Civil and engaging debate on Christianity and religious issues

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Reply to topic

If you are atheist, do you sympathize with Communism?
yes
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
no
100%
 100%  [ 9 ]
Total Votes : 9

Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:25 pm
Reply
Do Atheists on this forum support Communism, North Korea etc

Like this post
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:46 am
Reply
Re: Do Atheists on this forum support Communism, North Korea

Like this post
[Replying to post 1 by 2Dbunk]

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

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:03 am
Reply

Like this post (1): OnceConvinced
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:02 pm
Reply

Like this post
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:44 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): OnceConvinced
[Replying to post 4 by OnceConvinced]

Quote:

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!


_________________

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:27 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): OnceConvinced
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Wed Oct 09, 2019 5:07 am
Reply

Like this post (1): Tcg
[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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:52 pm
Reply

Like this post
[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?)

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 9: Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:36 am
Reply

Like this post
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.

Quote:
(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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 10: Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:12 pm
Reply

Like this post
[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.”

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36299&postdays=0&...

I was clearly mistaken in my assumption that most atheists do not support totalitarian violence. My bad.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version