Napoleon, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Ill, Ho Chi Minh. Most of them were pretty militant, and/or militaristic. Most also oppressed religious people just for having religious beliefs.
Yes, it is. In a metaphorical way 'religion' or 'religious' is defined as just fanaticism about anything, which makes sense in the context I brought that up.
There are plenty of atheist groups that will take your money. I dont remember the one's name, but I saw them on the history channel. And it about this entire family that raised money for atheism but then embezzeled it.
I heard anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.
Sorry I could not remember the names of people I saw on a documentery that I watched about 5 years ago. I am truely sorry FRC God Andrewus. Also I guess I was confused becuase I had seen it so long ago. It wasn't the family that embezzed the money.
Also I have not said that I am for Christianity or Catholisim. I just said that it would be awesome if christianity actualled followed Jesus's teachings. And I think that you can agree to that...
To be fair, Napoleon offered to convert to Islam during his Egyptian campaign.
Better argument: all of those peoples' movements had specific secular goals, but were not driven specifically by secularism. Lenin didn't say "Tear down this economic and social order because atheism says so!" He was more along the lines of "Tear down this economic and social order, which happens to include religion!"
He was militant, and he was an atheist, but he was not militant because he was an atheist, nor was his goal specifically atheism.
Meanwhile, "militant" Christians have a motive and goal both specifically driven by anti-secularism.
But Lenin included religon because it gave people hope and different religions allowed some kind of individualism... Also he kind of installed his own relgion of goverment whorship.
Napoleon, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Ill, Ho Chi Minh.
Most were atheists, but also heads of states and all but Napoleon were communists. They are essentially worshiped as sacred and god-like themselves. In fact, North Korea worships Kim Jong Ill's father, Kim Il-Sung as an eternal god emperor. Just because they have a common denominator does not mean that it's the root cause of atrocities. Correlation does not equate causation.
I'm not going to say that people who were Atheists never did violence, but these arguments are fairly disingenuous and over simplistic.
Andrew, look at what you asked. You asked me to name one violent or militaristic atheist. I named some. It's not an argument. It's a response to your statement.
I have a problem with the term atheism/atheist anyways. You don't call people a-astrologers or non-Elvisians because they don't believe in astrology or Elvis still being alive.
I have a problem with the term atheism/atheist anyways. You don't call people a-astrologers or non-Elvisians because they don't believe in astrology or Elvis still being alive.
Yeah, but theism is far more significant in the realm of philosophy.
He still avoided the question. He should have just said. "Well if I am wrong, I hope God forgives me", or, "he could have said. If I'm wrong, then I guess I'm fucked."
Andrew, look at what you asked. You asked me to name one violent or militaristic atheist. I named some. It's not an argument. It's a response to your statement.
I've got a feeling you're purposely taking the "militant" in "militant atheist" and using it to mean something more literal than being a person strict in their assertion that there is supernatural phenomenon. It's a bit disingenuous.
Andrew: Name just one violent or militaristic atheist. I'll bet you can't.
This is a bit of a misrepresentation of what I asked. You mentioned earlier that "militant gnostic atheists", as those who say:
"You're mentally ill if you don't agree with us and we'll shun you and disrespect you for your beliefs unless you convert to our beliefs."
are just as bad as religious people. I merely contested that those people aren't really militant or violent. You then proceeded to give examples of those who killed a bunch of people that were also atheists.
You know, any group has fuckers in it and every group has lovely people in it. There are violent atheists, and sweet church ladies. There are darling secular humanists and mad bomber religious people. People are people.
Ok sure, but he murdered other atheists, so it's not really an issue of trying to forcefully converting people or anything like that. He's just some crazy criminal that stole a bunch of money and kidnapped/murdered the people who owned the money.
And his group did try to forcefully convert others to atheism.
While I find the American Atheists to be a distasteful bunch, they haven't forcefully converted anyone. Most of what I can find is just trying to enforce separation of Church and State. Care to prove me wrong?
While I find the American Atheists to be a distasteful bunch
I think they are jerky, but that lady didn't deserve being murdered like that. Didn't they have something grouchy about the space program? I can't remember.
While I find the American Atheists to be a distasteful bunch
I think they are jerky, but that lady didn't deserve being murdered like that. Didn't they have something grouchy about the space program? I can't remember.
Yeah. They wanted to bar astronauts from praying in space. Cause the ship is govt property.
Comments
Sorry I could not remember the names of people I saw on a documentery that I watched about 5 years ago. I am truely sorry FRC God Andrewus. Also I guess I was confused becuase I had seen it so long ago. It wasn't the family that embezzed the money.
Also I have not said that I am for Christianity or Catholisim. I just said that it would be awesome if christianity actualled followed Jesus's teachings. And I think that you can agree to that...
Here.
Better argument: all of those peoples' movements had specific secular goals, but were not driven specifically by secularism. Lenin didn't say "Tear down this economic and social order because atheism says so!" He was more along the lines of "Tear down this economic and social order, which happens to include religion!"
He was militant, and he was an atheist, but he was not militant because he was an atheist, nor was his goal specifically atheism.
Meanwhile, "militant" Christians have a motive and goal both specifically driven by anti-secularism.
I'm not going to say that people who were Atheists never did violence, but these arguments are fairly disingenuous and over simplistic.
He still avoided the question. He should have just said. "Well if I am wrong, I hope God forgives me", or, "he could have said. If I'm wrong, then I guess I'm fucked."
Joe: Names list of violent atheists.
Andrew: I never liked the term "atheist" anyway. I'll bet those grapes were sour, too.
There are violent atheists, and sweet church ladies. There are darling secular humanists and mad bomber religious people.
People are people.
And his group did try to forcefully convert others to atheism.
Didn't they have something grouchy about the space program? I can't remember.