[vyper]

Stunning. So we've established religion causes nothing but trouble? Good, now lets start burning temples..

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Goober5000
[B@Crazy_Ivan80: It's not a strawman argument at all.  A repressive regime is going to persecute and stamp out any resistance.  Doesn't matter if it's religious or not. [/B]

yes it is a strawman because of the way you worded your argument. You basically said these regimes were repressive because they were atheist. Something which is blatant nonsense, as you know.

[Ghostavo]

@Goober5000

Quoted in reverse
As I said, *atheist government* eventually became "worship the *governor*", but I concede that's not the best example.

When I say "regime", that's exactly what I mean - the government, not the people. The governments of the *insert religious governments* were/are officially *insert religion*, and yet they murdered millions of people. That's probably true, at least "officially"; perhaps not unofficially. But the *insert centuries of religious persecution by other religious* more than made up for it.

A post with this kind of reasoning would get me flamed or perhaps worse. It sounds like you are trying to forgive the persecution at the hands of religious people by saying "Well, they (atheists) did this too!". If anyone in this forum were to say the same thing in reverse "Well, they (religious) did this too!" would get flamed or worse.

Basicly what Crazy_Ivan80 is trying to say in his above post.

That said, if you want to blame USSR, China, etc... for persecuting people (which I would probably agree with you), don't say it was because they were atheists, but because they were repressive.

[Zarax]

This is quite right.
France has an Atheistic government (US should too in theory) but religions aren't oppressed... They just keep them away from anything managed by the state (like it should be everywhere).

[Goober5000]

@Ghostavo: I'm not trying to excuse anyone persecuting anybody else.  I'm merely trying to establish facts.  The governments that killed the most people in the 20th century (in peacetime) were Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., and China.  And these governments were headed by people who did not believe in any God or any gods.

@Zarax: Whoa, whoa, what did you say just now?  The US should have an athiestic government?  That hardly matches the "separation of church and state" doctrine; athiesm is an official stance toward religion.  The proper separation would have a government witholding any sort of speculation or comment one way or the other.

[Zarax]

Atheism simply means absence of god...
The fact that the term is misused doesn't change that.
Being a grammar inquisitor you should know the difference between atheist and antitheist, which is what the old USSR and chinese doctrine stands for

[TrashMan]

I remember the time when priests really lived thgeir faith - 15 years ago, in my own town there were still ones who didn't have anything. Yep, the priests had NOTHING save the clothes they wore and their churches were'nt all nifty and tidy.

Nowdays priests TEND to have big bellys, expensive cars, the churches are well decorated and they constantly ask money for more improvements....

Capitalisam is killing the soul...meh...

Oh, as far as I'm concerned, separating religion from state is no better then not separating them. It all depends on the religion and those onn power.
Now that christiantiy finally got over some of the great mistakes of hte past, a christianic government would actually be rather nice.
And the same about democracy - it's only a illusion. Freedom is relative.

[Zarax]

Well, having an effective separation keeps politicians from listening to all kinds of fundies

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Zarax
Atheism simply means absence of god...
The fact that the term is misused doesn't change that.
Being a grammar inquisitor you should know the difference between atheist and antitheist, which is what the old USSR and chinese doctrine stands for

That's not quite right.  Athiest means "no god" and antitheist means "against god".  So if you're an antithiest, you're a Satanist.

[icespeed]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
@Goober5000



A post with this kind of reasoning would get me flamed or perhaps worse. It sounds like you are trying to forgive the persecution at the hands of religious people by saying "Well, they (atheists) did this too!". If anyone in this forum were to say the same thing in reverse "Well, they (religious) did this too!" would get flamed or worse.

Basicly what Crazy_Ivan80 is trying to say in his above post.

That said, if you want to blame USSR, China, etc... for persecuting people (which I would probably agree with you), don't say it was because they were atheists, but because they were repressive.

why try to lay blame? we know people calling themselves christians or muslims or whatever organised religions went on massacres, and so did atheists. human nature's not a pretty thing, and the only fault lies at our own feet, not at the feet of whatever god/gods/no-god we profess to believe in.

we were talking about something similar to this in church the other day, and someone made the point that we in western countries actually have it harder in terms of true christianity, because we have so much material wealth, we find it harder to give stuff up, to speak out and be mocked, that kinda thing. those being persecuted have nothing in the first place, so they can give everything to God, and thus are seen as truer christians.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Oh, as far as I'm concerned, separating religion from state is no better then not separating them. It all depends on the religion and those onn power.
Now that christiantiy finally got over some of the great mistakes of hte past, a christianic government would actually be rather nice.
And the same about democracy - it's only a illusion. Freedom is relative.

Get over the great mistakes of the past? That's a nice idea, especially since people of all religions have been making the same mistakes for the entire history of human civilization. If you make one creed the government, you provide an instant carte blanche for the persecution of anyone who has an idea that conflicts with that creed. The people in power will decide how the religion is interpreted, and then come the Thought Police to enforce their executive decisions. The people who question ideas taken for granted are silenced. Art becomes immoral. Not going to church becomes a capital offense. Human instinct becomes shut up in tighter and tighter boxes until it just won't fit anymore. Then, eventually, when the people are tired of losing the sovereignty of their own thoughts, tired of being afraid to write a poem, crack a joke, or masturbate in their rooms, they explode, and the government collapses. I don't care how benevolent the religion's intentions are. People as a whole are predictable. It will always happen.

[icespeed]

yeah, don't mix state and religion, probably not the best idea in the world. when you force people to believe something, you actually create unbelief in those same people. why else are there so many so-called christians in america now, who don't live by the tenets of Christ, who don't read the bible, and who in fact are virtually agnostics (as in, 'God is irrelevant to me' rather than the atheist 'there is no God')? american constitution, afaik, was heavily based on christian principles. the pledge itself swears by God. yet now people are protesting all that.

state + religion = not good.

[Ford Prefect]

The pledge is not that old, and "under god" was only added to assert a distinction between god-fearin' American folk and the antitheistic Soviet government.

And the Constitution draws most of its principles either from Enlightenment political theorists such as Locke and Rousseau, from English legal tradition, or simply from a reaction against the idea of monarchy. It's a down-to-earth document. I think it's a stretch to associate it with any religious principles.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Goober5000
@Ghostavo: I'm not trying to excuse anyone persecuting anybody else. I'm merely trying to establish facts. The governments that killed the most people in the 20th century (in peacetime) were Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., and China. And these governments were headed by people who did not believe in any God or any gods.

Except, for the last time, Nazi Germany was not an atheist government or else:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Economics_and_culture

Hitler's policies emphasised the importance of family life: men were the breadwinners, womens' priorities being "church, kitchen and children."

Atheists that I know of are not interested in church...

EDIT:
Where on earth did you learn that Nazi Germany was an atheist state?

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Goober5000
That's not quite right.  Athiest means "no god" and antitheist means "against god".  So if you're an antithiest, you're a Satanist.

Goob, if you're a sathanist you're not an antitheist.
You're simply worshipping another entity (and such you're religious again, even though in a very twisted way).
Being antitheist means you go against any form of worshipping.
Do not let religion twist the word meaning

[vyper]

I'm not seeing any temple burning, my pretties. Come on now.

[Ford Prefect]

Temples are beautiful things. I just don't believe anything that's said inside them.

[Holmes]

It rings rather hollow to me.  The words of the fictional character in this piece are bitter and resentful, not speaking in loving rebuke, or holding hypocritical listeners accountable.  I KNOW people, personally, who have been imprisoned, persecuted, threatened, suffered pain and hardships, merely because they believed in Jesus Christ and followed him.  I had the honor just this morning of hearing a 75 year old man speak in broken English of his harsh imprisonment in a Soviet block country, followed by his banishment from his home.  I have spoken with somone who was shot at by government helicoptor gunships in Sudan and chased by them into the wilderness when he tried to deliver medical supplies and Bibles to a village (the village was burnt and destoryed).  I know a family from Thiland who received death threats- someone even attempted to poison them.  But none of these people were bitter or resentful.  They were amazing peacful and calm.  They were incredibly thankful for the prayers and support of Christans in the West.  They seek to hold us accountable, yes, they desire that we should be as passionate, sold-out, genuine, and full of love, whether or not we experience direct physical persecution, but they love us as brothers and sisters.  Perhaps we are spiritual weaklings compared to them-no, not perhaps.  Almost certainly.  But they teach and encourage, they urge and love.  They do not hate faliable men.  They know that their fight is not against flesh and blood.

[vyper]

There's being fallable and then there's being an outright bunch of slack jawed wasters.

While I'm no one's side in all this (aside from that which burns temples), I think the character in it had a good point.