Bahahaha !!!

[Dos Equis]

While Stalin was an atheist, he didn't do it to uphold an atheistic view, he did to to retain power. Not even remotely the same scenario. He also fought Nazi Germany in WW2... and was a big reason why they were defeated... So if you're going to give him the bad, you have to give him the good as well.

The Athiest helped defeat the horrible Christian in that instance.

Sure it's the same scenario.  He wanted a religion-free regime. 

Atheists also suppress religion in China.  I heard someone talk about it this past weekend.  What "Christian nation" arrests atheists? 

[tu_holmes]

Sure it's the same scenario.  He wanted a religion-free regime. 

Atheists also suppress religion in China.  I heard someone talk about it this past weekend.  What "Christian nation" arrests atheists? 

Are you trying to tell me that in the past a Christian nation has not persecuted those who were not Christian?

[Straw Man]

Sure it's the same scenario.  He wanted a religion-free regime. 

Atheists also suppress religion in China.  I heard someone talk about it this past weekend.  What "Christian nation" arrests atheists? 

All dictators strive to eliminate any groups who might be able to claim a higher authority or have an ability to organize an opposition.

It had nothing to do with religion - It has everything to do with consolidating power.

D'Souza's premise is completely false and I'm sure he's knows it.   He's a right wing hack in the same mold as Coulter.  Personally, I don't even think they believe their own horseshit and are just smart enough to cash in by appealing to a certain segment of the political spectrum.

BTW - my original points was not about violence on a geo-political scale but rather small groups or individuals who have taken their beliefs to the edge of mental illness and beyond and committed acts of violence.

[Dos Equis]

Are you trying to tell me that in the past a Christian nation has not persecuted those who were not Christian?

I didn't say that, but can you identify past and current "Christian nations"?

Also, as of today, we have at least one atheist nation that persecutes/oppresses Christians (China).  Is there a "Christian nation" today that oppresses and persecutes atheists?  I'm unaware of any.   

[Straw Man]

I didn't say that, but can you identify past and current "Christian nations"?

Also, as of today, we have at least one atheist nation that persecutes/oppresses Christians (China).  Is there a "Christian nation" today that oppresses and persecutes atheists?  I'm unaware of any.   

Once again, the Chinese government does not persecute/oppose religious groups because they (the government) are promoting atheism.  They do it because it's a threat to their power.  Period.  There is a difference.

Communism did not start out as a group of atheists intending to stamp out religion as a raison d'etre.   It was simply a means to an end to gain political power.

[Dos Equis]

Once again, the Chinese government does not persecute/oppose religious groups because they (the government) is promoting atheism.  They do it because it's a threat to their power.  Period.  There is a difference.

Communism did not start out as a group of atheists intending to stamp out religion as a raison d'etre.   It was simply a means to an end to gain political power.

That's your interpretation. 

[MCWAY]

While Stalin was an atheist, he didn't do it to uphold an atheistic view, he did to to retain power. Not even remotely the same scenario. He also fought Nazi Germany in WW2... and was a big reason why they were defeated... So if you're going to give him the bad, you have to give him the good as well.

Some months ago, a few non-believers took offense, when I suggested that atheism, at its roots, is simply man worshipping himself. But, after a review of Stalin and the other cats that Beach Bum mentioned, my claim stands.

Stalin didn't want the folks worshipping God. He wanted them to worship the government. Of course, since he ran the government......

As one saying goes, "Stalin killed more in one year than the Crusaders did in a decade" (paraphrase).

[tu_holmes]

I didn't say that, but can you identify past and current "Christian nations"?

Also, as of today, we have at least one atheist nation that persecutes/oppresses Christians (China).  Is there a "Christian nation" today that oppresses and persecutes atheists?  I'm unaware of any.   

Perhaps not... but there have been in the past.

England and the official "Church of England" have persecuted non believers in the past.

[Dos Equis]

Perhaps not... but there have been in the past.

England and the official "Church of England" have persecuted non believers in the past.

I think they still force taxpayers to fund the church?  I'd call that perseuction.     (I'm an anti-tax militant.) 

[Straw Man]

That's your interpretation. 

feel free to show me some proof that it's not correct

[Dos Equis]

feel free to show me some proof that it's not correct

You can't prove that an opinion is incorrect.  You can prove that facts supporting that opinion are incorrect. 

China promotes atheism.  China persecutes Christians.  Those are facts.  How you spin them to form your opinion is up to you.

For example:

China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet

The Chinese Communist Party has launched a three-year drive to promote atheism in the Buddhist region of Tibet, saying it is the key to economic progress and a weapon against separatism as typified by the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.

The move comes amid fresh foreign reports of religious persecution in the region, which was invaded by China in 1950.

Xiao Huaiyuan, the head of the Party propaganda department in Tibet, told a meeting of the regional committee that the new campaign would "help peasants and herdsmen free themselves from the negative influence of religion".

. . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/253345.stm

[Straw Man]

You can't prove that an opinion is incorrect.  You can prove that facts supporting that opinion are incorrect. 

China promotes atheism.  China persecutes Christians.  Those are facts.  How you spin them to form your opinion is up to you.

For example:

China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet

The Chinese Communist Party has launched a three-year drive to promote atheism in the Buddhist region of Tibet, saying it is the key to economic progress and a weapon against separatism as typified by the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.

The move comes amid fresh foreign reports of religious persecution in the region, which was invaded by China in 1950.

Xiao Huaiyuan, the head of the Party propaganda department in Tibet, told a meeting of the regional committee that the new campaign would "help peasants and herdsmen free themselves from the negative influence of religion".

. . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/253345.stm

thanks for proving my point (as if you didn't already know).

It's merely a means to an end and also a strategy to eliminate a potential threat to the authority of the Chinese Govt.

[Dos Equis]

thanks for proving my point (as if you didn't already know).

It's merely a means to an end and also a strategy to eliminate a potential threat to the authority of the Chinese Govt.

"Oh brother."  (Stella:    

So why didn't you bold and enlarge this? 

Xiao Huaiyuan, the head of the Party propaganda department in Tibet, told a meeting of the regional committee that the new campaign would "help peasants and herdsmen free themselves from the negative influence of religion".

Hardly proves your point. 

[Straw Man]

sure it does.

The objection to religion is because it's a threat to the authority of the central government.

The Chinese govt (or Stalin or Hitler) did not engage in violence as a result of a perceived insult to atheism.   They engaged in violence to obtain power and they persecuted and eliminated any group that was a threat to their power or authority.

If you can't understand the difference (or as usual refuse to understand) then so be it.

We're so far off the original topic of this thread it's (as usual with you) become ridiculous

[Dos Equis]

sure it does.

The objection to religion is because it's a threat to the authority of the central government.

The Chinese govt (or Stalin or Hitler) did not engage in violence as a result of a perceived insult to atheism.   They engaged in violence to obtain power and they persecuted and eliminated any group that was a threat to their power or authority.

If you can't understand the difference (or as usual refuse to understand) then so be it.

We're so far off the original topic of this thread it's (as usual with you) become ridiculous

   As I said, that's your opinion. 

[Deedee]

Hardly proves your point. 

Oh brother, yeah it does.  In both China and the Soviet Union, atheist artists, intellectuals, journalists, musicians, etc.. have ALSO been persecuted, along with all those who wish to meet in large groups to proselytise and convert others to whatever cause. It was never a case of the "bad" atheists against the "good" religious, and many died alongside the devout. In China today, all kinds of religions flourish, as long as people are willing to celebrate in their own homes or in small groups away from the village square. Anyone with a personal relationship to God has no reason to complain.

[Deedee]

We're so far off the original topic of this thread it's (as usual with you) become ridiculous

 

Your original post was funny. All it did was point out the silliness of that website.  But many Christians have a very intense hatred of homosexuality/gay people, so your thread perhaps elicited the reaction it did due to some barely contained anger reserved for that portion of society. Maybe you should have posted it on a board where people can take a joke.

[Dos Equis]

Oh brother, yeah it does.  In both China and the Soviet Union, atheist artists, intellectuals, journalists, musicians, etc.. have ALSO been persecuted, along with all those who wish to meet in large groups to proselytise and convert others to whatever cause. It was never a case of the "bad" atheists against the "good" religious, and many died alongside the devout. In China today, all kinds of religions flourish, as long as people are willing to celebrate in their own homes or in small groups away from the village square. Anyone with a personal relationship to God has no reason to complain.

Oh brother, that's absurd.  "All kinds of religions flourish" so long as they celebrate in their homes?  lol.  Under cover of darkness, away from the authorities, to avoid going to prison for worshiping God.  No persecution, suppression, or oppression there.  You call that flourishing?  Oh brother. 

What the atheist government is trying to do is "help peasants and herdsmen free themselves from the negative influence of religion."   

[Deedee]

Oh brother, that's absurd.  "All kinds of religions flourish" so long as they celebrate in their homes?  lol.  Under cover of darkness, away from the authorities, to avoid going to prison for worshiping God.  No persecution, suppression, or oppression there.  You call that flourishing?  Oh brother. 

What the atheist government is trying to do is "help peasants and herdsmen free themselves from the negative influence of religion."   

Well, before you speak with such authority, maybe you should read.  I know you don't like to, but the first page of this book should answer your "absurd" comment.  And yes, they seem to be flourishing. 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=cPzY-ieGCvcC&dq=china+today+%2B+religion&pg=PP1&ots=D5WLcI0rzs&sig=bn75tV5cXb5i1kX5aepIZhUrZ4s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA1,M1

[Dos Equis]

Well, before you speak with such authority, maybe you should read.  I know you don't like to, but the first page of this book should answer your "absurd" comment.  And yes, they seem to be flourishing. 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=cPzY-ieGCvcC&dq=china+today+%2B+religion&pg=PP1&ots=D5WLcI0rzs&sig=bn75tV5cXb5i1kX5aepIZhUrZ4s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA1,M1

You know I don't like to read?  lol.  Another absurd comment.  You need to visit my library.   

I'll just rely on the talk about religious intolerance in China this past weekend by a guy with firsthand, recent experience.  Flourishing?  Hardly.  How in the world can being forced to worship in secret be flourishing?  Flourishing is what happens in this country.   

[Deicide]

I didn't say that, but can you identify past and current "Christian nations"?

Also, as of today, we have at least one atheist nation that persecutes/oppresses Christians (China).  Is there a "Christian nation" today that oppresses and persecutes atheists?  I'm unaware of any.   

Yes, your own country Beach Bum, the USA...

[Deicide]

Some months ago, a few non-believers took offense, when I suggested that atheism, at its roots, is simply man worshipping himself. But, after a review of Stalin and the other cats that Beach Bum mentioned, my claim stands.

Stalin didn't want the folks worshipping God. He wanted them to worship the government. Of course, since he ran the government......

As one saying goes, "Stalin killed more in one year than the Crusaders did in a decade" (paraphrase).

And you can bet money if Christians in the Middle Ages had access to the modern technology that Stalin did, they would have killed many, many more people.

But you are right about the other thing; communism is just another religion.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural power; it does not involve worship of any kind.

[Dos Equis]

Yes, your own country Beach Bum, the USA...

O Rly?  How does the U.S. oppress and persecute atheists?

[Deicide]

O Rly?  How does the U.S. oppress and persecute atheists?

Your own example...of the man in the military who is suing the armed forces for persecution; atheists cannot hold public office in many statess according to state constitutions, generally cannot hold office in Washington without at least paying lip service to Christianity; regular folk don't like atheists and are intolerant of them:

   

[Dos Equis]

Your own example...of the man in the military who is suing the armed forces for persecution; atheists cannot hold public office in many statess according to state constitutions, generally cannot hold office in Washington without at least paying lip service to Christianity; regular folk don't like atheists and are intolerant of them:

   

A few things:

1.  The atheist suing the military has an experience that is inconsistent with those who have served, including me (a "religious" person) and HH6, who isn't really a "religious" person.  It is unfortunate that some people are given a hard time, but I think that is the exception and not the rule.  It certainly isn't part of any official policy, like you find in China. 

2.  You say "many" state constitutions preclude atheists from holding public office?  Provide me with one reference.  That kind of prohibition would be inconsistent with the First Amendment. 

3.  It is true that a candidate for the House, Senate, or president could likely not be elected if they were an open atheist.  I think part of the reason is many folks don't trust atheists.  They are the least trusted group in American according some polls. 

None of this establishes that the U.S. oppresses and persecutes atheists.  To the contrary, we actually protect them with the First Amendment.