On reincarnation of God

[citizenofdoom]

Glad to hear they don't persecute people for having a religion in your country (?Ukraine, ?Russia). In many other atheist run countries past and present (North Vietnam, Cambodia (under Khmer Rouge), USSR, PRC, etc.), where it was more of a case of "science is real and there's no god, and if you disagree with this then bad things will happen to you and your family.."

Oh no, it's not like that in North Vietnam in pre-"Doi Moi" era.
It was hell at that time but religious is still OK but being discriminated if Christian.
The North Vietnam government at that time receive a lot of support from Buddist population.
Christians at that time tend to be neural or pro-South in the past war so you know, they-the ruling government didn't like them.
Currently, Christian is the dominant religion in Vietnam (with 5.8 million people, around 6% of population), meaning there isnt a mass execution against Christians like whatever propaganda you read somewhere.
My Grandmother got her Christian cross necklace bended by some "investigations" in the past(pre-Doi Moi) but that's it.
They just hold some grudges.
But their economic mindset at that time is absolutely horrible.
So yeah.
It's bad.

 

[Sarin]

This is quite incorrect.

"North Korea is considered an atheist state "those engaged in unsanctioned religious activities often face the harshest of treatment...In particular, those of Christian faith are persecuted the most"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_North_Korea#:~:text=North Korea is considered an,the religious activities of unauthorized

North Korea, while claiming to be atheist, has a state religion centered around worshiping the ruling family. That why they persecute other religions, can't have two gods.

Just because they don't call their god a god doesn't mean it's not religion.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

North Vietnam

Did I say North Vietnam, sorry brain fart, I meant North Korea.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

This is quite incorrect.

"North Korea is considered an atheist state "those engaged in unsanctioned religious activities often face the harshest of treatment...In particular, those of Christian faith are persecuted the most"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_North_Korea#:~:text=North Korea is considered an,the religious activities of unauthorized

"The Khmer Rouge actively persecuted Buddhists during their reign from 1975 to 1979.[93] Buddhist institutions and temples were destroyed and Buddhist monks and teachers were killed in large numbers.[94] A third of the nation's monasteries were destroyed along with numerous holy texts and items of high artistic quality. 25,000 Buddhist monks were massacred by the regime,[95] which was officially an atheist state.[9] The persecution was undertaken because Pol Pot believed that Buddhism was "a decadent affectation". He sought to eliminate Buddhism's 1,500-year-old mark on Cambodia.[95]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#:~:text=25,000 Buddhist monks were massacred,all religious practices were banned.

"From 1932 to 1937 Joseph Stalin declared the 'five-year plans of atheism' and the LMG was charged with completely eliminating all religious expression in the country.[73] Many of these same methods and terror tactics were also imposed against others that the regime considered to be its ideological enemies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=From 1932 to 1937 Joseph,to be its ideological enemies.

"Antireligious campaigns in China refer to the Chinese Communist Party's official promotion of state atheism, coupled with its persecution of people with spiritual or religious beliefs, in the People's Republic of China.[3][4][5] Antireligious campaigns were launched in 1949, after the Chinese Communist Revolution, and they continue to be waged against Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and members of other religious communities in the 21st century."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligious_campaigns_in_China

North Korea, while claiming to be atheist, has a state religion centered around worshiping the ruling family. That why they persecute other religions, can't have two gods.

Just because they don't call their god a god doesn't mean it's not religion.

You replied before I could finish editing my original post with all the info I wanted. I didn't expect you to respond so fast. Anyway above is my refutation (in full) of your refutation.
I guess people may agree or disagree with me, but I do think I have shown that the countries I named considered themselves atheist regimes, and actively persecuted religions.

 

[citizenofdoom]

Yeah, it's how atheism looks like religion or is in fact a religion.
Idk how're other people in an atheist state.
But I'm just theorizing something, then defining that something, and starting worshipping it.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Yeah, it's how atheism looks like religion or is in fact a religion.

Lets not open up this can of worms. I know there is someone on this thread who has strong opinions on the subject!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Calling atheism a religion is a wet noodle attack tactic by religious folks to say, "You are no better than us." By trying to insult non believers, they are mostly insulting themselves and the power of belief.

 

[Sarin]

You replied before I could finish editing my original post with all the info I wanted. I didn't expect you to respond so fast. Anyway above is my refutation (in full) of your refutation.
I guess people may agree or disagree with me, but I do think I have shown that the countries I named considered themselves atheist regimes, and actively persecuted religions.

And my point still stands. All these governments subscribed to Marx-Leninist brand of communism, which holds ideology in the same place of unquestionable authority as god in religion.

 

[Narz]

God does not want us to judge anyone.

But aren't we supposed to be like God? And God does an awful lot of judging, condemning, encouraging genocide including of babies when "he" gets really mad at a group of people.

This whole "God (Christian) doesn't judge" is as crazy as saying Islam is a religion of peace.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

And my point still stands. All these governments subscribed to Marx-Leninist brand of communism, which holds ideology in the same place of unquestionable authority as god in religion.

You probably would have helped yourself if you hadn't started your original post with "this is quite incorrect."
It meant you had to prove my statement that many atheist run regimes have harshly persecuted those who follow religions to be incorrect.
So you would have needed to:
1. Show that they did not consider themselves to be atheist.
2. Did not persecute religions.

Unsurprisingly it was much easer for me to prove those things to be true, then it was for you to show them to be false. Personally I think I without too much difficulty demonstrated them to be true.
The fact that they are all communist states is an interesting side note, but not a refutation.
I guess this point could be further explored, but it would almost certainly derail the thread (and is not of great interest to me anyway). It also touches on the broader subject of what is and isn't a religion. Belief in an after life is key to many (but not all religions). Does the adoration of Kim Jong-un by North Koreans qualify as a religion? I presume they don't believe he will help them in the afterlife.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

But aren't we supposed to be like God?

I believe the aim is to be more like Jesus (at least from a Christian perspective). Hence 'WWJD.' Though there is also an acknowledgement that it is impossible to be like Jesus, hence the crucifixion.
I believe Nietzsche ironically gets it pretty spot on with him considering Jesus to be the only one true Christian. Nietzsche describing Jesus as being "wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentleness, the inability to be an enemy."

 

[Sarin]

You probably would have helped yourself if you hadn't started your original post with "this is quite incorrect."
It meant you had to prove my statement that many atheist run regimes have harshly persecuted those who follow religions to be incorrect.
So you would have needed to:
1. Show that they did not consider themselves to be atheist.
2. Did not persecute religions.

Unsurprisingly it was much easer for me to prove those things to be true, then it was for you to show them to be false. Personally I think I without too much difficulty demonstrated them to be true.
The fact that they are all communist states is an interesting side note, but not a refutation.
I guess this point could be further explored, but it would almost certainly derail the thread (and is not of great interest to me anyway). It also touches on the broader subject of what is and isn't a religion. Belief in an after life is key to many (but not all religions). Does the adoration of Kim Jong-un by North Koreans qualify as a religion? I presume they don't believe he will help them in the afterlife.

You're off in point 1. They might consider or claim to be atheist, doesn't mean they are. On the contrary, the religious devotion to an idea, even if it's not called god, is present and I dare to say reason for the persecution of the traditional religions.

That is not atheism.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

You're off in point 1. They might consider or claim to be atheist, doesn't mean they are. On the contrary, the religious devotion to an idea, even if it's not called god, is present and I dare to say reason for the persecution of the traditional religions.

That is not atheism.

You are falling victim to the 'no true scotsman fallacy.'

Anyway we are going to be just going back and forth on this and boring everyone.

Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Farm Boy]

I could interpret this as saying God's image is that of whatever primitive life existed on Earth before sex was discovered/evolved (or however you want to express it; Sagan mentioned it at some point in Cosmos but I'm too lazy to track it down right now).

I don't know why it wouldn't be. Being given dominion over things which are sacred is a concept I think we could use some more of, really.

 

[citizenofdoom]

encouraging genocide including of babies when "he" gets really mad at a group of people.

where is the part god encouraging genocide including of babies?
i pretty sure Jesus didn't encourage such thing.
it would be his future followers committing such things.

 

[Sarin]

You are falling victim to the 'no true scotsman fallacy.'

Anyway we are going to be just going back and forth on this and boring everyone.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Nope. I'd be best described as agnostic atheist. My position is that the truth about god(s) is logically unprovable, but world would be better off without giving such ideas religious devotion.

And I know something (through my parents and grandparents, and some study of the times) about the ideology and how it was practiced in countries subject to it, and it really was, in the core, about same religious devotion.

But really, where we disagree most is the scope of the word "god" in this context. I'm using it very broadly, more as an idea that's centerpiece of religious devotion than some kind of sentience.

 

[Narz]

where is the part god encouraging genocide including of babies?

Ever heard of passover? It's a Jewish holiday celebrating the slaughter of African babies by god

 

[El_Machinae]

But aren't we supposed to be like God?

Not in Christianity, where the idea is more that you're supposed to love God. You can't 'be like God', because you're not God. Even "supposed to" is the wrong word, more that you'd love God if you knew Him fully. "Obedience" is merely the outcome of that love, in the same way that we put down the toilet seat for our partner out of love more than anything else. Her having asked is merely how we were alerted to the fact that we should. Some of that obedience is along the lines of "trust me, it's better if you just do it this way". I don't punish my kid with car accidents when I tell him to not run in the road, but it will happen if he doesn't listen to me.

Some of the nuance in Christianity is distinguishing on the WWJD aspect. Sometimes Jesus acts "on God's behalf" (forgiving the adultress, whipping people at the temple). Sometimes he behaves in a way that we're supposed to mimic. Some denominations say "when it doubt, don't listen to Jesus, act like God". Some say the opposite.

Some will watch the story of the whipping at the temple and feel empowered to do the same. Some will read the words "turn the other cheek, Vengeance is Mine" and chose pacifism over action. Obeying Jesus and mimicking Jesus sometimes conflict. Some will see Luke arming himself as a suggestion that we all should. Others notice that all that happened was that Luke was chastised for having used the sword.

Some of those interpretations memetically mean that they won't survive as well as the other interpretations. I point this out, because what's taught will be a function of the survivability of the memes. We can note that none of the modern preachers perform any of the miracles promised, except the false ones (which, I guess, were promised). So, I think it's fairly obvious the modern interpretations are wrong

 

[Samson]

where is the part god encouraging genocide including of babies?
i pretty sure Jesus didn't encourage such thing.
it would be his future followers committing such things.

The "conquest" of Canaan required this? Genetics says it did not happen though.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Nope. I'd be best described as agnostic atheist.

I don't believe you have to be part of the world view you are trying to protect to fall victim to the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.' But it is not of any real importance anyway and I am really trying to not further continue this argument.

But really, where we disagree most is the scope of the word "god" in this context. I'm using it very broadly, more as an idea that's centerpiece of religious devotion than some kind of sentience.

Finally something we can agree on!

The "conquest" of Canaan required this? Genetics says it did not happen though.

Sorry can you expand on this. Genetics say the conquest didn't happen? What did the conquest require? I don't think I'm understanding you clearly.