<p>I guess mass murder = evil is a pretty simple concept, Kyo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve had this argument with many, but here’s round umpty million…</p>
<p>While on the surface it appears that communist states were concerned with atheism for atheism’s sake, it doesn’t explain it fully. Communist states, being totalitarian in nature, needed to remove all sources of competition for legitimacy. Religious institutions are natural sources of worship and authority (and they should be!) However, to the likes of a Kim Jong Il, that’s incredibly threatening from a consolidation of power point of view. All roads must lead to the leader.</p>
<p>It’s not that communist states were or are necessarily atheistic. They merely replaced standard religions with state-based cults of worship centered on the party and its leadership.</p>
<p>Thank you UCLAri,</p>
<p>That makes more sense to me.</p>
<p>“correct despite no ability to prove their case”</p>
<p>As Bertrand Russell already proved; the burden of proof lies upon believers.</p>
<p>“Religions are a threat to totalitarian control”</p>
<p>Actually, relgion is generally the source of totalitarian control. Pious leaders are able to coerce great masses into committing acts in the name of God; acts that they would’nt otherwise commit.</p>
<p>“Communism doesn’t follow Atheism but Atheism seems to follow Communism”
To this date the world has not seen a true communist state. What they claim to be “communism” is merely a facade.</p>
<p>I read the God Delusion on the plane over from England. I thoroughly enjoyed it and believed it raised important points. What really disturbed me was the study conducted in Israel. I don’t think it was overly harsh and believe that attacks were directed in order to try and unite atheists, as we are targeted because we fail to unify. The only complaint that I will make, in regards to the book, is that It didn’t really delve into the logical fallacies of religion. </p>
<p>I am pantheist/atheist if that wasn’t evident.</p>
<p>Let me explain you something: Communist is an ideology, not a form of government. The ideal of Communism is an stateless society, you are now citing genocides committed by states. Some have taken the interpretations of Lenin, for example, and have used them gain power. But it doesn’t mean that their dictatorships were “Communism”. Again, you should not confuse an ideology with a form of government that misused that ideology.</p>
<p>It’s interesting to me that my argument doesn’t sit well with a lot of people for whatever reason. I think that my sort of view is actually much more damning of communism than the more traditional “religion was a threat because communists hate religion” argument.</p>
<p>Let’s face it: religion competes with the state all the time. It has all the trappings of legitimacy built right in. And in some cases, it manages to actually become a big portion of the state itself (Iran, for example.) Communist states so feared religion as more legitimate than their own workings that they sought to exterminate it-- much like the Japanese government in the 17th century.</p>
<p>That should tell you something about how sure they were of their authority as the sole ruling power.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For all intents and purposes, using communism to refer to the 20th century form of government that characterized much of Eastern Europe is widely accepted and used today, despite its perceived inaccuracy. I think there are bigger fish to fry in this discussion.</p>
<p>Sooo…not to sound redundant but, exactly why is it that religious people are threatened by atheists?</p>
<p>Please avoid idioms because I am not a native English speaker. That “inaccuracy” is too useful in bashing Communism for me to consider it accidental. I prefer to speak without ambiguities and there is enough difference between these two concepts to have them. If I defend Communism people should attack Communism; not totalitarianism, which is completely opposite to the communist original ideal.</p>
<p>“Let’s face it: religion competes with the state all the time”</p>
<p>You fail to realize that in regions, which have a sustained faith base, but lack of pious leadership, are easily manipulated by head of states. The Pope no longer retains much power over his followers and chrisitan priests and theologians have only a relatively small amount of control compared to what they once had. Subsequently, leaders are able to exploit their lack of leadership. Bush, for instance, has been able to manipulate the christian faith, wielding more executive power than the Constitution affords.</p>
<p>“Sooo…not to sound redundant but, exactly why is it that religious people are threatened by atheists?”</p>
<p>If you search through the PENN forums you will discover a 300 post thread detailing their alleged concerns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll do my best, but you don’t really seem to be having any trouble keeping up. I couldn’t even tell that you weren’t a native…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Understandable. However, remember that words can have more than one meaning. This is especially true when it comes to political issues. The US is by no means a “democracy” in the classical sense. But there are very few political scientists who would damn you for calling it one, because the word “democracy” has evolved to refer to elected governments in a broader sense. The US and the UK have very different governments, but both are considered democracies in both the common and academic nomenclatures.</p>
<p>qwilde,</p>
<p>Oh, believe me, I know what you’re talking about. However, remember that below the highly publicized surface lies an interesting and more active sea of activity than we commonly concern ourselves with. </p>
<p>Look at how Muslim religious leaders in Europe compete with the secular governments for authority over Muslim community issues, for example.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure they are threatened by Atheists any more than they feel threatened by any conflicting religion or than Atheists themselves who feel threatened by religions. One real threat nowadays is when Atheists choose to continually sue to remove crosses from memorials on government land, the hypersensitivity to Christmas trees in airports, the bell ringers outside of department stores, the use of ‘Happy Holiday’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas’ etc. This is causing a lot of friction.</p>
<p>Look at how Muslim religious leaders in Europe compete with the secular governments for authority over Muslim community issues, for example.</p>
<p>Yes, I know I’m English. It has become a “slight” problem in Britain and evidently France.</p>
<p>One real threat nowadays is when Atheists choose to continually sue to remove crosses from memorials on government land, the hypersensitivity to Christmas trees in airports, the bell ringers outside of department stores, the use of ‘Happy Holiday’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas’ etc. This is causing a lot of friction.</p>
<p>Yes, becuase it is a pervasion of faith. Considering all the atrocities committed against atheists, they retain the right to be offended at Christian’s control over the government, the media, and public life in general. I’m quite sure Christians wouldn’t appreciate it if we erected statues of the flying spaghetthi monster everywhere (that is of course after incalcuable acts of barbarity have been conducted in its name).</p>
<p>qwilde:</p>
<p>What atrocities against Atheists are you referring to? I doubt that it would be greater than atrocities various religions have committed against other religions or that Atheists have committed against other religions.</p>
<p>u-dad,</p>
<p>Are you sure it is even the atheists who have opposed those religious symbols? I would venture to guess that it is the other religions (e.g., Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc) who object to all that Christianity being displayed on government property. My guess is that atheists wouldn’t care, but I could be wrong.</p>
<p>Christianity is responsible for thousands of years of tyranny, intellectual oppression, and millions of deaths. Unfortunately, atheists have often been on the receiving end.</p>
<p>I am offended by signs of christianity on governemnt property-other than ceremonial grounds. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state-something the founding fathers were quite adamant amount (in fact most were against the christian religion).</p>
<p>Bay:</p>
<p>It’s been mostly Atheists who are vocally opposing the symbols and suing although there have been some cases of religion on religion (a recent one in Seattle re Christmas trees in the airport). I think a lot of religions are avoiding this kind of friction since it might ultimately hurt their own religion’s ability to use their own symbols and customs. Mainstream religions seem to typically be tolerant of the symbols of the other mainstream religions but there are extremists in most of them who might be less tolerant.</p>
<p>I don’t think Athesists ‘wouldn’t care’ any more than any other religion would care or not. A fervent Atheist can come across identically to a fervent religious person.</p>