Further arguing the minutia of the history is more than I came on this thread to talk about. I've lost my motivation to do it beyond what has already been exchanged.
Generally, even in challenged Wikipedia articles (that one isn't even challenged, but just has a cleanup request) the majority wins out on what goes on there and so most information, that isn't highly politically charged with current events, is mostly correct. Also, there is copious other sources in terms of books, quotes and the historical record.. PM me and I'll recommend some books.
What is strange is that you seem a but defensive about atheism connection to communism for some reason, that goes beyond just defending the historical record. Why? Whats the big deal about admitting that atheism is just a special interest group like every other? It isn't some magical solution to the world's sociopolitical issues. I'm not sure why or how atheists attain the perception that it is. Its not the lack of belief that accepts the possibility of all beliefs, Its just a different belief. The same as any other belief. Therefore, it acts the same as every other beleif based group/
All of those "It doesn't do this, it doesn't do that" points generally don't hold water because, once in power, it represses the ability of religious groups to act freely. At the same time, it needs to promote its own secular values to stay in political control. This IS the same as how any religion acts.
Quote:I clearly stated above that this is not the case. Here's a copy of what I wrote:
- When was the last time a fellow atheist stopped by your door and asked if you want to know more about atheism?
Secularism is promoted on a much more sophisticated and effective level, through the media. Through most modern television. Once you learn to look for it, the degree of all of the subtle and not so subtle messages is shocking.
Quote:- When was the last time you received some unwanted spam from a freethinker organization telling you to "there is no Jesus, so stop praying and start working"?
The entertainment media in spades, all day every day, 24/7. You can;t even stop your kids from being indoctrinated by it. Its impossible.
Quote:- When was the last time atheists pursued some kind of "day of atheism" or "stop praying, start working" legislation? Lobbied to put "there is no god" on banknotes?
Government issues are more complicated, holidays are meaningless. The relevant point is that secularism is political and that all "anti-religious influence" type of propaganda in anywhere BUT government is actually "pro-secularism propaganda". So, there is pro-active activity on the part of secularists. The same as there is for religions. Its just-another-group.
Quote:- When was the last time atheists insisted of teaching atheism in schools?
Well, I fully agree with the model of evolution, with allowance for spiritual overtones (remember, I'm agnostic), but the evolution issue is an example of how secularists are pro-active. Better examples are is education focused on perhaps any issue that teaches kids not to empower themselves through their own political groups, whatever they may be (your religion is wrong, your gender is wrong, your ethnicity is wrong, etc..) They don't live in a politically inactive bubble as you are trying to have me believe.
Quote:- How many atheist judges are in the Supreme Court? How many atheists are in the Congress? Senate? How many atheist presidents we had?
That is hard to quantify. Politicians (which supreme court judges increasingly seem to be) will switch their affiliations according to their benefit. Also, if the politician died before world war two it become increasingly difficult to verify their true, albeit possibly covered up, spiritual/religious association.
Here's a clarifying question:
How many atheists were in the Russian government and Russian equivalent of the "supreme court" in the past 80 years. A few, maybe? The point is that this point is pointless. The religious affiliation of politicians generally reflects the current politics and majority interest of the country. I have no idea what relevance that the question has. As this countries religious groups become more dis-empowered, you will see increasing diversity in religious affiliation of politicians. If atheist become a cohesive movement here, you will see atheist politicians.
Quote:My point is clear here - religious influence is real, could be seen by anyone and clearly attempts to affect every person around, no matter if they're religious or not.
As is atheist influence, should they become more cohesive and empowered with time in this country. This statement clarifies my assertion that you are denying that atheism is subject to the political dynamics of all small groups who seek power. There is historical record of that fact. There is logic in that fact. To think that atheistic secularism isn't a political force that suppresses other political groups is some type of (no insult intended - I say this with respect) deluded exceptionalism that has no basis in historical practice. Atheists are just a group like all others. All political groups act the same. However, sociologically powerful moral differences exist between atheistic society and religious societies. There are also other critical consequences that are another discussion.
You previously mentioned: "it doesn't mention that the church asked the followers to oppose the Bolshevik government, and openly supported White Forces".
Well, this just means that there were opposing political forces in Russia that challenged the communists (politically unified in religion, suprise suprise), and that the communists worked to suppress the power of these groups, efficiently, through suppressing the influence of religion. This pretty much validates what I've been saying. That communism used atheism both as a unifying belief and as a way to suppress other political groups that challenged them. Religions have been guilty of this as well, plenty, throughout history. I'm not saying that they have not. Actually, its central to my point that religion and atheism acts similarly in most ways. However, religions generally don't provide for the deep social oblivion of differently religious based morality the way that atheism does. You can easily find your way back from a Catholic, Lutheran, whatever else dominated country after a century. The family unit would still be intact in society in all relevant measures, there would be family centric oriented rule of law that worked to keep families together instead of moving favor to the woman, there would be less political internationalism (we would at war less because of nationalist, not internationalist, ideals), our borders would be tighter (a politically unified and family centric country has no interest in growing the political interest groups of other nationalities through mass immigration), and all of the other benefits that come with not constantly needing to battle other political interest groups at home and abroad...
Communist atheism needs to destroy all other groups to survive. That is especially relevant when the particular culture of the newly communist country, in question, is a vast majority and has been for centuries (not the USA, I know). That mean, generally, that the communists in control are an invading political group with different political interests then the rest of the country. Thinks about it. If the communists were true Russian patriots, why oppress religion? The truth is that they weren't. They were internationalists, with their own special interest group, who needed to oppress the culture of the majority to stay in power.
In my mind, its ability to dis-empower populations is the largest issue. That is a rather unique feature. Become atheist, and lose the political cohesiveness that came through your religious group. If there are any unified groups that remain to oppose you, then your fucked. Can you not see where I'm coming from, and detach yourself from the emotion for a minute of view this from a cold political view? ALL politics are about the POWER of SMALL GROUPS. What is your small group? How powerful re they? If you can't readily identify them and claim a significant amount of political influence, then you've already been dis-empowered. Individual voting doesn't matter, in comparison, and you no longer have a true say in how the world turns. As I before stated, I'm not religious nor do I enjoy religious ceremony, but I view it as politically important. If we were to discuss the issue on this level, then I would hold this conversation as moving forward. I don't put that all on you, as I got bogged down with Gmac for many posts debating the damn terms. If you disagree, that's fine. But that perspective is my only;y motivation in this discussion. Not the, in my mind, self evident and widely accepted history of any of this. Only the current political ramifications taht go beyond the emotional need not to be associated with a movement, communism, that has stigma attached to it. If we can argue int he moment, then I may be able to be convinced with logic to see a different view. However, arguing about main stream accepted historical perspectives isn't what I'm here to do.
Good discussion, but I think that we are both clear on each of our individual views. We can leave it at that, and agree to disagree. Have a great night.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
RE: Atheism is the opiate of the masses 
