way, even though statistically they are probably wrong somewhere. They build massive strawmen and burn them down, thinking this means they've won, focusing only on the details of the other sides arguments that they are 'comfortable' arguing against, and dismissing anything they don't like with insults or meaningless repetition.
Comment has been collapsed.
Happy End of Summer! Plus…
Some people seem scared of Atheism.
Atheism just means:
A = without
Theism = Belief in a god
What are the benefits of being an atheist?
Religion relies on fear to keep you in line.
Chris Hedges has written about this. He went to seminary school and is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.
I suppose less fearful and more open people gravitate to Atheism.
Christopher Hitchens was an interesting author you might want to check out.
What I am writing here is just my perspective. Not mean to hurt anyone's feelings.
I am not saying I dislike religious people. I would like religious people to stop trying to shove their religion on everyone else; I mean, making laws. Stop making laws based on your religion, please. ie. Separation of Church and State! And let go of your superstitions and fears!
Ticket
If you are on my black list and want to enter, please post asking for removal.
Plus for group members, just in case you missed the announcement. There is a group train.
Check the announcements!
akagumo group
Comment has been collapsed.