Communism is proof all atheists are evil!

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

Communism is proof all atheists are evil! 02.18.04 (8:31 pm)   [edit] Does that sound odd to anyone else? A comment from someone who neglected to leave a name: [i]Well a hundred years ago, michael faraday said that religion will die out in the next 100 years or so with the advancement of science. Did you think it did? Religion is not something you contemplate over a blog. After all, if I gave you all the evidence in the world that God exists and you agreed with them, you still won't believe in God :-). The reason people hang on to religion is because they see how it can change people's lives. For better or for worse is another story. But the fact that people are willing to put aside their scientific truths just to believe what a 2 inch think book says makes people wonder what is so great about the book. And as long as there is inequality, the group of people who are on the unfavoured side would pray to a divine being for justice. That's one of the reasons why karl marx came up with the idea of communism. Equality among everyone and absolutely NO GOD!. Look what happens to the idalogy..Communist Russia collasped. Look at China, is it progressing? People are dying by the millions there of starvation. Because without religion, people begin to lose the meaning of life. It's like why bother living? To survive? why survive? after all the next generation would have to take all this crap if there is no divine intervention to make their lives better. Work hard? Why work hard? If my government has no God that they swear an oath to, they might just take my money away with I painstakingly worked for it. I am not stating reasons to support that God exists. But reasons people are supporting the belief in God.[/i] I've encountered this sort of argument before and, I have to say it's just absurd. Communism wasn't bad because it embraced atheism, it was bad because it attempted to force equality by not allowing for individual progress. When all you work for goes to someone else, there is little purpose to your life. Just the same as if you dedicate your life to the docrines of a religion, you lose an individual purpose to your life. Giving all to a collective group, whether it be your government or your religion, is demeaning to the value of your life. As for those on the unfavorable side of inequality praying for a divine being for justice, that makes very little sense to me. Why waste your time praying for something instead of actually working to improve your life? Progress isn't made by a divine being intervening with the lives of mere mortals, it is made by the minority demanding justice. So, I have a theory about religion. I think that all major world religions change through time and, as with any human institution, eventually will die out. I don't mean religion itself will disappear from mankind, but that each particular religion will only exist for as long as society acknowledges and allows for it. As values, interests, technologies, and ideas shift, religious beliefs and customs are alterred, as well. The reason the major (current) religions have succeeded for so long is because they are rooted in fear. To focus on death and eternity is to lose sight of life itself, and the fear of eternal punishment is what encourages religious beliefs. The values of the Bible are often challenged, most recently with the controversy over allowing gay marriages. Issues such as this often encourage greater religious action, as it is made evident to religious leaders that if society's values shift to embrace what is considered a sin in the Christian religion, Christianity faces the danger of being uprooted. Anyway, seeing as I have seemingly responded to this person's comments in reverse, if anyone was ever able to give me "all the evidence in the world," assuming it was factual evidence, not solely based in assumptions, I would accept that God exists. As it is, there is more evidence to the contrary, thus I believe that God does not exist.   posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.18.04 (5:53 pm) I'm not sure what you mean by "major religions." You seem to understand Christianity, but how much do you know about other religions? There are certainly well established religions tht are not rooted in fear. Not all religions focus on death and the afterlife. Some focus on the current life. Not all religions put aside science in favor of blind faith. And not all religions believe that everybody else is going to hell for eternity for not accepting their religion. Because of that, not all religions feel a need to proselytize, so it's not surprising how little you know about the religion of your neighbors. There are many who have looked at Christianity, and have rejected it, and have decided that all religions are alike. While there are certain similarities, and a moral code (not the sex part but the parts on killing and respecting your neighbors, etc.) that is shared by almost all, there are also some pretty big differences aside from defining who Jesus was. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.18.04 (6:47 pm) Reply to: mblog By "major religions" I was referring to the three main religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). But you're right- I was mostly talking about Christianity, and I'm not that well versed on other religions. I agree that not all religions are death-oriented, focused on furthering their religion by fear, but the primary reason for turning to religious beliefs is a desire to have the difficult questions of life and death answered- how and why are we here and what happens once we die? Ultimately, religion is a means of coping with death. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.19.04 (9:24 am) Reply to: mblog Aside from certain forms of Buddhism that are atheistic, and a handful of modern liberal 'churches' I am not aware of any religions that do not teach faith over reason. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.19.04 (9:27 am) "But the fact that people are willing to put aside their scientific truths just to believe what a 2 inch think book says makes people wonder what is so great about the book." Couldn't the same be said about the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, the Koran, or any of those other non-Christian books that millions have devoted their lives to? Perhaps a book doesn't have to be 'great' to do that. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.19.04 (11:46 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 I can't say that I know enough about Islam to address your points in sufficient detail. It's tougher to research than I had thought, and I'd like to read many more books before I can comment. Judaism does cope with death as part of the religion, but it's not the primary focus. There is a concept of an afterlife, but a Jew is expected to live a moral life not as a way of acheiving some sort of reward after life, but as a way of enhancing life. The focus is supposed to be on life. The afterlife is not well defined as it is in Christianity, and different Jewish scholars have a different idea about what the afterlife is. There's no concept of Hell in the Christian sense as a separate place, or a concept of a literal devil or eternal damnation. Jews do mourn the dead, and will typically do so for 11 months. The understanding is that nobody is without sin, but God will forgive the sins. It may take up to a year, (and presumably your relatives could not have been so bad that it would take a whole year.) As to what happens in that time, some believe it means that the deceased will not get to be at the side of God. Others have different ideas. The Satan is more of an enemy within than anything else, and the idea of a being with godlike powers is antithetical. Also, in Judaism, there are sins against God, and sins against man. Sins are not necessarily "rot in hell" types of things but are transgressions. A Jew cannot ask got for forgiveness for a sin against another man, but must get that forgiveness from the man. So in that sense, it's very much abaout the current life. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.19.04 (12:30 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 You don't need to limit the discussion to certain forms of Buddhism. Buddha is not a god for any Buddhists. Some claim that Buddhism is not technically a religion since it's not theistic, but most accept that it is a religion. That doesn't mean that Buddhists don't believe in God. Many do. But the inherent teachings of Buddhism are not central to that belief. As for faith, I think we need to define our terms here a bit better. The word has multiple definitions. In the sense that faith means following a doctrine without question, and that if you question it, you are showing a lack of faith, that's a common Christian view. In the more general sense of belief, or in the sense that your religion is your faith, all religions have a strong concept of faith. In the sense of faith over science, specifically with respect to whether doctrines should continue to be held when scientific evidence shows things to the contrary, not all religions hold faith to be tantamount in that sense. I think that's the sense of the word that was relevant for the original post. Getting back to Buddhism, Buddhists believe that if something is true, no amount of questioning it will make it false. Questioning is a regular part of Buddhism. That would hold true for all Buddhists, and I doubt that there are any sects of Buddhism that would disagree. In Judaism, discussion and debate is also a normal part of life. If you go to a Jewish school, you will NEVER find an environment where children are expected not to question. It's not considered wrong to question things. There isn't an issue that hasn't been debated by rabbis for centuries. While about 20% of Jews do consider the Torah to be the literal word of God and all the stories to be literally true, the rest don't. So it's hard to make a case that it's central to Judaism if that's not what Jews practice. And it's not as if they are merely disagreeing with their rabbis. Reform Judaism, which is the largest Jewish movement in the US, simply does not hold that belief as part of its doctrine. While it's true that Judaism does expect Jews to believe in God (although paradoxically, about 51% of Jews are agnostic or atheist so even that is a questionable assertion) it's not the position of Jews in any movement that if there is overwhelming suport for a scientific view that conflicts with an interpretation of a religious work, then the interpretation of that religious work must still be held to be correct without question. The opposite would be true. While some Jews may still conclude that Adam and Eve were actual people who lived a bit over 5000 years ago, most won't. But the ones who do still will accept that people can question it. Ultimately, faith must come as the result of reason for Jews. That's why if you went to a rabbi and asked to be converted, he'd start off by trying to talk you out of it. You would have to first show what you understand and why you understand it before you could convert, and converting for other reasons (such as wanting to have the religion of your spouse) would not be sufficient. And since Judaism holds that you don't have to be Jewish for a place in heaven, but must merely lead a righteous life, there's no stigma to it. So Judaism is essentially saying that most of the world is free to reject almost all Jewish doctrines (aside from the ones that are already accepted by secular society and almost all religions anyway), but if you don't kill or steal or break laws, you're pretty much on par with the most righteous Jew. There are a few exceptions in that you can't accept another god (Chritianinty or Islam or any monotheistic religion would not be a problem in that sense) or worship idols, but the notion that you must "believe our doctrine or go to hell" is not there. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.19.04 (8:48 pm) Reply to: mblog Thanks, I did not know most of what you wrote. But insofar as a particluar person's belief or philosophy holds something like God or another non-evidenced assertion to be true, they would fit under what DragonBait wrote. posted by: brokenbracelet (reply) post date: 02.20.04 (2:55 am) i totally agree that atheists are evil. Christianity is not just a religion. just as long as you have received Christ through faith, you are a Christian. come visit my blog. i have an entry there about true Christians and how you can be one. http://brokenbracelet.tblog.com :) posted by: tifajam (reply) post date: 02.20.04 (5:34 am) There may never be "factual evidence" that God exists. Spirituality and religion are faith-based ideas, the polar opposites of science. I have a question for you as an atheist--do you have an inner voice or conscious that you "speak" to or "listen" to? posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.20.04 (10:15 am) Reply to: therealspartacus007 There's an inherent difference between a belief in God and a belief in religious dogma. There is no proof that God does not exist or even any evidence. There are specific arguments that Jesus is not God or that the Bible or some other religious philosophy is inconsistent, but that still has little to do with the issue. If deists are right, then it's irrelevant what you or anybody things that God is. It could just be the case that those attributes that are assigned to God are incorrect. Metaphysical issues are beyond the realm of science by definition. That does not mean that science can't eventually explain some of them -- they just cease to be metaphysical issues. Bus as for now, science does not explain what happened before creation, if such a concept is even logical, or what set the whole thing in motion if you believe that time started at a particular point. When it comes to religion, science is more agnostic than atheistic. It is neutral, and takes positions solely based on evidence. A blanket statement that there is a God is not a scientific one. But a blanket statement that there is no God is not a scientific one either. This argument is inconsistent with some religions, but not with others, so while I see your point, I still think it's wrong to say that all religions put faith over science. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.20.04 (10:41 am) Reply to: brokenbracelet This does not address any of the issues in the debate. It merely defines what makes somebody a Christian, but does not explain why Christianity is not "just a religion." It also ignores the history of Christianity. For many centuries, Christianity held that if a person was baptized, the person is a Christian. That does not require a statement of faith, or a clue about who Jesus was. Most Christian denominations still accept this and baptize people at birth. Also, the Church has a long history of baptizing people without consent. They have a history of stealing Jewish babies from their parents (after the infants were secretly baptized) on the grounds that it would be unfit for a Christian to have Jewish parents. They also split up marriages for similar reasons after baptizing a person, even if that person renounced Christianity completely, by claiming that once a person is baptized, the person is a Christian and thus cannot be married to a Jew. Also, the "faith in Jesus alone" comes more from a misunderstanding than anything else. Before Christianity, there was Jesus. Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew. Chrisitanity did not yet exist. The followers of Jesus were all Jews too. So were his parents. After the death of Jesus, his followers still continued to preach his teachings. His teachings were, for the most part, consistent with Jewish teachings of the day. The big difference is that they also taught that Jesus was the messiah. But the people they preached to were still Jews, and were expected to follow Jewish law as prescribed in the Bible. People like James preached exclusively to Jews. Peter did the same for the most part. Paul preached to Jews and gentiles. When he preached to Jews, he preached Jewish law. But getting gentiles to convert was not an easy thing. This was especially true with circumcision (you want me to do what with my what!!??) But Jewish law held that it was a covenant between God and the Jewish people. Non-Jews were required to follow the Noachic laws, but not the 600+ commandments of the Bible. So Paul said, with respect to the gentiles, that faith in Jesus alone is what was needed. This did not imply that Jews should convert or stop practicing Judaism, but that non-Jews did not have to follow the same set of laws to the same degree. However, it was meant to be in contrast to what Jews did, and not literally a statement that anything having to do with being righteous was irrelevant. John took it a step further and was far more concerned with converting gentiles. It's true that some Christians believe that no matter how bad your life was, if you accept that you are a sinner and accept Jesus on your deathbed, you will go to heaven. But that would make Christianity morally bankrupt. It ignores the teachings of Jesus, and even the rest of the teachings of Paul. If you believe that how you live your life is irrelevant, faith in Jesus alone gives you nothing. The roots of Christianity and the teachings of its founders made it clear that there are far more requirements than that to be a Christian, and they also accepted that there are righteous non-Christians (who obviously did not accept Jesus) and they had no problem with them, or any belief that they would go to hell for it, but they did share your belief that they must thrust their views on others. The only problem you have is that you have no reason for it. You don't understand Christianity. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 02.20.04 (5:42 pm) Reply to: mblog Yes. All religions are not alike, except for one most important detail that you left out: anyone who would abdicate reason, rational thought, and objectivity--and all consciousness--for the sake of a god, a comet, or a toaster for that matter, or whatever, will never, in all means, know what life and happiness is really about. There is no guarentee--in fact or in reality-- on a god or afterlife in any religion. Until I see it, hear it, touch it, and thus KNOW it...I shall remain an atheist. To me, it's only rational. posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 02.20.04 (5:57 pm) Reply to: brokenbracelet Is not saying that "all atheists are evil" a judgment? This, of course, would depend on your definition of the word "evil", and that Christians do not judge. To me, evil is what is not prudent for the furtherence of life, individual rights, and happiness. It involves a "rational morality", as opposed to a religious morality. "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Or, in my realm: "Judge, and be prepared to be judged". posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 02.20.04 (6:00 pm) Reply to: tifajam No. Spirituality and religion are the polar opposites of "reason", not science. posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 02.21.04 (2:34 am) Communism was bad because it not only disdained religion, preached the Godship of the person, but also because it believe that violent opposition was a key to its success. 'Forced conversion' to its ideology was what communism was all about. IT was intensely unpopular-- except for those that had the power. Atheism is part of it, and it is a bad part. For atheism and communism go hand in hand-- they reinforce the idea that we are our own Gods. Couple that with the belief that you can kill someone to reach the utopian worker's paradise, and you have a real problem on your hands-- the real roadblock is religion to communists. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.21.04 (1:42 pm) Reply to: mblog But saying that God exists IS religious dogma! There is no proof that Jesus is not God, but that doesn't make it rational to think that he is. Just because science can't explain something currently, or no one knows 100% of something doesn't mean that its OK to believe whatever the hell you want about it. I never said that all religious put faith over reason- just the ones that have a belief in God or any other non-evidenced thing. Also, atheism means "without belief in God," it does not imply that the atheist doesn't think that God could not exist. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.21.04 (1:45 pm) Reply to: newbie Atheism does not teach anything. It is not a religion, a group, a philosophy, or anything at all other than a particular position on one particular issue. Also, if you read something other than the christian magazines the guy on the radio recommends, you will find many philosophies that are atheistic that are about as anti-communist and as anti-force as you can get. I point you to Ayn Rand as an obvious example. posted by: Isaac (reply) post date: 02.22.04 (3:52 pm) Who's to determine who's evil and who is good but the creator of both evil and good? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.22.04 (5:46 pm) Reply to: Isaac What makes you think good and evil were created by someone? If anything, we all create good as well as evil. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.22.04 (6:31 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Deists think that God exists, but do not have anything akin to dogma because there is no underlying religious practice or writings. If you want to "prove" that Jesus is not God, it's reasonable to look at religious doctrine because that's what Christians use as the basis for the claim. In that case, it's relevant to point out the concept of the messiah in the Hebrew bible, the requirements for somebody to be the messiah, the fact that they did not happen, the fact that they are required to happen before the person dies, the fact that the messiah is supposed to be a man and not a God or a demigod (the idea of a God born from a mortal woman is really a Roman concept to begin with and not a biblical one), or the many mistranslations from Hebrew that led to concepts such as virgin birth, etc, that are know to be translation errors, etc. If specific religious dogma is used to define a God, then it's perfectly relevant to examine it to see if it holds up to scrutiny. But if you take a deist perspective, then God is the creator, but takes a hands off approach to everything, and all religious doctrine is irrelevant. There are no specific teachings that are specific beyond that, and general principles of morality and others are no different from what atheists typically hold. Even among certian religions that hold there is a God, but do not define in detail what that means, in terms of attributes, etc, you can call it dogma, but there are levels of dogma. A Unitarian Universalist might say that you are free to believe any dogma that you like, but will not profess a particular one to you. So if you insist on arguing that his mere assertion that there is a God is in itself dogmatic, then our disagreement is merely verbal, and we are in agreement about the underlying nature of what the beliefs are. I didn't follow what you were saying about atheists since you lost me with your triple negative. But athiests by definition do not have a belief in God. That's different from believing that there is no God or cannot be a God. Some atheists believe both. While an agnostic thinks there may be a god, but is not sure, an atheist believes there is no evidence to support a belief in God. The atheist may take it a step further or not. So if that's what you were trying to say, then I agree with you. Otherwise, I believe what I just said. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.22.04 (6:39 pm) Reply to: Nivek While there's nothing wrong with you being an atheist, you did not give an argument but a premise. You didn't say why a person cannot achieve happiness through religion. Furthermore, if your argument is based on an assumption that rational thought is not involved, then your premise is faulty. People do not necessarily follow religions due to blind obedience or follow laws "because God said so." I've already given examples elsewhere. So if a religion is used as a way of developing moral codes (not in the sexual sense with which this word is misused) and rules for how to treat people, it can lead to a positive and fulfilling life for many people. And since it's possible to be a part of a certain religion and be agnostic or even an atheist, your argument does not hold. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.22.04 (10:32 pm) Reply to: mblog If someone can come up with a rational reason to think God exists, then your commemts might be relevant posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.24.04 (3:39 pm) Reply to: brokenbracelet Sweetheart, you obviously missed what the actual point of this post was. Can you explain to me why atheists are evil? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.24.04 (3:43 pm) Reply to: tifajam You're right, there never will be factual evidence supporting God's existence. Not because faith and science are opposites, but because the nature of God, as given by whatever definition you choose, is beyond understanding through facts. I'm not really sure what you mean by an inner voice. Are you asking if I have a conscience and am capable of feeling emotional responses to actions? If so, yes. Could you elaborate? Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins