Athesim radicals and Theist Radicals

[huevonkiller]

Yes they do. Your opinion doesn't fly. You should research communism more. I have and atheism is a staple of their influence.

What about gang members who happen to be religious? Seriously it doesn't matter.

Communism is bad no matter what religion you believe in.

 

[MARIS61]

Yes they do. Your opinion doesn't fly. You should research communism more. I have and atheism is a staple of their influence.

Atheism is the ability or skill to think rationally, despite the pervasive influence of irrational propaganda. There is no church, no idol, no congregation. It is a singular and personal clarity of thought, and is separate and untouchable by any governmental ideology.

It is not something religious folks can truly understand. Nor commies.

 

[speeds]

Absolutely! But then wouldn't that apply to atheistic societies like Soviet Union and republic of china? How were they able to have billions do their bidding.

You seemed to apply it only to theism. It works both ways; hence the thread title. When you have a group of people buying in to the ideology like communism.

We know what communists promise--equality. What do atheists promise in exchange for servitude?

 

[magnifier661]

What about gang members who happen to be religious? Seriously it doesn't matter.

Communism is bad no matter what religion you believe in.

I've already said that religious people have extremists giving it a bad name too. I already agree it goes both ways.

It seems many atheist take offense that another brother of their belief could be considered an evil society.

There are peaceful atheistic societies too. Never said there wasn't. England is pretty heavily atheistic and it seems they aren't evil. Current Japan is very atheistic and they aren't evil.

 

[magnifier661]

We know what communists promise--equality. What do atheists promise in exchange for servitude?

That man does not need God to function. That man must survive on their own merits. Sounds familiar?

 

[magnifier661]

Atheism is the ability or skill to think rationally, despite the pervasive influence of irrational propaganda. There is no church, no idol, no congregation. It is a singular and personal clarity of thought, and is separate and untouchable by any governmental ideology.

It is not something religious folks can truly understand. Nor commies.

I've seen many atheists contradict this way of thinking. How many atheist voted for Obama!

 

[speeds]

That man does not need God to function. That man must survive on their own merits. Sounds familiar?

Speaking of dodges...

 

[magnifier661]

Speaking of dodges...

Is that or is that not the truth? You asked me what I think atheism stands for and I answered that. Atheism supports a Godless thinking right? "That man does not need God to function. That man must survive on their own merits."

Doesn't atheism believe that we are on our own in this universe because everything happened by natural selection? That evolution evolved us into the dominant species. That we evolved because we evolved in ways to make us the superior species on this planet?

How is my response any sort of dodge?

 

[huevonkiller]

I've already said that religious people have extremists giving it a bad name too. I already agree it goes both ways.

It seems many atheist take offense that another brother of their belief could be considered an evil society.

There are peaceful atheistic societies too. Never said there wasn't. England is pretty heavily atheistic and it seems they aren't evil. Current Japan is very atheistic and they aren't evil.

I don't really get what your point is, what matters is Human Action (Austrian reference). Whether or not someone believes in something doesn't matter to me.

 

[speeds]

Is that or is that not the truth? You asked me what I think atheism stands for and I answered that. Atheism supports a Godless thinking right? "That man does not need God to function. That man must survive on their own merits."

Doesn't atheism believe that we are on our own in this universe because everything happened by natural selection? That evolution evolved us into the dominant species. That we evolved because we evolved in ways to make us the superior species on this planet?

How is my response any sort of dodge?

I asked you what someone stood to gain from it. From religion (generally), everlasting life. From communism, equality. From atheism, what? Nobody starts wars or does much of anything in the name of atheism. There's no carrot.

 

[santeesioux]

You sure do like rousing atheists every few weeks, Mags.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't really get what your point is, what matters is Human Action (Austrian reference). Whether or not someone believes in something doesn't matter to me.

And there you have it. That the individual, regardless of belief is accountable for their own actions. That the ideology isn't what provokes evil deeds. It's the actual person, leader and followers.

 

[magnifier661]

I asked you what someone stood to gain from it. From religion (generally), everlasting life. From communism, equality. From atheism, what? Nobody starts wars or does much of anything in the name of atheism. There's no carrot.

Gain? Well, that's based on perspective. I've remembered hearing Dawkins refer to atheism as a form of reward. To be free from the boundaries of religious laws. With that said, I think every ideology has something to gain from it. I also think all ideology has something to exploit as well. My reference to atheism and communism was a prime example of an ideology based from an atheistic approach, to brainwash the peoples to do away with all forms of religion.

And I think its foolish for anyone to think atheism isn't immune to exploitation. Maybe you aren't foolish enough to fall for the games set by those that use atheism for their personal gain and power, but there are many who are. Just like the ideology of government influence like the democrats and republicans. Just like the fans of the Blazers or Lakers having some personal reward with adopting their team as their own.

 

[Denny Crane]

We know what communists promise--equality. What do atheists promise in exchange for servitude?

Government research grants.

 

[magnifier661]

You sure do like rousing atheists every few weeks, Mags.

I know.... Sorry. I just read some of the tracts of atheism and see no difference than those of religious intent.

Check this out...

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/BecomeAtheist.htm

Question:
How can I be an atheist? What does it take for a person to become an atheist? Is there a secret handshake or something?

Response:
So, do you want to be an atheist? Do you really want to be able to call yourself an atheist instead of a theist? If so, then this is the place to come: here you can learn the simple and easy procedure for becoming an atheist. If you read this advice, you'll learn what it takes to be an atheist and thus perhaps if you also have what it takes to be an atheist. Few people seem to understand what being an atheist is all about and thus what becoming an atheist entails. It isn't that hard, though.

Here are the steps necessary to become an atheist:

Step One: don't believe in any gods.

Then read this

http://comingintheclouds.org/tracts/pdf/areyouready.pdf

ARE YOU READY TO MEET GOD?

Q. What kind of question is that? Of course I am! I’m not as bad or wicked as others are. I was baptized and I attend church regularly. As a matter of fact, I’ve actually done much more good than bad in my life. Surely these things will count for something before God.

A. Actually, we of ourselves have no righteousness nor could we ever perform any good work that would help in the slightest way to accomplish our salvation. Joining a church or going through religious ceremonies (baptism, confirmation, confession, partakingoftheLord'sSupper,etc.) willnotrelieve the burden of sin's guilt and its awful penalty. The Bible is very clear concerning the error and folly of such reasoning, and the utter inability of any self-effort to remedy our sinful state.

They are both using the same type of advertisement to promote others to believe in what they believe in.

If one man believes in something and doesn't invite others to share their belief; then it's just an opinion that only holds value to the individual. The moment that man decides to use their ideology to influence others to adopt their beliefs; then it becomes an assembly. The assembly is then labeled a movement. The movement becomes contagious and more people adopt this state of mind. The more that adopts that state will become a church, government or association. All of those are the aftermath of the one man seeking power; either it being power of influence, government or power to take a belief they believe is wrong away from people.

 

[magnifier661]

Government research grants.

Well played!

 

[huevonkiller]

And there you have it. That the individual, regardless of belief is accountable for their own actions. That the ideology isn't what provokes evil deeds. It's the actual person, leader and followers.

Ideology can provoke evil deeds, but with religion there's a lot of crazy stuff people conveniently ignore, this allows them to be fruitful in society. If you take religious texts literally we wouldn't be able to have a rational conversation, but if you block out some of the nonsense you can still be a productive member of mankind.

Sin embargo Communism is like clockwork, it fails all the time always no matter what people do. The same cannot be said about many other things.

 

[magnifier661]

Ideology can provoke evil deeds, but with religion there's a lot of crazy stuff people conveniently ignore, this allows them to be fruitful in society. If you take religious texts literally we wouldn't be able to have a rational conversation, but if you block out some of the nonsense you can still be a productive member of mankind.

Sin embargo Communism is like clockwork, it fails all the time always no matter what people do. The same cannot be said about many other things.

Never said communism isn't a failed ideology. In fact I agree with you 100%. What I'm trying to explain is that communism is an adaptation of a form of atheism. Doesn't mean it's atheism. Just like a baptist isn't the same as a catholic. They believe in the same god and Jesus; but are far from being the same.

 

[tlongII]

Never said communism isn't a failed ideology. In fact I agree with you 100%. What I'm trying to explain is that communism is an adaptation of a form of atheism. Doesn't mean it's atheism. Just like a baptist isn't the same as a catholic. They believe in the same god and Jesus; but are far from being the same.

I completely disagree. Communism is a form of government. It has nothing to do with religion.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I completely disagree. Communism is a form of government. It has nothing to do with religion.

Hell, in that case, isn't the US government an atheistic regime? Not that the people in this thread are rah rah pro US Government... until 2016.

 

[magnifier661]

I completely disagree. Communism is a form of government. It has nothing to do with religion.

I guess we can agree to disagree then. When a government publicly prohibits their people to believe in God; then it isn't separated. This would be in the same example of Iran being of Muslim faith.

 

[magnifier661]

Hell, in that case, isn't the US government an atheistic regime? Not that the people in this thread are rah rah pro US Government... until 2016.

United States is a republic that allows freedom of speech and religion. Even if the religion is without God.

 

[tlongII]

I guess we can agree to disagree then. When a government publicly prohibits their people to believe in God; then it isn't separated. This would be in the same example of Iran being of Muslim faith.

That was true in Socialist Russia, but it isn't true in communist China today.

 

[magnifier661]

That was true in Socialist Russia, but it isn't true in communist China today.

Yeah???? I didn't say current communist china are radical

 

[VanillaGorilla]

In Soviet Russia, God doesn't believe in you

 

[magnifier661]

I completely disagree. Communism is a form of government. It has nothing to do with religion.

See I disagree. Communism is an ideology. It became government the moment the people overthrew the government.

With your logic; the Roman Catholic Church running things during the dark ages wasn't religion. It was just a government. Or when the Taliban overthrew the communist invasion in Afghanistan; their new rule was just government.

Do you see where your point is going here?

 

[magnifier661]

In Soviet Russia, God doesn't believe in you

Sounds like a minor threat song

 

[Further]

In America our money says "in God we trust"

In Soviet Russia, there is no money

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

You sure about that?

None of your links establish your contention. You needn't get all muddled and confused about historical isms. There's nothing in "there is insufficient evidence to take gods seriously" (the atheist disposition) that "kill the religious" would then follow.

To the contrary, "Kill the religious" would follow from something along these lines: p1) It's good to kill those who stand in our way. p2) The religious stand in our way. C1) It would be good to kill the religious.

Is it possible you are assuming something not in play?

For instance, some religious people who believe that ethical behavior is only "right behavior" by virtue of it coming from the authoritative 'lips of god,' also believe that without 'god the authority' there is no way of determining which behavior to value, thus atheists, lacking an authority, also lack a basis for any ethics. And thus, behave badly as a result of their atheism (understood erroneously as the belief that god does not exist) i.e., without an authority atheists do whatever is convenient to their project.

 

[magnifier661]

None of your links establish your contention. You needn't get all muddled and confused about historical isms. There's nothing in "there is insufficient evidence to take gods seriously" (the atheist disposition) that "kill the religious" would then follow.

To the contrary, "Kill the religious" would follow from something along these lines: p1) It's good to kill those who stand in our way. p2) The religious stand in our way. C1) It would be good to kill the religious.

Maybe you might have overlooked this post I made earlier in the thread.

You should read the translated letter of the Soviet Union and religion.

Therefore, I come to the indisputable conclusion that we
must precisely now smash the Black Hundreds clergy most
decisively and ruthlessly and put down all resistance with such
brutality that they will not forget it for several decades.

and

Send to Shuia one of the most energetic, clear-headed, and
capable members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee
[VTsIK] or some other representative of the central government
(one is better than several), giving him verbal instructions through
one of the members of the Politburo. The instructions must come
down to this, that in Shuia he must arrest more if possible but not
less than several dozen representatives of the local clergy, the local
petty bourgeoisie, and the local bourgeoisie on suspicion of direct
or indirect participation in the forcible resistance to the decree of
the VTsIK on the removal of property of value from churches.
Immediately upon completion of this task, he must return to
Moscow and personally deliver a report to the full session of the
Politburo or to two specially authorized members of the Politburo.
On the basis of this report, the Politburo will give a detailed
directive to the judicial authorities, also verbal, that the trial of the
insurrectionists from Shuia, for opposing aid to the starving, should
be carried out in utmost haste and should end not other than with
the shooting of the very largest number of the most influential and
dangerous of the Black Hundreds in Shuia, and, if possible, not
only in this city but even in Moscow and several other ecclesiastical
centers.

Is it possible you are assuming something not in play?

Anything is possible. Even God.

For instance, some religious people who believe that ethical behavior is only "right behavior" by virtue of it coming from the authoritative 'lips of god,' also believe that without 'god the authority' there is no way of determining which behavior to value, thus atheists, lacking an authority, also lack a basis for any ethics. And thus, behave badly as a result of their atheism (understood erroneously as the belief that god does not exist) i.e., without an authority atheists do whatever is convenient to their project.

That could be an opinion of a generalized theist. My personal opinion is many atheists I know have a great sense of morality. But, like any ideology, there are those that exploit or do evil deeds; by taking advantage of those sheep that blindly follow. Atheism included....

My advice is for all to question every ideology. That if you question, you learn. And you wont get the cookie cutter debates that the atheist and theists outline for their followers. You can actually debate using your own noggin'. Much healthier!