Do Atheists on this forum support Communism, North Korea etc

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

If you are atheist, do you sympathize with Communism?

yes
1
10%
no
9
90%
 
Total votes: 10

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Do Atheists on this forum support Communism, North Korea etc

Post #1

Post by 2Dbunk »

Aetixintro says:
For a start, though Christians may support Iranian-style Theocracy, it's the "Atheists" who support stuff like Communism (Mao, Stalin) and North Korea.
I know of few, if any, on this forum who subscribe to Communism or North Korea. I certainly do not -- my non-belief stems from a life time of experience, including the caliber of people I've met who are religious and those who are not. none of the latter are sympathetic to Communism.
Aetixintro says:Then we also argue who would support the killing of Abrahamic people, the Jews, Nazi-style by Hitler the most as well. Atheist or Christian act?
This is a simplistic notion that one group of people are more prone to kill than others. I think you infer that Atheists are more prone to kill. But I refer you to recent mass shootings in the USA: for the most part it has been troubled Christians and Muslims doing the shootings -- I know of no atheists involved in these shootings (or flying airplanes into buildings like on 9/11.
Aetixintro says:Conclusion: Liberals (by rule of law) are as likely to be Christians as they are "Atheist".
I don't understand your conclusion -- that it explains the totality of your post?
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8851
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Do Atheists on this forum support Communism, North Korea

Post #2

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 1 by 2Dbunk]

I take it we are not talking about Star Trek utopian communism here? Because I support that.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #3

Post by Divine Insight »

The problem with the term communism is that it has always been associated with fascism and dictatorship by brutal regimes.

The general idea of communism could be a good thing if the government that was implementing it actually had the best interest of the individuals of the society in mine.

So it's not communism that's a bad thing but rather fascism and dictatorship.

In fact, it's quite possible to have a communistic democracy, but I don't think there are any real world examples of a communistic democracy. Also, it's highly unlikely that any human-based government will ever truly have the welfare of the individuals of the society as its goal. The reason for this is because once humans obtain the power of running a government they become greedy and no longer have the interest of the people as their goal.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8922
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post #4

Post by OnceConvinced »

Divine Insight wrote: The problem with the term communism is that it has always been associated with fascism and dictatorship by brutal regimes.

The general idea of communism could be a good thing if the government that was implementing it actually had the best interest of the individuals of the society in mine.

So it's not communism that's a bad thing but rather fascism and dictatorship.

In fact, it's quite possible to have a communistic democracy, but I don't think there are any real world examples of a communistic democracy. Also, it's highly unlikely that any human-based government will ever truly have the welfare of the individuals of the society as its goal. The reason for this is because once humans obtain the power of running a government they become greedy and no longer have the interest of the people as their goal.
Too true. I heard a saying once and I think it's a great one. "Anyone who has a desire to be a politician shoudn't be one." Or something along those lines. (I'd probably say the same when it comes to people wanting to be church pastors).

Our countries would surely be better off being run by people who didn't want to be in power.

I'm going to fiction here, because something doesn't have to be true for it to be worthy of debate. I've been watching the TV show "Designated Survivor" starring Keifer Sutherland and you have this guy who's been thrown into the job of president even though he has no desire to get into politics at all, simply because he was deemed "designated survivor". He does a great job of running the country and does it without selfishi motivation or greed. He's the type of guy we need running countries. A guy who never ever wanted to be in charge but does so because someone needs to do the job and he cares about his country and the people in it.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World of Fantasy

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Post #5

Post by 2Dbunk »

[Replying to post 4 by OnceConvinced]
I'm going to fiction here, because something doesn't have to be true for it to be worthy of debate. I've been watching the TV show "Designated Survivor" starring Keifer Sutherland and you have this guy who's been thrown into the job of president even though he has no desire to get into politics at all, simply because he was deemed "designated survivor". He does a great job of running the country and does it without selfishi motivation or greed. He's the type of guy we need running countries. A guy who never ever wanted to be in charge but does so because someone needs to do the job and he cares about his country and the people in it.
OC, you are quite right. But how do we go about implementing or installing a reluctant but beneficial candidate? My favorite movie genre is the "reluctant hero" like John Holden in "The Bridge Over the River Kwai." What a sand-bagger he was. . . until pressed to the task or face prison for impersonating an officer. Recent leaders don't come close in that respect, nor do few legislators.

Harry Truman comes to my mind, when he succeeded FDR: "God knows I didn't ask for this job." he said when he was sworn in. But he performed well (and honestly), authoring the Marshall Plan and giving all the credit to General Marshall, knowing full well he would be ostracized if it was called the Truman Plan.

Bust Nak and DI: I wrestled with breaking down "Communism" in its various forms (Russian, Chinese, Cuban, etc.) but opted not to because too many people lump them all together. Yes, Communism could be a good thing if its leaders were altruistic and not greedy. A form of Communism led by a power-reluctant leader(s) would be indeed utopian. But I don't see it in the tea leaves anytime soon. The odds are we'll destroy ourselves rather than seek such a solution!


_________________
What good is truth if its value is not more than unproven, handed-down faith?

One believes things because one is conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley

Fear within the Religious will always be with them ... as long as they are fearful of death.

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #6

Post by bjs »

I have not found many American atheists who support the totalitarian violence of the USSR or the People’s Republic of China. Just like I have not found many American Christians who support the KKK or the inquisition.

I think that reasonable people can recognize that the likes of Joseph Stalin or Kim Jun-il have committed horrible atrocities in the name of atheism (that is, to advance atheism and remove religious beliefs in their nations), but still understand that such actions are not inherent to atheism. It is clearly irrational to suggest that the fact that some atheists, motivated specifically by their atheism, have done horrible things means that most atheists support or sympathize with those actions.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8851
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Post #7

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 6 by bjs]

You don't see a difference between "motivated by atheism" and "motivated by hatred of religion?" I ask because atheism, being a lack of belief, can't motivate. It can take no credit nor blame for action of atheists.

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #8

Post by bjs »

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Yes, it is entirely possible that those who claimed that they were motivated by atheism were confused or dishonest.

I am always a fan of consistent reasoning, so let’s apply your reasoning to a different setting. Would you agree with someone who said that the Muslims in ISIS were not motivated by Islam since Islam cannot motivate violence?

(Also, just out of personal curiosity, if atheism can’t motivate any action then what is the point of being an atheist?)
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8851
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Post #9

Post by Bust Nak »

bjs wrote: I am always a fan of consistent reasoning, so let’s apply your reasoning to a different setting. Would you agree with someone who said that the Muslims in ISIS were not motivated by Islam since Islam cannot motivate violence?
Given that Islam cannot motivate violence, then the violence Muslims committed in ISIS were not motivated by Islam. Muslims in ISIS can still be motivated by Islam in other, non-violent ways.

Then there is the elephant in the room, the premise that Islam cannot motivate violence. One of the more infamous passage in the Quran:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah.
(Also, just out of personal curiosity, if atheism can’t motivate any action then what is the point of being an atheist?)
The sole point is to mark ourselves out as "not those guys." It's purely a label.

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #10

Post by bjs »

[Replying to post 6 by bjs]

I was wrong. Here is a link to a recent post (post 16) from a non-theist on this site directly stating the violence of Stalin and Mao was “arguably not a bad thing.�

viewtopic.php?t=36299&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10

I was clearly mistaken in my assumption that most atheists do not support totalitarian violence. My bad.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

Post Reply