Is Atheism a threat to Freedom

Post Reply New Topic

*snort*
'this other religion is just as bad' is not a good defense.

Stem cells derived from non-embryonic sources can be multi-potent but not pluri-potent. In other words, embyronic stem cells have far more potential to actually cure things.

The same can be said of deism; I've heard multiple theologians claim that lying and cheating for God are just fine.

As I have stated previously; I don't really like this thread. But:

Are you for REAL.... They may have given up the Communist skin but not the Authoritarian bones.

Actually they don't any more. They used to do so when they were actually communist because Christianity, like any religion, is a threat to any communist government.

However, a communist government is not the only form of government that may be atheist. The U.S. constitution doesn't mention religion other than to prohibit Congress from establishing one, for example, so it's as atheist as it is religious.[/quote]

One thing you might want to bare in mind is to China is they have long memories of the social unrest caused by the influence of western christians and christianity has played its role in bloody internal conflicts such as the Taiping Rebellion and the Boxer Rebellion which make civil wars like those seen in America around the same time look like a minor street brawl in comparison

This is a ridiculous statement.

Please read these articles on the subject:

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/14/igno ... mcdonnell/

http://freedomist.com/2010/10/07/china- ... tian-news/

http://drjamesgalyon.wordpress.com/2009 ... ppression/

https://gustavus.edu/religion/theses/20 ... yLloyd.pdf



So your arguing that on the one hand that it doesn't happen any more and then saying that if it does they are justified. Which is it?

Because if your second contention is true then that would give licence to everyone in South-East Asia to hate the Chinese. They have oppressed a good deal of the population at some time or another.

Here is a good article on the causes of the Taiping Rebellion (most of which still exist today).

http://www.thecorner.org/hist/essays/ch ... causes.htm

Hence how religion is a form of control that limits freedom.

Well, what sucks about being a slave is being property and not being able to decide anything about your life without the blessing of your master. He might treat you with dignity, but it still pretty much sucks. I guess that it is hard for somebody that did not live in slavery to understand it.

Atheism is not an ideology. When China's government tries to suppress Christianity, Buddhism or Rap music for that matter it does it because they are an over protective nationalistic, capitalistic nanny state that cannot accept any competition in regards to culture or control of the community. And that's what Christianism is, 25% culture, 75% a method of mass control.

Yes he was. I have clearly demonstrated to you, with quotes from Hitler himself (did you even read them?), that he was in fact a radical, self-identified christian. Furthermore, his idea of rounding up all the jews and killing them was largely inspired by the writings of Martin Luther (the founder of Lutheran Protestantism). The man was a christian, and hated everyone who wasn't.


They weren't a political party at all. They were just atheists getting together. He outlawed them because he had a hatred for atheism.


Atheism doesn't imply any standpoint on freedom of speech. Neither does theism. Whether one believes in gods or not is entirely irrelevant to one's viewpoint on the subject of freedom of speech. There is no connection between the question "do you believe in God?" and the issue of freedom of speech. Religion does not in any way prevent freedom of speech from going away. In fact, if you look at societies where a religious institution is in charge, you'll most often see a distinct absence of freedom of speech. What do you think happens to a jew in a nation under sharia law? What do you think happened to atheists during the crusades and the inquisitions?
Furthermore, I have repeatedly told you that the government doesn't decide what your rights are. It's the government's job to not step on the rights you already have as a member of the human race.


That's nonsense. Atheism is the absence of a belief in god, not a belief that can be "used" to justify things. There is no direct correlation between not accepting the claim that there's a magic man controlling the world and not having a moral compass.
Cheating is wrong because it's dishonest. Which is exactly the same reason why I don't believe in god. Because the claim that there is a God is intellectually dishonest. I value honesty and truth. That is why I am an atheist.

Belief in heaven and hell, however, can (if one is crazy enough) be used to justify murdering children "for their own good". Andrea Yates. Look it up. That's just one example.
Also, belief in prayer can be used to justify denying children medicine.
I could go on and on and on and on.


I'm not sure you know what intolerance is. I tolerate you as a person. I tolerate your right to have your opinions. But the ideas themselves, the things you say that are completely insane, yeah, I'm not going to tolerate that nonsense. You have the right to say them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and quietly nod as you talk complete rubbish. We're having a discussion. You tell us your ideas, and we point out why they are insane. That is what discussion is, and something you're just going to have to learn to tolerate if you want to discuss things - especially things you don't know anything about. You started this thread by making a completely baseless accusation against atheism. It has been repeatedly torn to shreads with logic and evidence by me and others. You have failed to argue your point. We will point that out, because you were the one making the flimsy point in the first place, and if you can't defend it with anything but more baseless claims, then yeah, we're going to keep telling you why you're wrong. You are simply going to have to learn to accept that that's how a discussion works and and quit whining.

Well I can understand where you are coming from; it is your world-view that is under attack at the moment and , though I do not share your lack of belief, I can understand why you feel the need to assert it here.

You have however said some things that are not true.

Hitler was not a Christian, nor was he an atheist; not in any way I understand the two to exist anyway. He clearly believed mostly in himself. He used Christian language and messianic imagery but had a purpose for it. Most historians on the subject have concluded that Hitler intended to destroy the Christian faith within Germany had he won the war. The Nazi textbooks put forward a psudo-religion; but it was not Christianity. It was the belief in a sort of racial providence and unquestioned loyalty (if you want some more information on this PM me and I'll send you some stuff on the subject).

Also in relation to the quotes you have put forward from Hitler. It is worth remembering that he did not really telegraph his punches, unless one cares to look underneath the surface that is. He was proclaiming until the beginning of the war, that his main occupation was the sustaining of peace. When for instance the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed he defended his position by stating that Soviet Russia was not really Bolshevik any more and that he had no interest in a grand confrontation. He said many things that he did not mean for political reasons.

Hitler believed that he was Destiny's Child. He believe that Destiny or Fate or whatever Power runs the world raised him to rid Germany of the threat of Communism and of the Jews. And he acted accordingly. Hitler believe he was a Chosen Person and that Aryans were the Chosen People. Which is one reason why he hated the Jews who believed (some of the, at least) that they were the Chosen People.

Hitler is an example of what can happen when megalomaniacs get a hold of guns, tanks and planes.

ruveyn

While that may be a fair observation, at this point it kind of comes down to a matter of semantics, doesn't it? If a man who calls himself a christian is not a christian, then who decides who gets to be a christian? Christians have been calling eachother not christian for about as long as there have been more than a dozen christians. My definition of christian in this context would be someone who self-identifies as a christian. Yours might be another, and I have no problem with that, especially since I don't consider myself christian in any sense of the word.

Have atheists (lately) hijacked commercial airline flights and crashed the planes into tall buildings?

When was the last time atheists, qua atheists, have burned either books or people who disagree with what they say? And but me no buts with the Communist Soviet Union. These people had a religion -- Marxism.

ruveyn

I would contend that there is more at work here than just semantics. While the definition of who is a Christian might indeed look a little blurry from where your sitting (i honestly don't have an issue with that) I would argue that one would have to make a fair effort to shoehorn Hitler into the faith. 18% of the Catholic Clergy of Poland died in concentration camps. Ian Kershaw produced a great deal of evidence that Hitler intended to destroy Christianity in Germany after the war.

There are many of quotes from Hitler of dubious quality. But there is enough evidence in Goebbels's writing and Albert Speers own works to conclude that he was very anti-Christian in his conversations with high ranking officials. For instance Martin Bormann also believed Hitler to be Anti-Christian and the National Socialism was incompatible with Christianity.

The problem I have with all of this argument about Hitler being this and that is that escapes the point. It all comes from a desire to paint the other side with the crimes of Hitler and the Nazi's. When the one thing we all share in common with him is that he was a man and he did evil things. What ever else he was, he was human first and we all have to take a piece of the blame.

it's as valid to claim that hitler was christian in the same way it is valid to consider the catholic priests who molest children are christian.

you can point out that they're not operating according to your interpretation, but priests have historically done the interpretation.

Correct.

But I think its quite clear that being an anti-Christian doesn't make him an atheist. Be it resolved?

No, it is not as 91 has pointed out. Again you take this off topic to bash Christianity.

Also Marxism is a form of Atheism.