The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate

Goto page Previous  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

2Dbunk
First Post
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:25 pm  Do Atheists on this forum support Communism, North Korea etc Reply with quote

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?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 11: Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:02 pm
Reply

Like this post
bjs wrote:


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



You came to this conclusion from ONE post? One post and you draw a conclusion about MOST atheists. This wouldn't even add up if there were two atheists in the world. I suspect there a few more than that.


Tcg

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 12: Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:42 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to Tcg]

Given the relatively small number of people who post here consistently, one seems like a sizable percentage of the whole.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 13: Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:30 pm
Reply

Like this post
bjs wrote:

[Replying to Tcg]

Given the relatively small number of people who post here consistently, one seems like a sizable percentage of the whole.



Your conclusion involved a universal, "most atheists." It was not limited to, "most atheists who post here consistently." Even if it were, one out of ten or so doesn't qualify as, "a sizable percentage of the whole."

There are, as I'm sure you are aware, many atheists who don't post here. You are of course free to base your conclusion on an absurdly small sample, but I doubt others will follow suit.


Tcg

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 14: Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:26 pm
Reply

Like this post
bjs wrote:

[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.


I think you should review the results of the on-going poll in the OP!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 15: Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:54 pm
Reply

Like this post
bjs wrote:

[Replying to Bust Nak]

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


A politician confused or dishonest -- is that possible?

Quote:
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?


My opinion is no.

Quote:
(Also, just out of personal curiosity, if atheism can’t motivate any action then what is the point of being an atheist?)


Like someone said: ". . . it is a label." We ARE different from the theists in that we adhere to a live and let live philosophy, so long as it adheres to rules of civil behavior.

There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 16: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:17 am
Reply

Like this post
2Dbunk wrote:

Quote:
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?


My opinion is no.


Please explain. If you are going to define atheism, and insist that other self-described atheists were wrong about their definition of atheism, then how can you deny a Muslim the right to define Islam as he sees fit?

2Dbunk wrote:

Quote:
(Also, just out of personal curiosity, if atheism can’t motivate any action then what is the point of being an atheist?)


Like someone said: ". . . it is a label." We ARE different from the theists in that we adhere to a live and let live philosophy, so long as it adheres to rules of civil behavior.


If you are agreeing with Bust Nak that “atheism, being a lack of belief, can't motivate,” then it is inconsistent that “we [atheists] adhere to a live and let live philosophy.” You can say that you, personally, adhere to a live and let live philosophy. However, there is nothing in atheism that includes a live and let live philosophy or any form of rules of civil behavior.

2Dbunk wrote:

There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.


Atheism contains ample room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma. It just can’t be religious dogma. Also, under this definition, atheism has nothing to do with being proven or unproven.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 17: Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:17 pm
Reply

Like this post
[quote="bjs"]
2Dbunk wrote:

Quote:
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?


My opinion is no.


Quote:
Please explain. If you are going to define atheism, and insist that other self-described atheists were wrong about their definition of atheism, then how can you deny a Muslim the right to define Islam as he sees fit?


I am not denying any Muslim their right to define Islam. But if they deny that there are dictates in Islam that motivates violence against "heretics," then they are conflicted. Add that to all the "Holy Books' " conflictions and contradictions for a TOTAL SUM of chaos.

2Dbunk wrote:

Quote:
(Also, just out of personal curiosity, if atheism can’t motivate any action then what is the point of being an atheist?)


Like someone said: ". . . it is a label." We ARE different from the theists in that we adhere to a live and let live philosophy, so long as it adheres to rules of civil behavior.


Quote:
If you are agreeing with Bust Nak that “atheism, being a lack of belief, can't motivate,” then it is inconsistent that “we [atheists] adhere to a live and let live philosophy.” You can say that you, personally, adhere to a live and let live philosophy. However, there is nothing in atheism that includes a live and let live philosophy or any form of rules of civil behavior.


It is common sense my friend! Even you have the right to tap into common sense -- one does not have to be an atheist. Atheism is all about being independent of supernatural dependency -- we have NO rules, dictates, or dogma that dogs us and limits us and confines us.

2Dbunk wrote:

There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.


Quote:
Atheism contains ample room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma. It just can’t be religious dogma. Also, under this definition, atheism has nothing to do with being proven or unproven.


Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I refer you to the understanding of COMMONSENSE. I have no time for hatred -- it is gross, and where I find it do what I can to change it i.e. voting the idiot out.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 18: Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:36 pm
Reply

Like this post
2Dbunk wrote:


I am not denying any Muslim their right to define Islam. But if they deny that there are dictates in Islam that motivates violence against "heretics," then they are conflicted. Add that to all the "Holy Books' " conflictions and contradictions for a TOTAL SUM of chaos.


It seems that Muslim could say that we have misunderstood the passage in the Koran. If we are allowing him to define Islam then, no matter how sure we are that our understanding is correct, then we would have to accept his interpretation as correct and dismiss our own as incorrect.

2Dbunk wrote:

It is common sense my friend! Even you have the right to tap into common sense -- one does not have to be an atheist. Atheism is all about being independent of supernatural dependency -- we have NO rules, dictates, or dogma that dogs us and limits us and confines us.

2Dbunk wrote:

There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.


Quote:
Atheism contains ample room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma. It just can’t be religious dogma. Also, under this definition, atheism has nothing to do with being proven or unproven.


Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I refer you to the understanding of COMMONSENSE. I have no time for hatred -- it is gross, and where I find it do what I can to change it i.e. voting the idiot out.


Two thoughts on common sense:

One is that it is not that common. I do not mean that not many people have it. Rather, I mean that “common sense” changes over time and from one location to the next. What we might consider common sense is not always something share in common with others.

Second, there is nothing in atheism (under this definition) that includes common sense. I am glad that you have no time for hatred, but that must be viewed as a peculiarity to your own worldview and entirely unrelated to your atheism.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 19: Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:02 pm
Reply

Like this post
[quote="bjs"]
2Dbunk wrote:


I am not denying any Muslim their right to define Islam. But if they deny that there are dictates in Islam that motivates violence against "heretics," then they are conflicted. Add that to all the "Holy Books' " conflictions and contradictions for a TOTAL SUM of chaos.


Quote:
It seems that Muslim could say that we have misunderstood the passage in the Koran. If we are allowing him to define Islam then, no matter how sure we are that our understanding is correct, then we would have to accept his interpretation as correct and dismiss our own as incorrect.


I respectfully refer you to the USA's negotiations with the Barbary Coast's Bashaw Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in 1786 at Tripoli. None other than Thomas Jefferson and John Adams hoped for some reconciliation as ambassadors at large, skilled in diplomacy. Their hopes were dashed when the bashaw answered Adam's question "How the Barbary states could justify war upon nations who have done them no injury?" (The previous year, Algieria had captured and enslaved the crews of two American merchant vessels -- that would be held another ten years.)

The Bashaw's answer: "All nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave." I believe there is an element of violence and evil in that intercourse between those high representatives of state. There are many other examples of your "acceptable" dichotomy through the years, namely 9/11, mid-eastern beheadings, etc., all in the name of the "Prophet."

2Dbunk wrote:

It is common sense my friend! Even you have the right to tap into common sense -- one does not have to be an atheist. Atheism is all about being independent of supernatural dependency -- we have NO rules, dictates, or dogma that dogs us and limits us and confines us.

2Dbunk wrote:

There is no room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma and other ecclesiastic mumbo jumbo aimed at promoting some pie in the sky notion of UNPROVEN omniscience and eternal life.


Quote:
Atheism contains ample room for hatred and punishment dictated by dogma. It just can’t be religious dogma. Also, under this definition, atheism has nothing to do with being proven or unproven.


Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I refer you to the understanding of COMMONSENSE. I have no time for hatred -- it is gross, and where I find it do what I can to change it i.e. voting the idiot out.


Quote:
Bjs answers: Two thoughts on common sense:

One is that it is not that common. I do not mean that not many people have it. Rather, I mean that “common sense” changes over time and from one location to the next. What we might consider common sense is not always something share in common with others.

Second, there is nothing in atheism (under this definition) that includes common sense. I am glad that you have no time for hatred, but that must be viewed as a peculiarity to your own worldview and entirely unrelated to your atheism.


Bjs, atheism and agnosticism are ALL ABOUT commonsense!! By definition it is the logical way to proceed (putting away superstition, hearsay, rote reaction, etc.).

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 20: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:30 am
Reply

Like this post
2Dbunk wrote:

I respectfully refer you to the USA's negotiations with the Barbary Coast's Bashaw Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in 1786 at Tripoli. None other than Thomas Jefferson and John Adams hoped for some reconciliation as ambassadors at large, skilled in diplomacy. Their hopes were dashed when the bashaw answered Adam's question "How the Barbary states could justify war upon nations who have done them no injury?" (The previous year, Algieria had captured and enslaved the crews of two American merchant vessels -- that would be held another ten years.)

The Bashaw's answer: "All nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave." I believe there is an element of violence and evil in that intercourse between those high representatives of state. There are many other examples of your "acceptable" dichotomy through the years, namely 9/11, mid-eastern beheadings, etc., all in the name of the "Prophet."


But we are letting our hypothetical Muslim define Islam. He is free to say that he Bashaw misrepresented Islam and that Jefferson and Adams, for all their other positive qualities, did not understand Islam.

2Dbunk wrote:

Bjs, atheism and agnosticism are ALL ABOUT commonsense!! By definition it is the logical way to proceed (putting away superstition, hearsay, rote reaction, etc.).


This is clearly false. The majority of people in the world today, and throughout history, are theist. Theism is the common view. If there is such a thing as “common sense” then atheism is in opposition to it.

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

Goto page Previous  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