Religulous

[GenMarshall]

CivGeneral, please take your own advice.

The Great Purge was not religious in nature, it was purely political. Atheism or theism had nothing to do with it. The charges against the victims were: espionage, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, conspiracies to prepare uprisings and coups.

That's a load of bull. The Great Purge was indeed atheists persecuting Christians in Soviet Russia. And who were targeted during the purges in the Soviet Union along with regular people, The Russian Orthodox Church clergy and the church itself was targeted by the atheistic soviets.

And what about the Reign of Terror. I noticed no one has bothered to even defend it with the bloodshed atheists committed during the French Revolution.

Also, Communism is not, I repeat not, a religion. It's an economic system. If you don't understand that, then go back to economics class.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's a load of bull. The Great Purge was indeed atheists persecuting Christians in Soviet Russia. And who were targeted during the purges in the Soviet Union along with regular people, The Russian Orthodox Church clergy and the church itself was targeted by the atheistic soviets.

Simply stating it is a load of bull does not make it so. So, please inform yourself. It was political not religious.

And what about the Reign of Terror. I noticed no one has bothered to even defend it with the bloodshed atheists committed during the French Revolution.

I am not familiar with the Reign of Terror. So I'm not commenting on it. Kind of what you should have done wrt The great Purge, since you clearly are not familiar with it either.

But I got this from a short search:

The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 27 July 1794), also known as the The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of violence that occurred fifty months after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution." Estimates vary widely as to how many were killed, with numbers ranging from 20,000 to 40,000; in many cases, records were not kept, or if they were, they are considered likely to be inaccurate. The guillotine ("National Razor") became the symbol of a string of executions: Marie-Antoinette, the Girondins Philippe Égalité and Madame Roland, as well as many others, such as "the father of modern chemistry" Antoine Lavoisier, lost their lives under its blade.

During 1794, the revolutionary government of France was threatened by internal enemies, conspirators, and foreign monarchies. Within France the revolution was opposed by the former French nobility, which had lost its inherited privileges. The Roman Catholic Church was generally against the Revolution, which had turned the clergy into employees of the state and required they take an oath of loyalty to the nation (through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy). In addition, the First French Republic was engaged in a series of French Revolutionary Wars with neighboring powers. European monarchies wanted to stifle the democratic and republican ideals that might threaten their own stability.

The extension of civil war and the advance of foreign armies on national territory produced a political crisis, and increased the rivalry between the Girondins and the more radical Jacobins; the latter were eventually grouped in the parliamentary faction called the Mountain, and had the support of the Parisian population. The French government established the Committee of Public Safety, which took its final form on 6 September 1793 and was ultimately dominated by Maximilien Robespierre, in order to suppress internal counter-revolutionary activities and raise additional French military force. Through the Revolutionary Tribunal, the Terror's leaders exercised broad dictatorial powers and used them to instigate mass executions and political purges. The repression accelerated in June and July 1794, a period called "la Grande Terreur" (The Great Terror), and ended in the "Thermidorian Reaction," or coup of 9 Thermidor Year II (27 July 1794), in which several leaders of the Reign of Terror were executed, including Louis de Saint-Just and Robespierre.

Seems that also was a political action against the factions who were against the revolution. Factions like the catholic church. So, the issue is, once again not religious in nature.

If the catholic church would have supported the revolution, they'd not have been targeted.

Sorry civ, but that's martyrs: 0, historians: 2.

 

[GoodGame]

Also, Communism is not, I repeat not, a religion. It's an economic system. If you don't understand that, then go back to economics class.

Communism is definitely a form of government, and a political system. I'd agree with you if you really meant to say 'socialism is just an economic system'.

 

[aelf]

Religious persecution is not also political?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Religious persecution is not also political?

If this is directed at me, I really said the political persecution in the Great Purge case was not religious in nature. So there was no religious persecution. If you refer to the Reign of Terror, there also was no religious persecution, because the reason the catholic church was targeted was political, because they were targeted because they did not support the revolution. Simple way of distinguishing them is: if the catholic church would have supported the revolution, they would not have been persecuted. So, being religious is irrelevant in that case.

 

[Dachs]

But I got this from a short search:
Seems that also was a political action against the factions who were against the revolution. Factions like the catholic church. So, the issue is, once again not religious in nature.

If the catholic church would have supported the revolution, they'd not have been targeted.

Sorry civ, but that's martyrs: 0, historians: 2.

The Catholic Church by and large sat there during the Revolution and allowed the Revolutionaries to do stuff to it. Originally, a large portion of the clergy joined the Third Estate, and large numbers of French priests agreed to the rules originally set down by the Constituent Assembly as to the ability to perform religious rites, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. During the Terror, the Hébertists (in their initial mad rush for power in 1793) attempted to push a further alteration to the French official religious policy by having a law enacted that ordered the execution of all nonjuring (those who did not accede to the Civil Constitution) priests, and went even further a few weeks later by creating an official state religion, the Cult of Reason. From that time until the ascendancy of Robespierre the following year, even juring priests were fair game for the purgers in the countryside such as Fouché. An expedient way of eliminating them was to pack them onto Seine river barges, tie them up, then sink the barges...

 

[GenMarshall]

Simply stating it is a load of bull does not make it so. So, please inform yourself. It was political not religious.

Of course it is bull. And no it was not political, there was religious/anti-religious elements in the purges the Bolshiviks undertook in the innerwar period. I am fully well informed of the issue, Its not my fault that you cannot see that atheist have blood on their hands.

I am not familiar with the Reign of Terror. So I'm not commenting on it. Kind of what you should have done wrt The great Purge, since you clearly are not familiar with it either.

Uhh no and I am familiar with the purges of the USSR. Again, it's not my fault that you can't see the anti-religious sentenent that was going on.

But I got this from a short search:
Seems that also was a political action against the factions who were against the revolution. Factions like the catholic church. So, the issue is, once again not religious in nature.

I suspect Dachs will hammer on you for this. Again, the movement has anti-religious sentenent, there is no sense in denying that.

Sorry civ, but that's martyrs: 0, historians: 2.

Sorry Ziggy, but you got that backwards. Martyrs 2, Historians 0. The historians you sourced only ignores the other side of the party and serves as ammo for atheist apologetics who say "nope, we don't have blood on our hands".

Communism is definitely a form of government, and a political system. I'd agree with you if you really meant to say 'socialism is just an economic system'.

I see someones been playing a bit too much Civilization . Communism, in my view, is an extrime form of Socialism.

 

[cardgame]

Of course it is bull. And no it was not political, there was religious/anti-religious elements in the purges the Bolshiviks undertook in the innerwar period. I am fully well informed of the issue, Its not my fault that you cannot see that atheist have blood on their hands.

Look back on page 7 again: "The bloodshed in the Soviet Union is everything about Communism and says nothing at all about atheism, because the cultural atheism of the Soviet Union, like the atheism of an individual human, was merely incidental to a much bigger scheme of things. Atheism is atheism; as such, atheism is nothing more than the absence of theism. Atheism is not a complete world view but simply one small component of any world view. Ideally, atheism plays an active role in one's thinking only in the face of theistic claims. For Christians to portray atheism as anything more than this is patently dishonest.

Also, they were doing their vile acts in the name of communism, ie anti-capitolism, atheism wasn't their main ideology.

I see someones been playing a bit too much Civilization . Communism, in my view, is an extrime form of Socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist

...is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology ... In political science, the term "communism" is sometimes used to refer to communist states, a form of government

 

[GenMarshall]

Look back on page 7 again

I already read it and to be frank, don't agree with the statement. Don't like it? Too bad. Bottom line, atheist have their share of blood on their hands for persecuting the religious (Atheists in both the French Revolution and the innerwar period of the USSR).

For Christians to portray atheism as anything more than this is patently dishonest.

unless you are living under a rock. Atheists potray Christianity and other religions in a negative light (Your Richard Dawkins ain't helping you there with his rants). You sir have never seen how far militant atheists have gone from simple insults to full forced persecution of theists.

Quit denying that atheists too have blood on their hands for persecuting peoples of religion.

Also, they were doing their vile acts in the name of communism, ie anti-capitolism, atheism wasn't their main ideology.

Oh how wrong can you get? Of course atheism is part of their ideology. Just read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. They were doing their vile acts in the name of Atheism, not just communism.

As for your chucking defenitions around. Do you consider Communist Parties little communist governments? Communism is just an extrime form of socialism and an economic theory/policy. The government form you are revering to is Authoritarianism with a communist economic system (USSR, PROC, North Korea). However, this is not the thread to discuss this in.

 

[cardgame]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Imho it is all politics; Communists might have killed the religious because they did not agree with/follow Communism. This is NOT the same thing as an atheist killing the religious because they're religious.

To paraphrase an earlier post;

I just killed someone who believes in God! And I don't believe in God! Wow! That was obviously persecuting them because of their religion and not because of any other reason whatsoever!!!!!

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Hasn't this debate been done to death before?

 

[aelf]

If this is directed at me, I really said the political persecution in the Great Purge case was not religious in nature. So there was no religious persecution. If you refer to the Reign of Terror, there also was no religious persecution, because the reason the catholic church was targeted was political, because they were targeted because they did not support the revolution. Simple way of distinguishing them is: if the catholic church would have supported the revolution, they would not have been persecuted. So, being religious is irrelevant in that case.

So what's so different between those cases and a religion persecuting adherents of another or atheists? The reasons behind persecution are ultimately political or social. If your purpose is to show that atheists are better than religious people in that they don't persecute in the name of atheism, then I say that that's not very convincing at all, since persecution in the name of whatever religion should be taken with handfuls of salt anyway. If that's not your purpose, I'm quite sure it's still the intention of a number of people here.

 

[warpus]

Cue the sound of arguments flying over CivGeneral's head

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Catholic Church by and large sat there during the Revolution and allowed the Revolutionaries to do stuff to it. Originally, a large portion of the clergy joined the Third Estate, and large numbers of French priests agreed to the rules originally set down by the Constituent Assembly as to the ability to perform religious rites, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. During the Terror, the Hébertists (in their initial mad rush for power in 1793) attempted to push a further alteration to the French official religious policy by having a law enacted that ordered the execution of all nonjuring (those who did not accede to the Civil Constitution) priests, and went even further a few weeks later by creating an official state religion, the Cult of Reason. From that time until the ascendancy of Robespierre the following year, even juring priests were fair game for the purgers in the countryside such as Fouché. An expedient way of eliminating them was to pack them onto Seine river barges, tie them up, then sink the barges...

Thanks for the info. As I said, I'm not familiar with it and only got what I know from a short search.

So what's so different between those cases and a religion persecuting adherents of another or atheists? The reasons behind persecution are ultimately political or social. If your purpose is to show that atheists are better than religious people in that they don't persecute in the name of atheism, then I say that that's not very convincing at all, since persecution in the name of whatever religion should be taken with handfuls of salt anyway. If that's not your purpose, I'm quite sure it's still the intention of a number of people here.

I only said that the great Purge was no religious in nature. Period. I have no purpose beyond that.

When I commented on the Reign of Terror, I admitted beforehand I was not familiar with it.

Of course it is bull. And no it was not political, there was religious/anti-religious elements in the purges the Bolshiviks undertook in the innerwar period. I am fully well informed of the issue, Its not my fault that you cannot see that atheist have blood on their hands.

You make a compelling argument when you repeat: Is too! you know that?

Uhh no and I am familiar with the purges of the USSR. Again, it's not my fault that you can't see the anti-religious sentenent that was going on.

Indeed. That would be history's fault.

I suspect Dachs will hammer on you for this. Again, the movement has anti-religious sentenent, there is no sense in denying that.

Dachs I suspect recognised the meaning of: "I'm not familiar with the Reign of Terror, but a short search etc" and decided to reply with an informed post. Which I appreciate.

You should try that once. Being informed I mean.

Sorry Ziggy, but you got that backwards. Martyrs 2, Historians 0. The historians you sourced only ignores the other side of the party and serves as ammo for atheist apologetics who say "nope, we don't have blood on our hands".

I see ... it's the Great Atheist Historical Conspiracy. So I guess it would be useless to ask you for some sort of historical evidence for your case? Because the historical evidence has been tampered with by scheming atheists.

Lastly, I need no apologetics. Neither does any religious person. I am responsible for my own actions, not for those who, like me, lack faith in a deity. Likewise no religious person is responsible for the actions of another religious person.

What do you think this is? A sporting match where your "team" is awarded bonus points when they can accuse the other "team" of foul play?

 

[Defiant47]

I've figured out CivGeneral's debating strategy: refuse and repeat. That is, refuse what the last guy just said, and repeat what you just said.

Communism killed in the name of atheism.

<=> (equivalence sign)

Today my teacher pissed me off. So I got out a gun and POW, right in the head. I don't believe in God. Therefore, my murder was atheistically-motivated.

This needs repeating. When I murder this Catholic teacher, it is obviously motivated by my atheism.

 

[aelf]

I only said that the great Purge was no religious in nature. Period. I have no purpose beyond that.

Then I'm not really sure why you're arguing like that. The argument that atheists persecute people because they are atheists are about as spurious the argument that religious people persecute people because they are religious, since that's only on the face of it. It's quite obvious. And I don't recall you acknowledging that, so don't be surprised that you appear to have a purpose there.

Also, I presume you didn't read my last sentence.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Then I'm not really sure why you're arguing like that.

Like what?

The argument that atheists persecute people because they are atheists are about as spurious the argument that religious people persecute people because they are religious, since that's only on the face of it. It's quite obvious. And I don't recall you acknowledging that, so don't be surprised that you appear to have a purpose there.

Why would I need to acknowledge the obvious especially when I never addressed that specific issue? You're talking general issues here, I was discussing specific issues. I mentioned those specific issues in my posts. I made no such insinuations as the ones you outline.

If, lacking all that, you still see purposes in my posting of that kind, well, maybe you are really trying too hard to see them. But go right ahead.

Also, I presume you didn't read my last sentence.

I did read it. The intention of a number of people. Could be. So what? Really don't see what your problem is. Is it: Some atheist, like you are, argue X so as an atheist you should make it clear that you do not share their argument? Because that's ridiculous, and I will do no such thing.

You want my opinion, read my posts.

 

[GenMarshall]

Cue the sound of arguments flying over CivGeneral's head

Sorry, but the arguments have not flown over my head. I just don't agree with them. It's a shocker when someone does not agree with you.

You make a compelling argument when you repeat: Is too! you know that?

I'm not repeating anything here. It's not my fault that I can't do your homework for you

You should try that once. Being informed I mean.

I am already informed, thank you very much. I see both sides of the coin. Not just one side and ignoring the other

I see ... it's the Great Atheist Historical Conspiracy. So I guess it would be useless to ask you for some sort of historical evidence for your case? Because the historical evidence has been tampered with by scheming atheists.

Would you like a little Spare Change with that? The historical evidence are one sided. Never in my post did I say "evidence tampered by atheists". Again, why should I do your homework for you?

Lastly, I need no apologetics.

Oy vei. An apologist is someone who defends an ideology. Not a person going around saying they are sorry.

What do you think this is? A sporting match where your "team" is awarded bonus points when they can accuse the other "team" of foul play?

What I see are Atheists who point fingers at a religious group decrying on how much bloodshed a religion has caused and yet have not removed the splinter from their own eye. Atheist too have caused bloodshed as well. No group is innocent.

I've figured out CivGeneral's debating strategy: refuse and repeat. That is, refuse what the last guy just said, and repeat what you just said.

Wrong, I don't refuse nor repeat. It's a little thing called "disagreeing" and "getting through thick skulls". In simple terms, Pot kettle black.

This needs repeating. When I murder this Catholic teacher, it is obviously motivated by my atheism.

So you admit that you are a militant atheist!

 

[cardgame]

The historical evidence are one sided.

So because history disagrees with your argument, you say "screw history, I'm not going to accept this evidence"???

What I see are Atheists who point fingers at a religious group decrying on how much bloodshed a religion has caused.

And it has caused bloodshed. Are you denying it?

AtheistCommunists have caused bloodshed as well.

Fixed

Obviously atheists have caused bloodshed. I'm sure a couple murderers somewhere were atheists. What they did not do was kill in the name of atheism.

So you admit that you are a militant atheist!

...

 

[Defiant47]

I would like to introduce Russell's Celestial Teapot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Teapot
Let's call people who believe in this teapot "teapoters" and people who don't "ateapoters".

I would also like to point out that neither Hitler nor Stalin believed in this Celestial Teapot.

From all the deaths of WWII and Soviet Communism, we can obviously see that ateapoters have a lot of blood on their hands.

So ask yourself: do you believe in the Celestial Teapot? Because if you don't, you belong to a group that has committed boundless genocide and murder.