[Julian658]

:roll: Calling Communism and Atheism the same things in inherently dishonest. They are not one and the same. You've even said as much, @Julian658.

If we link Democracy to Christianity, we can find a death toll of tens of millions, as well. Isn't Imperialism linked to Christianity? It is as much as Communism and Atheism are linked.

You keep going back to that lie that Atheism is linked to millions of deaths, and it's just bullshit. You know this to be true. I thought you were smarter than that, @Julian658.

I should have used the word pseudo religion.
Sure many still love to talk about the Crusades, the first one almost a 1000 years ago. Is it just to judge medieval men with a 21st century mindset? At least the Crusaders were fighting a threat.

The commie atheists were simply murdering people that refused to convert. And this is recent history.

[Godstud]

What about American imperialism/Christianity? Wasn't it Bush 2 who said they invaded Iraq in God's name?

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

There's a million dead in the name of Christianity. That's only in a few years, too. We could go back and blame Christianity/Democracy, for more of the same, and other wars over the last 50 years. I mean, since we're linking Religion(or lack thereof) with ideology. Of course, this would be as stupid as what you're doing with Communism/atheism.

Atheism is not an ideology. It's a lack of religion. Saying it's more than that is not only stupid, but patently false.

Communism was only anti-religion(not atheist), because religion is a kind of control. It was simply that Communism did not want competition in controlling people/society. Atheism, is not anti-religion.

I also think that you mistake secularism for atheism. “Secularism” is the assertion that the state should be neutral on matters of religion. Not for religion. Not against religion. Simply that “the true neutrality of the state presupposes abstention in the matter of spirituality.” That is the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2015 Saguenay ruling – and it’s exactly this kind of position on secularism that PROTECTS religious freedom, in Canada.

The commie atheists were simply murdering people that refused to convert. And this is recent history.

Please present some real evidence for this claim. It should be easy as they they killed 100 million as you so claim.

[ingliz]

@Julian658

American imperialism/Christianity

"In God We Trust"

Since the US has killed more than 30 million people in 37 countries (1945-), arguing that respect for civilian lives is something that elevates the United States above Russia seems a little absurd.

[Besoeker2]

Isn't a Holy War evil?

[BigSteve]

Interestingly some religious groups such as the Mormons and Jews are highly successful people.

Come to think if it, I've never met a poor Scientologist...

[colliric]

Come to think if it, I've never met a poor Scientologist...

That's because the poor ones "enter the Sea Org"!

[BigSteve]

That's because the poor ones "enter the Sea Org"!

Maybe; I don't know much about it.

Leah Remini had a pretty good television show on A&E about Scientology. If half of what is alleged in that show is true, well, that's pretty fucked up.

I used to work for a company which had two owners. One was an Evangelical Christian and the other was a Scientologist. They were the best of friends and have been for almost 50 years. When I think about what I know about the Scientologist, it's hard for me believe a lot of what's alleged about Scientology, though...

[SSDR]

@colliric, That's because those people need it to motivate them to bring justice to society. Many of those people who needed religion were raised and conditioned to "need" that. When one was raised under religion, those religious conditions made them think that they need that, so when they went against that when they were older because they were allowed to (their parents are not as ruling due to older age), they started to get violent and mentally sick because the religion that raised them actually made them think that they need that to mentally be happy.

@Julian658, Yeah, religion kept people under slavery, patriarchy, the family institution, and unreported domestic abuse. It was "shameful" to go against oppression, and religion inflicted that.

[Julian658]

@Julian658


"In God We Trust"

Since the US has killed more than 30 million people in 37 countries (1945-), arguing that respect for civilian lives is something that elevates the United States above Russia seems a little absurd.

The Japanese and the Nazis were on the warpath. Not the same as murdering your own citizens for not converting to communism.

At this point many on the left the bring on the issue of colonialism by Europeans. A fair point, but not valid as all known civilizations in world history have tried to conquer others.
When the Cro-magnon man appeared in Europe they drove the Neanderthal man to extinction. MAN is a beast.

[usermention=25179]
@Julian658, Yeah, religion kept people under slavery, patriarchy, the family institution, and unreported domestic abuse. It was "shameful" to go against oppression, and religion inflicted that.

Slavery was universal in most civilizations in world history. The conquered served the conquerors. That has NOTHING to do with religion, that is just the flaw of MANKIND.

The so-called patriarchy or the hegemony of males is a byproduct of evolution. Men are larger, stronger, and more aggressive (testosterone).
Women were saddled with pregnancy, less aggression, and a smaller less powerful physique. This is called sexual dimorphism and that is how we evolved.
Blame evolution for the so called patriarchy. Note, how women are now equal to men since 1960. Why? Birth control pills!
In the past women were saddled with 6-8 children and had no chance to advance. Now they do not have to procreate and have better opportunities.

The family is also a byproduct of evolution. We are programmed to help those that share our genes. Most mammals follow this principle.

:lol: What about American imperialism/Christianity? Wasn't it Bush 2 who said they invaded Iraq in God's name?

We all know these wars are not about Christianity. If you believe these wars are another Crusade I would love to sell you swamp land.

Please present some real evidence for this claim. It should be easy as they they killed 100 million as you so claim.

Holmes, Leslie. Communism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press 2009). ISBN 978-0-19-955154-5. p. 32 "Most estimates of the number of Chinese dead are in the range of 15 to 30 million."
Songster, Edith Elena (2004). A Natural Place for Nationalism: The Wanglang Nature Reserve and the Emergence of the Giant Panda as a National Icon (thesis). University of California, San Diego. OCLC 607612241. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
M., J. (17 February 2015). "New (approved) assessments The great famine". The Economist. Beijing. Retrieved 18 January 2018. citing Dikötter, Frank (17 February 2015). The Tragedy of Liberation: A History of the Chinese Revolution 1945-1957. London: Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1-62040-349-5. OCLC 881092774. Retrieved 18 January 2018.[page needed]
Jisheng, Yang "Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958–1962". Book Review. New York Times. Dec, 2012. 3 March 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/book ... sheng.html
Sue Williams (director), Howard Sharp (editor), Will Lyman (narrator) (1997). China: A Century of Revolution. WinStar Home Entertainment.
Demeny, Paul; McNicoll, Geoffrey, eds. (2003), "Famine in China", Encyclopedia of Population, 1, New York: Macmillan Reference, pp. 388–390

"Soviet Studies". See also: Gellately (2007) p. 584: "Anne Applebaum is right to insist that the statistics 'can never fully describe what happened.' They do suggest, however, the massive scope of the repression and killing."
Wheatcroft, Stephen (1996). "The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930–45" (PDF). Europe-Asia Studies. 48 (8): 1334, 1348. doi:10.1080/09668139608412415. JSTOR 152781. The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans. These are clearly much lower figures than those for whom Hitler's regime was responsible.
Wheatcroft, S. G. (2000). "The Scale and Nature of Stalinist Repression and its Demographic Significance: On Comments by Keep and Conquest" (PDF). Europe-Asia Studies. 52 (6): 1143–1159. doi:10.1080/09668130050143860.
Getty, J. A.; Rittersporn, G. T.; Zemskov, V. N. (1993). "Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-war Years". American Historical Review. 98 (4): 1017–49. doi:10.2307/2166597. Archived from the original on 11 June 2008.
Wheatcroft, Stephen (1990). "More light on the scale of repression and excess mortality in the Soviet Union in the 1930s" (PDF). Soviet Studies. 42 (2): 355–367. doi:10.1080/09668139008411872. JSTOR 152086.
Ellman, Michael (2002). "Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments" (PDF). Europe-Asia Studies. 54 (7): 1172. doi:10.1080/0966813022000017177. About 12 million people were arrested or deported, and at least 3 million died, as a result of political persecution by their own government.

Isn't a Holy War evil?

When the Muslims invaded Spain and Sicily? When they sacked Saint Peter's in Rome? Was that evil?
When they conquered the North of Africa and exterminate Christianity in that area?
Yeah, Holy Wars are evil


[KS mod edit: Do not double post.]

[Godstud]

We all know these wars are not about Christianity.

We all know that 100 million were not killed for Atheism, too.

Communism, not atheism, killed a great many people. You are conflating the two. This your biggest failure in this discussion. Communism was not Atheist, but anti-religion. Even when it came to being anti-religion, there was not millions killed while enforcing this policy.

No source you present supports your claim that Atheism is the cause, so your entire argument is invalid. Political persecution is not religious persecution, either.

[ingliz]

The Japanese and the Nazis were on the warpath...

I am not talking about the Japanese or Nazis. The 30 million cited were killed post-war (after the Second World War), victims of American aggression.

[Julian658]

I am not talking about the Japanese or Nazis. The 30 million cited were killed post-war (after the Second World War), victims of American aggression.

I did not know the USA massacred 30 million ager WWII. Where can I look that up?

[Julian658]

We all know that 100 million were not killed for Atheism

You are correct, but the murderers were atheists.

The USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious persecution in the Soviet Union following the anti-religious campaign of 1921–1928. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for a heightened attack on religion in order to further disseminate atheism. This had been preceded in 1928 at the fifteenth party congress, where Joseph Stalin criticized the party for failure to produce more active and persuasive anti-religious propaganda. This new phase coincided with the beginning of the forced mass collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of the few remaining private enterprises.

Many of those who had been arrested in the 1920s would continue to remain in prison throughout the 1930s and beyond.

The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.
WIKI

[Godstud]

You are correct, but the murderers were atheists.

So now you know them by what they believe or don't believe? I call bullshit! It is also something that would be impossible to prove.

USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious persecution in the Soviet Union following the anti-religious campaign of 1921–1928

Anti-religion ≠ Atheist.

[ingliz]

Where can I look that up?

Google is your friend.

But I will give you one example for nothing:

In 1965, a bloody coup was organised in Indonesia by the CIA – it handed over the list of the first 5,000 marked for death to the Indonesian murder squads and kept adding to it. The number of people assassinated is estimated at between 500,000 and 3 million.

[Julian658]

Google is your friend.

But I will give you one example for nothing:

In 1965, a bloody coup was organised in Indonesia by the CIA – it handed over the list of the first 5,000 marked for death to the Indonesian murder squads and kept adding to it. The number of people assassinated is estimated at between 500,000 and 3 million.

I will google later, but two wrongs do not make a right.

[SSDR]

@Julian658,

"Slavery was universal in most civilizations in world history. The conquered served the conquerors. That has NOTHING to do with religion, that is just the flaw of MANKIND.

The so-called patriarchy or the hegemony of males is a byproduct of evolution. Men are larger, stronger, and more aggressive (testosterone).
Women were saddled with pregnancy, less aggression, and a smaller less powerful physique. This is called sexual dimorphism and that is how we evolved.
Blame evolution for the so called patriarchy. Note, how women are now equal to men since 1960. Why? Birth control pills!
In the past women were saddled with 6-8 children and had no chance to advance. Now they do not have to procreate and have better opportunities.

The family is also a byproduct of evolution. We are programmed to help those that share our genes. Most mammals follow this principle."

- Religion was an useful tool to keep slaves from rebelling against slavery. In some religions, like the oppressive Islam, Islam states that "those who run away from their slave owners, their prayers shall be ignored."

Women can do EVERYTHING that a man can do. But a man can't do everything a woman can do, and that is to give birth.



German construction labourer.



Romanian truck driver.




Soldiers.



These photographs are not current times, but they are a great tool to use against ANYONE who defends patriarchy, and the old family institution.

[Julian658]

@Julian658,

"Slavery was universal in most civilizations in world history. The conquered served the conquerors. That has NOTHING to do with religion, that is just the flaw of MANKIND.

The so-called patriarchy or the hegemony of males is a byproduct of evolution. Men are larger, stronger, and more aggressive (testosterone).
Women were saddled with pregnancy, less aggression, and a smaller less powerful physique. This is called sexual dimorphism and that is how we evolved.
Blame evolution for the so called patriarchy. Note, how women are now equal to men since 1960. Why? Birth control pills!
In the past women were saddled with 6-8 children and had no chance to advance. Now they do not have to procreate and have better opportunities.

The family is also a byproduct of evolution. We are programmed to help those that share our genes. Most mammals follow this principle."

- Religion was an useful tool to keep slaves from rebelling against slavery. In some religions, like the oppressive Islam, Islam states that "those who run away from their slave owners, their prayers shall be ignored."

Women can do EVERYTHING that a man can do. But a man can't do everything a woman can do, and that is to give birth.

Religion is a byproduct of society and hence reflected the common practice of slavery. BTW, the first people that opposed slavery
did so on religious grounds.

The birth control pill was the force that equalized the playing field. Before contraception women had 6-8 children and that made any advancement quite difficult.
Yes, women can do everything and they can bring life to the planet. This is something men cannot do. This is how we evolved. But, there was a price to pay. see above.

Humans are a dimorphic species because the male had to battle other males for the privilege of copulation. Therefore, nature selected bigger, stronger, and more aggressive males
to have sex with the female. And BTW,the female was programmed to mate with the strongest male.

Nowadays the male does not have to battle to have sex with the female so little wimpy men get to pass DNA to the next generation. Therefore the human sexual dimorphism will
become less and less with time. Men will become more docile and smaller in size.

In species without sexual dimorphism it is very hard to tell the males from the females.

Here is a male and female bird with no sexual dimorphism:


Here is sexual dimorphism:

[BigSteve]

[usermention=39424]Women can do EVERYTHING that a man can do. But a man can't do everything a woman can do, and that is to give birth.

You're wrong.

A woman cannot father a child...

[Truth To Power]

So you must be an anarchist? That would be the only way of preventing the government from giving away privilege.

I'd call myself a geolibertarian. Government is necessary to any society above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages, because a settled, productive economy requires secure, exclusive land tenure, which only government can confer. Yes, governments are imperfect, and often do the wrong thing. But I look at it like diet: there are lots of ways to have a bad diet, and only a few ways to follow a healthy, tasty, economical diet; but the problem of following a good diet is not solved by not eating at all. The verdict of history is absolutely clear on this point: just as a diet would have to be very bad indeed to be worse than starvation, a government has to be very bad indeed to be worse than no government.

By the way, I have to assume you do not believe in white privilege. Is that right?

Yes. IMO, white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, blah, blah, blah are all just distractions to divert people's attention from the REAL privileges that are actually oppressing them. One might refer to white advantage, male advantage, heterosexual advantage, but advantage is not the same as privilege. Advantage might arise from the predictable consequences of people's choices, or from luck, without violating anyone's rights; privilege inflicts harm on others by abrogating their rights, and is imposed by government force.

I can see how talented people without means may benefit from your scheme. But, how about the untalented? What can you do about those at the bottom?

First, restore their individual rights to liberty that privilege removed, or if that is not possible, require the privileged to make just compensation to the community of those whom their privileges harm. That would go a long way towards eliminating the worst of the extreme inequality and chronic poverty we see in advanced capitalist countries (I'm not suggesting for a moment that they don't occur in non-capitalist ones). I would certainly not advocate any kind of Procrustean forced leveling or "equality of outcome"; that's not justice. But the effect of privilege is that we are very far from securing everyone's equal rights and access to opportunity. If they had their rights to liberty back, very, very few people would need more help than that to live decent lives.