SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Richard Dawkins is responding to what he called the "stirring towards atheism" in some Islamic countries with a programme to make free downloads of his books available in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi and Indonesian.
The scientist and atheist said he was "greatly encouraged" to learn that the unofficial Arabic pdf of the book had been downloaded 13m times. Dawkins writes in The God Delusion about his wish that the "open-minded people" who read it will "break free of the vice of religion altogether". It has sold 3.3m copies worldwide since it was published in 2006 – far fewer than the number of Arabic copies that Dawkins believes to have been downloaded illegally.
Richard Dawkins to give away copies of The God Delusion in Islamic countries
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Richard Dawkins to Give Away Copies of the God Delusion in Islamic Countries
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 76 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @10:56AM (50 children)
As a religious person I often find atheists more busy with religion than I am. Are there others that notice the same?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @10:59AM (2 children)
As an agnostic, I find both atheists and religious people should calm down a little.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:39PM
As post-theological I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
Seriously -- while I grew up in NE USA with Christians and a smattering of other religions among my friends, I was never taken to church or any other regular service. Of course I've been to weddings and funeral services, but it's a bit of a badge of honor that I've never been to a Sunday sermon (I'm over 60 now).
It was a little confusing as a young kid, for example, where did my friends go on Sunday morning and what mysterious stuff happened when they were at church? Now of course I realize that it really was "mysterious stuff" and I'm very thankful that my parents chose to stay away (and that we live in a country where it is possible to not join the religion of the locals).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @10:10AM
Both sides like their no true scotsman thing - e.g. the atheists will go around claiming that Mao and Stalin weren't true atheists in order to hold to their ridiculous unfounded faith that religion is mainly to be blamed for the great evils of this world (e.g. their popular mantra "for good people to do evil — that takes religion."). Just because Stalin studied as a priest doesn't mean he wasn't an atheist later when he initiated acts of genocide. Lots of atheists have come from religious backgrounds, so does that mean they should still be associated with the religions they left?
Some are even stupid/ignorant enough to claim that all religions are the same and just as bad. When objectively it should be obvious that someone who closely follows the examples of the Buddhas would on average behave very differently from someone who closely follows the example of Islam's Muhammad. So saying they're all the same is as stupid and counterproductive as saying all diseases are the same e.g. the common cold is the same as malaria.
Thus many atheists aren't so different from the religious people they look down on. And if their version of atheism becomes widespread then their "cure" will be worse than some of the other "diseases".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @11:01AM (27 children)
As long as even one person self-identifies as a religious person there is a need for enlightenment.
Have the courage to look around you and ask questions. Take responsibility for your deeds.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @11:28AM (3 children)
You think that's the path to enlightenment?
(Score: 5, Touché) by turgid on Sunday March 25 2018, @11:30AM (2 children)
Have you got a better one?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @04:37AM (1 child)
Beer, and weed
I'm like, totally enlightened!
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday March 26 2018, @04:55PM
He said enlightened, not lit.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Sunday March 25 2018, @11:37AM (22 children)
Why?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by knarf on Sunday March 25 2018, @11:59AM (20 children)
Going so far as to feel the need to convince the last person on earth self-identifying as religious is taking it a bit too far but in my eyes it is clear that organised religion is a net negative which the world would be better off without.
Look around the world. Look at trouble spots. Notice how religion often plays a key role in turning those spots into trouble spots. Notice also how religion never seems to do the opposite, turning trouble spots into havens of peace.
You can get the benefits of religion without needing to resort to sky fairies. Doing away with those does away with one of the biggest negatives about religion, the fact that anyone can claim to 'know' what their god(s) want their followers to do.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @12:56PM (5 children)
> Look around the world. Look at trouble spots. Notice how religion often plays a key role in turning those spots into trouble spots.
My suspicion is that the cause and effect are often times the opposite. Since their reality is terrible, people in trouble spots turn to religion. Not even necessarily religion; any belief system that promises "it's all for a greater purpose" and "you will be richly rewarded in the future" has enormous appeal for the suffering masses. Historically that's been religion, but there were also other examples. E.g., communist revolutions, while non-religious, exhibit very similar characteristics to religious strife.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by knarf on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:13PM (4 children)
Given the fact that most conflicts arise between groups which differ mostly - or sometimes only - in which religion they profess, and given the fact that these people professed their religion before the conflicts arose this is provably false. Once a conflict between religious groups arises those groups do tend to increase their religious fervour, reducing the chance of reconciliation.
You mention communism as a non-religious movement. In reality communism is very close to a religion in their dogma, the difference between the two being that communism's deities are mortal and of recent origin. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Kim dynasty in 'Juche' North-Korea, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Castro in Cuba, all of them were raised to the level of demi-gods by their organisations. Communism never did away with religion, the doctrine pulls the same strings but to a different tune.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:39PM (2 children)
As you observe, dogma is not exclusive to religion, unless you want to lump religion and politics together, which some do, saying they're pretty much the same thing. The US suffers from Free Market Dogma, excessive faith in capitalism and free markets. The market is a big game, and a big problem is, some players keep insisting we don't need referees or certain rules (so they can cheat and get away with it, of course), while spinning their agenda as a drive to make the free market freer. Other rules, such as copyright and patent law, they wish to use selectively, slandering copying as "stealing", but only when it suits them, ie, when they're positioned to play the victim of the alleged theft.
Closely related is Competition Dogma, aka Might Makes Right. The followers of this "faith", when they think about it at all, insist that the world is a perfect, indestructible stage, perhaps because God made it and God is perfect that way, upon which the eternal conflict between Us and Them can be played out. Form your teams, breed more players than Them, then send the boys forth to fight for and take those scarce resources that They don't deserve, because They are morally inferior. A religion is merely fodder for moral justification for this approach to life.
Most importantly, note how selectively the "followers" use religion. They conveniently ignore everything in it that goes against their agenda. The so-called Christian fundamentalist is very loud and large with the Bible thumping and the Cross on their sleeves, but their real agendas are a vicious patriarchic lifestyle, with women barefoot and pregnant, and an indecent eagerness for a Clash of Civilizations with Islam particularly since the mostly Christian West looks a whole lot militarily stronger than the Islamic world these days. They also seek to suppress education, as it's a threat to their control. There's a whole lot about that thinking that is definitely not Christian. Where's the love for thy neighbor? The Christian Charity? Happy are the Peacemakers?
There is also US Constitution Dogma, a form of nationalism that while not entirely exclusive to the US, is perhaps most evident with the 2nd Amendment fanaticism.
Perhaps what's really needed is better religion, not less religion. Extremely difficult to formulate a philosophy that can't be twisted into justifying murder, war, and oppression. Just look at Social Darwinism, for instance. But it's worth a try. Surely with our much greater knowledge compared to our Iron Age ancestors, we can do better.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:57PM
You were doing okay until you wrote that.
The US constitution provides (well, was intended to provide) a legal framework that variously enables and limits the government, the limits being incorporated specifically so that government abuses known at the time of its authoring would be forestalled or outright prevented.
The 2nd amendment, as part of that constitution, issues an unequivocal instruction to government, along with a single (and obviously incomplete... at the time, hunting was critical to many people's survival, and self-defense wasn't too far down the list either) rationale, which in turn does nothing at all to modify the actual instruction WRT arms, so it really doesn't matter that it is incomplete.
Assuming that we can agree that the 2nd is no longer appropriate for our current society (I'm on board with that, by the way... I can give several examples of why it needs to be changed, and not just the ones most people would think of first, either), there are exactly two paths to deal with this, with two very different sets of consequences:
It seems to me that the latter is a far better path than the former; and that in dismissing those who wish the government to obey the constitution as dogmatic, the implication being that they're doing the wrong thing due to rote or nationalist character, is shallow and simpleminded in and of itself.
I will also stipulate that it's a more difficult path. I would submit to anyone thinking about this that the level of difficulty was intentional, and in no way a mistake.
TL;DR: Asserting that the government must obey the constitution is, if you accept that constitutionally limited government is a good thing, is also a good thing. The appropriate fix when the constitution doesn't serve us well is to update the constitution. Not to ignore it. Hence, requiring the government to obey the 2nd amendment is also a good thing, despite the fact that the 2nd amendment itself may now not be a good thing. Fix it – there's aprocess for that. Use it. Don't screw everything else up over this. Our society's problems with arms are worthy of our directed attention and derived efforts to ameliorate. But they are not worthy of wrecking the entire basis for our government's legitimacy.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday March 25 2018, @09:53PM
I think this is the problem. As soon as one claims to support a religion, they are identifying with a political organization of supposed spiritual beliefs. As such, a group think takes over from any individual search for truth and enlightenment. This almost invariably means that seeking dominion for one's religion takes precedence over any individual growth.
I believe spirituality is a search that can help a person learn more about themselves and their relationship to the world. Whether that search takes place as taking LSD, or pursuing perfect mathematical formulas, or wandering around in the wilderness, reading religious or science or historical texts, watching Monty Python skits, or whatever, whether amongst a group or alone, it does not matter. What matters is keeping it ultimately as a private, personal, individual search.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Sunday March 25 2018, @06:06PM
I don't take that as a given at all.
I would say that most conflicts arise over resource scarcity. Usually linked a political grab for power (often linked to controlling those resources).
And the difference in religion is more incidental to the far more important difference -- that "they" have the resource "we" want. Religion is a scapegoat, and a useful rationale. It's far easier to motivate someone to kill an 'enemy' because God commands you destroy the unbelievers or something than it is because your leader wants to increase his tax base, or because he wants to sack a neighboring city state to pay off his debts, or whatever the real reason is.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:04PM (5 children)
You must be unfamiliar with the Portland Rescue Mission and CityTeam Ministries.
While Oldtown Portland is still a rough place to have to live in, the Rescue Mission and CityTeam contribute greatly to making it a haven of peace.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:16PM (4 children)
Peace/charity minded folks can create "havens of peace" without recourse to superstitious nonsense.
There are many charitable operations that do so.
Don't confuse religion with charity. Just because some religious people do charity, doesn't mean that charity requires religion.
Any time charity is dispensed with the condition/accompaniment of religious indoctrination (which the term "Ministries" clearly implies), its good is significantly diluted. It's bad enough that people are in extremis. Adding disingenuous (or stupid) lies to the situation is a very bad idea; reality is what it is. Learn to face it or descend (further) into disfunction. The former is a step forward; the latter is a step backward.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:28PM (3 children)
Just because some religious people do conflict, doesn't mean that conflict requires religion.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:57PM (2 children)
Agreed. Initiation/seeding of conflict generally only requires failure of reason. Superstition is definitely not the only source of that. On the other hand, it's definitely a common source of that, which is not particularly surprising, as it is a failure of reason in and of itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:24PM (1 child)
to be fair, conflict does not always require reason to fail, but it is often caused by rational actors fighting over finite resources. I realize this observation is slightly out of context, but I wanted to make sure you weren't assuming all conflict is generated by irrational behavior.
example: two rational people on a south pole research center thingy. accident happens, food is now only available for 3 person months, but help can only get there in 2 months. I assume a rational protocol would be to flip a coin, one commits suicide, and then the other can survive. I the loser of the coin flip kills the other person, they are unfair, but certainly not irrational.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @09:21PM
Certainly not. Glad you brought it up.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:20PM (6 children)
Such as counterexamples Europe and the US? Sorry, it's confirmation bias.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @09:31PM (5 children)
Wait, what?
Both Europe (mostly as independent countries, as the EU hasn't been a thing that long... although plenty of religious violence and just-sub-violent malfuckery has happened since then) and the US have numerous, bloody, reprehensible histories of being religious trouble spots, as well as continuous and significant levels of highly unfortunate religious meddling in civil matters. They also have histories of going along relatively quietly for a time, then blowing up all over again. I can't imagine why you think they serve as reasonable counterexamples. What are you talking about?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 25 2018, @11:16PM (4 children)
And yet, neither has had any major wars since the Second World War.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday March 26 2018, @12:23AM (3 children)
FTFY
For the US, certainly Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq II were major wars. And there's whole slew of brush-fire level ones as well, many with religious causative factors of one kind or another.
Also, it doesn't take a war for one group to cause major harm to another, either in large, individual events / legislation, or in the aggregation of many small events.
From where I sit, everything from "illegal to buy beer on Sunday" to "atheists can't hold public office" to bibles in courtrooms and public official swearing-in ceremonies to abortion clinic bombings to 9/11-class religotardisms fall into this specific class of "trouble."
Methinks a considerably broader brush than "major wars" is called for here when the criteria is "trouble spots." We've got trouble. We've got lots of very bloody serious trouble.
Not that formal religious war or terrorism would be excepted, in-country or international. Just more fucktards being... fucktards.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 26 2018, @03:43AM (2 children)
Not in the US or Europe.
[...whine about blue laws and other minor shit ...] I think given your weak examples, maybe it does take a war.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday March 26 2018, @03:25PM (1 child)
That is both pedantic and wrongheaded. Here are the "it didn't happen here" US-only statistics for the Vietnam war:
Then there was the financial impact. And the social impact. And the business impact. And the international relations impact.
The US "felt" that war (and the Korean war, etc.) in the classic painful way: our soldiers died and suffered, their families and friends suffered, society changed under enormous pressure. That's as just "it happened here" as it is when you live in NYC and LA gets bombed. Just because it didn't happen right on your doorstep doesn't mean we weren't "in" a war or that the war wasn't "in" this country.
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. As we have seen. No US government legislation or enforcement should be undertaken backing a specifically religious position. Ever. That's important. If you can't see it, that's a problem with your cognitive process, not a problem with "whining about blue laws."
No, you're not thinking. You're just arguing. Poorly. I expected more from you. Sometimes you present very well thought out arguments. Here, you're not even trying.
Some other time, then.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 26 2018, @04:32PM
Vietnam is not in North America or Europe.
They didn't get that mile. Most blue laws have been overturned. Same goes for the other stuff.
Maybe you ought to address the beam in thy own eye first.
Let me elaborate. First, as I already noted, Europe and North America have been peaceful for a number of decades. Wars outside of those regions don't count, because they're not in those regions. And of the wars of the past (up to the Second World War) most were due to rival ideologies like Communism, Fascism, and French/German Nationalism. Second, the Christianity of the region has come up with some pretty cool ideas like science, academic culture, just war and the Western take on pacifism, modern Western art, and well over a thousand years of advancement in Western philosophy and ideas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @08:06PM
Religion fills a void. We've evolved to be religious.
Fill that void with something mild, or it'll be filled with something horrible.
Do you want smallpox? The vaccine is cowpox. Choose wisely.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:36PM
I see the problem as "religious people who were brought up with that religion but have not REALLY thought about it": those people REALLY need to look at WHY they believe what they believe.
Do they believe it because they have thought about it A LOT and have come to their own conclusions or do they believe because of family/peer/priest pressure and that's how they were raised so that's what they've been taught to think.
Too much of religion is not "Talk to God, decide for yourself" but "This is what you are supposed to think...because priest man tells you to think that way."
Stop and think.
WHY do you think there is a God?
WHY do you believe the bible is something you should take as fact?
AAAANNNDD have you stopped to think why you have to go to church like your parents/priest want you to when you could just sit outside and talk to God all on your own? Is it because in the church they can CONTROL the way you think and what you think (and collect money from you).
Why do you need someone else telling you what you should think? Why not think about it and come to your OWN THOUGHTS?
Before strapping a bomb to yourself, ask why the person telling you to do it isn't doing it themselves.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Sunday March 25 2018, @01:31PM
That's because you're sitting on centuries in the catbird seat.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Sunday March 25 2018, @02:18PM (4 children)
Yes. I also recall that a knowledge survey revealed that western atheists were more knowledgeable about religion than other "religious" groups. As I recall they came in 2nd only to Mormons. Most other Christian groups were woefully ignorant of the religions they claim to believe in. I'm not sure what you mean by religious. I have a sister who is a Mormon convert, and a brother who is a devout Nichiren Shoshu buddhist. I would describe both of them as religious. I'm most accurately described as agnostic. But the labels are misleading because people use them in different ways.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:47PM (2 children)
My sister in-law has been a practicing member for more than nearly 40 years.
Nichiren Shoshu, as promoted and practiced in the US (not sure if you're in the US), has been roundly castigated by the mother church in Japan and, in fact, the majority of NSA members (Soka Gakkai [sgi-usa.org]) were excommunicated in 1991.
I mean no offense to your brother, but its liturgy is very similar to the prosperity gospels [wikipedia.org] of the Christians. They differ significantly in that NSA isn't constantly demanding money from its members. However, they are focused on the idea that that devotion to, and performance of Gongyo [sgi-usa.org] will bring earthly happiness and material gain.
What's even worse, is that buddhist principles and practices are given short shrift in the focus on material/earthly "happiness" that performing Gongyo will bring, regardless of one's actual belief.
I'm not saying that's what your brother is all about, but NSA/SGI are insufficiently devout to be buddhists, at least according to other buddhists.
N.B.: I adore my sister in-law. She is a kind, caring and loving person, who strives to do good for those around her. In fact, she's not even my sister in-law any more (she and my brother divorced five or six years ago), but I'm happy that she's still, and always will be, part of my life. That said, she's quite prone to magical thinking, which fits right in with NSA/SGI's version of "buddhism."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by srobert on Sunday March 25 2018, @06:01PM
Most all my family live in the U.S and are of protestant origins. When my brother, who has lived in Japan for decades was trying to introduce our family to his new religion, he initially sited the SGI organization. Later he advised that he had been mistaken and advised that he regarded them as somewhat cultish. When religions divide, it's an interesting story. Shall we follow Ali or Abu Bakr? divides the shia from the Sunni. Shall we follow Joseph Smith, Jr. or Brigham Young? divides the Mormons from other LDS groups before the exodus to Utah. To me all religions seem like cults. Humans have a nebulous idea of god in their minds. I don't know if there is any external thing corresponding to that or not. But they make up stories about that nebulous idea and those stories are the origin of all religions.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday March 26 2018, @07:41AM
Everything comes down to money in the good old USA. For example, only Scientology could have come from America. It's perhaps related to the fact that they don't believe in social security or public health care. Worship the accumulation of personal wealth above all else and ensure the wealth keeps flowing up to the top.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday March 25 2018, @09:49PM
You've put your finger on a significant issue:
Whereas some theists often like to imagine that atheism means believing there is no god (it doesn't), and some agnostics like to explain that they're not atheists (they are), and some atheists like to pretend they know there is no god (they don't.)
What a mess. It's no wonder so many people have so much trouble talking about these issues.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SomeGuy on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:05PM (1 child)
Most atheists don't seem to be out to change the world. But for those that are, it is an uphill battle with quite a lot to do.
There is also an interesting problem of perspective. Many religious people have never stepped outside of their mental womb, so observing atheistic actions may come as a shock and seem larger than they really are.
A religious person may have their religious activities "baked in" to their lives in such a way that they don't even realize they things they do are religious. Someone may work for a church, take part in related actives every day, teach mental child rape classes - I mean sunday school classes, and so on, and yet not consider themselves "busy with religion".
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:53PM
As an atheist myself, I am unconcerned with the beliefs of others and respect their right to believe as they choose, even if I don't share or respect the dogmas associated with those beliefs.
The only time I have an issue is when someone with religious beliefs attempts to push them on me. That doesn't happen very often, and when it does I politely request that they stop doing so. If that is insufficient, I take more drastic measures.
At the same time, I'm perfectly comfortable discussing my non-belief and the reasons for it, but I never push that on others. It's not my business to do so, and the beliefs of others are not my concern.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:11PM (1 child)
If you find that non believers know more about the foundations of your religion than you do, that’s a problem. Most here would tell you to give up your “sky fairy”. I would encourage you to dive deeper and discover the wisdom of those more open minded and intellectual in your religion. The most profound ideas about God have come from monks wrestling with doubt.
If your pastor claims to give you answers, find another one. Good pastors challenge their listeners with difficult ideas and help them to ask the right questions. When you ask the right questions, your God will provide a better answer than any human ever could. Religion is not science. Everyone must discover it for themselves.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @05:33PM
Every post is a primary source.
Based on your comment it's not surprising that your sig rests on fallacious appeal to authority.
god will provide indeed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:21PM
As an atheist I disagree. I never think about religion except when people say "bless you" or "so help me God". But it's best to ignore idiots who shove their religion into other people's faces.
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:15PM
This is nothing more than a passive aggressive attack on atheists. You find a few outspoken individuals and claim that atheism is all about converting religious people to atheism.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Sunday March 25 2018, @07:38PM (5 children)
As an atheist, I often find that religious people seek out positions of power, especially in government, and try to make absurd and repressive laws based on their arbitrary and superstitious beliefs. Therefore it is my duty and my right to oppose them at every opportunity using every lawful means available.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @12:14AM (4 children)
Yep those wacko religious people like Stalin and Mao and Castro and the Kim family. That worked out SO well for everyone didnt it. Do not dare speak your mind about them and make sure you bow to the picture in your living room everyday.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday March 26 2018, @07:37AM (3 children)
Stalin trained as a priest. Religious and political extremism have a lot in common. Keep having fun with your witty trolls equating athiesm with tyranny and dictators. Gott mitt uns.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @06:27PM (2 children)
Where's your intellectual honesty, logic and objectivity? He was an atheist when he initiated acts of genocide. You're behaving like one of those religious bunch with their "No True Scotsman" BS, going "No he can't be a member of my faith because he did all those evil stuff".
He was probably already an atheist while training as a priest when he said "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. ": https://www.marxists.org/archive/murphy-jt/1945/stalin/01.htm [marxists.org]
If he doesn't count as an atheist then neither do many atheists who abandon religion and say "there is no God".
All reasonable evidence points to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot being atheists.
Whatever they were, it's far more likely they were atheists than Christians or Buddhists.
Stalin wasn't following nor promoting the example of Jesus when he was promoting anti religious campaigns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941) [wikipedia.org]
Nor was Pol Pot following or promoting the examples of the Buddhas by having his regime kill thousands of buddhist monks:
Seems far more likely they were following and promoting the precepts of Marxism. Marxism promotes violence and atheism see the communist manifesto, etc: http://www.stephenhicks.org/2012/10/08/marxists-and-violence/ [stephenhicks.org]
If you're going to claim that Marxism is another religion in disguise then you should then go past that stage and accept that millions of humans will follow some sort of "religion" whatever you do, so the real solution might not be no religion but better religions or better interpretations.
Don't fall for or promote the Dawkinists "New Atheism" religion with their disingenuous apologetics. They're a cure worse than some of the diseases.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday March 29 2018, @08:54PM (1 child)
You really don't get it.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06 2018, @02:41PM
Can't handle the truth? Are you like those religious people when confronted with truths that disagree with their faith?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 26 2018, @01:22AM
Yes. I also notice prudes are more obsessed with sex than I am. Vegans are more obsessed with meat than I am. Cyclists are more obsessed with cars than I am.
Washington DC delenda est.