Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Atheism - Joseph Stalin’s Godless 5-year plan of 1928

Page 5 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

babybird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 88,948
Location: UK

29 Oct 2023, 5:20 am

Showering in dry water is just the worst


_________________
We have existence


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

29 Oct 2023, 5:58 am

babybird wrote:
Showering in dry water is just the worst

Yeah. Sometimes you're forced to go to the store to buy...instant powdered water. :D



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,519

29 Oct 2023, 7:44 am

naturalplastic wrote:
TwilightPrincess wrote:
^ Once again, you’ve not lived in America. You are basing your opinion on how you think it appears as a British citizen.

Just delete the word "rebelious" from my sentence. The meaning wouldnt change.

In the US Bible Belt non Belief is a novelty. In the UK belief is a novelty. Thats my point. You dont declare your belief that "water is wet". But if you became convinced of the unorthodox belief that water...was somehow NOT wet...then you might feel the need to...share that discovery with your peers ...who are still mired in error.


I agree with this post, NP.

In some parts of the US including the bible belt, non-belief is indeed a novelty, whereas belief of any kind is more of a novelty in the UK and so it appears to me at least that the novelty experiencing Americans in this scenario seem more enthusiastic about their non-belief, especially if they are ex-believers and seem to want to prove themselves in some way.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

29 Oct 2023, 8:08 am

babybird wrote:
TwilightPrincess wrote:
In 2019, 4% of Americans said they were atheist and 5% said they were agnostic. The numbers could be a little higher due to perceived stigma related to having a minority viewpoint, but it's probably not drastically different. Of course, the numbers are probably a bit higher in 2023 but, once again, probably not drastically different.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... -atheists/

In 1981, 75% of Britons said they believed in God but that figure has dropped to below half (49%) in 2022.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/ ... ligion.pdf


Ok so now I understand our misunderstanding. I'm talking about the enthusiasm within the individual atheist. Not the enthusiasm within an entire country.

Of course I can see there is more atheism in the UK. It's just that we don't shout about it as individuals as loud as those individual atheists in the USA.

I'm not sure how true that is, either.

Richard Dawkins is British. So was Christopher Hitchens. They're the two people most strongly associated with atheism in the modern world. You've already mentioned Ricky Gervais. Seems like, if anything, British people are more likely to be the stereotypical New Atheist.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,880
Location: Hell

29 Oct 2023, 8:14 am

^ Good point.



babybird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 88,948
Location: UK

29 Oct 2023, 8:20 am

Well it's a point. I still believe in what I'm saying though. :P


_________________
We have existence


babybird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 88,948
Location: UK

29 Oct 2023, 8:27 am

This is actually the most ridiculous conversation I've had in quite a long time and I'm not even high.


_________________
We have existence


TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,880
Location: Hell

29 Oct 2023, 8:28 am

It certainly seems to me that people from the UK like to make false assumptions about Americans based on anecdotal evidence. :lol:

(Obvious satire but equally valid to other claims being made based on subjective experience in this thread.)



babybird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 88,948
Location: UK

29 Oct 2023, 8:30 am

Well if that's how it seems to you who am I to argue. :wink:


_________________
We have existence


TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,880
Location: Hell

29 Oct 2023, 8:31 am

This is PPR. It’s perfectly reasonable for bad arguments, faulty reasoning, and erroneous conclusions to be called out here.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,534

04 Nov 2023, 11:53 am

I feel at least as safe among atheists as I do among believers. More globally, overall I've found no convincing evidence either way of a significant difference between the harm done by the two groups.

My own take on the best source for moral guidance is that I'm a "golden rule" man. It's not perfect but I much prefer it to the advice of scripture authors and priests which often flies in the face of what my very instinct tells me is right for me. If the original post were correct, I should be more harmful than believers, and yet it's hard to demonstrate any such thing. The thread title itself is logically flawed: Stalin was a bastard, Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheists are bastards. It might work on a theist if they need confirmational bias to reinforce a belief in the moral superiority of their chosen system. I smell troll.

If you insist that you yourself need a religion to stop yourself from doing damage, then of course you need a religion, and you're free to go and get one, with my blessing. Me, I insist that I don't, at least until such time as I see a good reason to. From what I've seen so far when I've looked, I despair of finding it, and am forced to the provisional but strong opinion that it's not there.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,519

04 Nov 2023, 12:21 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
I feel at least as safe among atheists as I do among believers. More globally, overall I've found no convincing evidence either way of a significant difference between the harm done by the two groups.

My own take on the best source for moral guidance is that I'm a "golden rule" man. It's not perfect but I much prefer it to the advice of scripture authors and priests which often flies in the face of what my very instinct tells me is right for me. If the original post were correct, I should be more harmful than believers, and yet it's hard to demonstrate any such thing. The thread title itself is logically flawed: Stalin was a bastard, Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheists are bastards. It might work on a theist if they need confirmational bias to reinforce a belief in the moral superiority of their chosen system. I smell troll.

If you insist that you yourself need a religion to stop yourself from doing damage, then of course you need a religion, and you're free to go and get one, with my blessing. Me, I insist that I don't, at least until such time as I see a good reason to. From what I've seen so far when I've looked, I despair of finding it, and am forced to the provisional but strong opinion that it's not there.


I think I have explained well enough in previous posts in the thread what the intention or intention(s) of the thread was. One of the reasons for the thread, was to criticize ignorant American atheists, the trendy, young type and also to provide an example of how societal breakdown can occur when social morality is either broken down purposely or is made a state led belief system (believing in humans and leaders and their virtue rather than God, for example).

Nowhere did I say "Stalin was a bastard, Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheists are bastards", nor was that the intention of the thread. I don't even see where that was implied - it seems to just be an assumption on your part.

The thread was not intended to be an act of trolling, either. I have contributed a few lengthy posts defending the original post from some other attacks that have come about via misunderstanding.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,880
Location: Hell

04 Nov 2023, 12:28 pm

Numerous examples of God’s “virtue” can be found in this thread.

Who is advocating and campaigning for a “state led belief system” in America in any meaningful way apart from Christian nationalists?

Once again, why call out American atheists (ignorant or otherwise) when you have no evidence to prove that they are different from people elsewhere?



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,534

04 Nov 2023, 1:44 pm

blitzkrieg wrote:
I think I have explained well enough in previous posts in the thread what the intention or intention(s) of the thread was. One of the reasons for the thread, was to criticize ignorant American atheists, the trendy, young type and also to provide an example of how societal breakdown can occur when social morality is either broken down purposely or is made a state led belief system (believing in humans and leaders and their virtue rather than God, for example).

Sadly the thread had grown too long for me to read in detail by the time I saw it, time constraints and all, so for all I know you may well have added mitigating nuance after creating the title. Though from what you've said above, it seems you still hold that religious government is less harmful than any other form.
Quote:
Nowhere did I say "Stalin was a bastard, Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheists are bastards", nor was that the intention of the thread. I don't even see where that was implied - it seems to just be an assumption on your part.

The title, Atheism - Joseph Stalin’s Godless 5-year plan of 1928, is the thing that I paraphrased to bring out what looks to me like it carries an implicit syllogism. It's hard to prove or disprove. But using "atheism" as the first word does seem to me to suggest a primary purpose of having a go at atheism, whether you intended it or not.

Quote:
The thread was not intended to be an act of trolling, either. I have contributed a few lengthy posts defending the original post from some other attacks that have come about via misunderstanding.

Again, I don't say you intended atheist-baiting, but if it was vigorously countered, that suggests that it triggered a certain outrage. You've rowed back in response, which I applaud, and on reflection I see that I should have allowed for the obvious difficulty in constructing good titles, i.e. the limited number of allowed characters.

So, what are you saying now? That religious government is less harmful than any other forms?



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,519

04 Nov 2023, 3:36 pm

TwilightPrincess wrote:
Numerous examples of God’s “virtue” can be found in this thread.

Who is advocating and campaigning for a “state led belief system” in America in any meaningful way apart from Christian nationalists?

Once again, why call out American atheists (ignorant or otherwise) when you have no evidence to prove that they are different from people elsewhere?


It was specifically young Americans I had in mind when making the thread and you can see them all over social media, and they seem to have little life experience.

It is a stereotype (and based in reality) that a lot of North Americans, particularly young Americans, have never left the United States and often think of their country as being the world, as opposed to a huge and diverse planet, holding almost 200 countries. That was what I had in mind making the thread, rightly or wrongly (from your perspective).

I have never said anywhere in the thread that anyone is advocating for a state led belief system.

Any criticism I have of a Godless state led belief system (Godless being the key word here), would be that it is not neutral towards religion and in the case of the example of 1928 and Stalin, religious people were actively persecuted at that time.

That doesn't mean I believe in theocracy either - only that I don't believe in the pushing of atheism from a state level, as per this example from almost 100 years ago in a different corner of the planet than the English speaking nations.



Last edited by blitzkrieg on 04 Nov 2023, 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,519

04 Nov 2023, 3:44 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
Sadly the thread had grown too long for me to read in detail by the time I saw it, time constraints and all, so for all I know you may well have added mitigating nuance after creating the title. Though from what you've said above, it seems you still hold that religious government is less harmful than any other form.


That isn't exactly my position. Though it is similar.

My position is that religion should be viewed as beneficial by the state, although I believe any state should be neutral towards religion on a legislative level. I don't believe in a state that is particularly anti-religion, or actively atheist.

ToughDiamond wrote:
The title, Atheism - Joseph Stalin’s Godless 5-year plan of 1928, is the thing that I paraphrased to bring out what looks to me like it carries an implicit syllogism. It's hard to prove or disprove. But using "atheism" as the first word does seem to me to suggest a primary purpose of having a go at atheism, whether you intended it or not.


Well, even if there does seem to be an implicit criticism of atheism in the title, that doesn't mean that I think atheists are bastards or bad people. The syllogism was unintentional.

ToughDiamond wrote:
Again, I don't say you intended atheist-baiting, but if it was vigorously countered, that suggests that it triggered a certain outrage. You've rowed back in response, which I applaud, and on reflection I see that I should have allowed for the obvious difficulty in constructing good titles, i.e. the limited number of allowed characters.

So, what are you saying now? That religious government is less harmful than any other forms?


I think atheists can be perfectly good people. Indeed, the title character space is limited.

My position has always been that religion is something that shouldn't be persecuted, and I would hope that it would be seen as a good thing rather than a bad thing. Atheism is too cynical for my belief system. That is all.

Also, I posted the article from history.com because I thought it was interesting.