RIP Christopher Hitchens

[Seahawks08]

But did he do it in the name of atheism?

Aren't there jewish communes? Just askin'

Does it matter? D1B claimed that the greatest crimes against humanity were in Christian nations. All I'm saying is that isn't true since China is not a Christian nation and even the leader wasn't Christian.

[JoltinJoe]

There are a lot of holes in that opinion piece, most significantly that it does not distinguish individual atheism from collective (state) atheism.

Your next door neighbor can be atheist and be a fine, moral person and even enjoyable to be around because he doesn't drone on endlessly about how smarter, better, or whatever he is than you because he is an atheist. There are even a number of such fine moral persons on this board. That this atheist doesn't question the source of his morality too extensively may be even inconsequential. He's there when a giving hand is needed because, for some reason, it is the right thing to do.

What concerned Dostoyevsky, however, when he questioned whether without God, doesn't anything become possible, isn't that Dostoyevsky himself believed that anything could become possible. Instead, he was troubled that some nihilists would come to that conclusion, that being, without God as an objective source for morality, something else could take over and become that source for right or wrong.

He feared that if state communism ever took root, the atheist government would position itself as the center for what is right or wrong, and it would do so at the expense of the individual's right to dissent (because disloyalty to the state contravened what the atheist state declared to be "right"), the individual's right to practice religion (because the state would impose atheism), and would oppress anyone who did not conform to the state's dictation of what was right.

Dostoyevsky wrote in the late 1800s and he chillingly foresaw Stalin, Mao, et al. In his book The Possessed a/k/a The Demons, he wrote that, if state atheism ever removed God as the objective source of right or wrong, he feared 100,000,000 deaths in the coming century.

So I've got nothing against the individual atheist, but I will fight back when some posters here say that society should cast away religion as some superstitious remnant of a less reasoned era. History tells us that state atheism must be feared and defeated.

Moreover, it is a critical failure of the contemporary atheist that he refuses to deal with the brutal and repressive nature of state atheism. Witness the effort here to try to disassociate atheism from the horrendous deeds of Stalin and Mao. This is precisely why modern atheism is largely a dead philosophical movement.

[kalm]

But did he do it in the name of atheism?

Aren't there jewish communes? Just askin'

Does it matter? D1B claimed that the greatest crimes against humanity were in Christian nations. All I'm saying is that isn't true since China is not a Christian nation and even the leader wasn't Christian.

Authoritarianism transcends religion and culture.

[Grizalltheway]

There are a lot of holes in that opinion piece, most significantly that it does not distinguish individual atheism from collective (state) atheism.

Your next door neighbor can be atheist and be a fine, moral person and even enjoyable to be around because he doesn't drone on endlessly about how smarter, better, or whatever he is than you because he is an atheist. There are even a number of such fine moral persons on this board. That this atheist doesn't question the source of his morality too extensively may be even inconsequential. He's there when a giving hand is needed because, for some reason, it is the right thing to do.

What concerned Dostoyevsky, however, when he questioned whether without God, doesn't anything become possible, isn't that Dostoyevsky himself believed that anything could become possible. Instead, he was troubled that some nihilists would come to that conclusion, that being, without God as an objective source for morality, something else could take over and become that source for right or wrong.

He feared that if state communism ever took root, the atheist government would position itself as the center for what is right or wrong, and it would do so at the expense of the individual's right to dissent (because disloyalty to the state contravened what the atheist state declared to be "right"), the individual's right to practice religion (because the state would impose atheism), and would oppress anyone who did not conform to the state's dictation of what was right.

Dostoyevsky wrote in the late 1800s and he chillingly foresaw Stalin, Mao, et al. In his book The Possessed a/k/a The Demons, he wrote that, if state atheism ever removed God as the objective source of right or wrong, he feared 100,000,000 deaths in the coming century.

So I've got nothing against the individual atheist, but I will fight back when some posters here say that society should cast away religion as some superstitious remnant of a less reasoned era. History tells us that state atheism must be feared and defeated.

Moreover, it is a critical failure of the contemporary atheist that he refuses to deal with the brutal and repressive nature of state atheism. Witness the effort here to try to disassociate atheism from the horrendous deeds of Stalin and Mao. This is precisely why modern atheism is largely a dead philosophical movement.

Any kind of state sponsored "ism" has its perils.

[JoltinJoe]

There are a lot of holes in that opinion piece, most significantly that it does not distinguish individual atheism from collective (state) atheism.

Your next door neighbor can be atheist and be a fine, moral person and even enjoyable to be around because he doesn't drone on endlessly about how smarter, better, or whatever he is than you because he is an atheist. There are even a number of such fine moral persons on this board. That this atheist doesn't question the source of his morality too extensively may be even inconsequential. He's there when a giving hand is needed because, for some reason, it is the right thing to do.

What concerned Dostoyevsky, however, when he questioned whether without God, doesn't anything become possible, isn't that Dostoyevsky himself believed that anything could become possible. Instead, he was troubled that some nihilists would come to that conclusion, that being, without God as an objective source for morality, something else could take over and become that source for right or wrong.

He feared that if state communism ever took root, the atheist government would position itself as the center for what is right or wrong, and it would do so at the expense of the individual's right to dissent (because disloyalty to the state contravened what the atheist state declared to be "right"), the individual's right to practice religion (because the state would impose atheism), and would oppress anyone who did not conform to the state's dictation of what was right.

Dostoyevsky wrote in the late 1800s and he chillingly foresaw Stalin, Mao, et al. In his book The Possessed a/k/a The Demons, he wrote that, if state atheism ever removed God as the objective source of right or wrong, he feared 100,000,000 deaths in the coming century.

So I've got nothing against the individual atheist, but I will fight back when some posters here say that society should cast away religion as some superstitious remnant of a less reasoned era. History tells us that state atheism must be feared and defeated.

Moreover, it is a critical failure of the contemporary atheist that he refuses to deal with the brutal and repressive nature of state atheism. Witness the effort here to try to disassociate atheism from the horrendous deeds of Stalin and Mao. This is precisely why modern atheism is largely a dead philosophical movement.

Any kind of state sponsored "ism" has its perils.

I would agree with that. Our founders wisely rejected any effort to permit a state religion, while simultaneously guaranteeing freedom of religion.

But there is a documented historical risk that state atheism will justify any act to promote the interest of the state.

I commented on Dostoyevsky because the article made a reference to him which did not do him or his thoughts justice.

[kalm]

There are a lot of holes in that opinion piece, most significantly that it does not distinguish individual atheism from collective (state) atheism.

Your next door neighbor can be atheist and be a fine, moral person and even enjoyable to be around because he doesn't drone on endlessly about how smarter, better, or whatever he is than you because he is an atheist. There are even a number of such fine moral persons on this board. That this atheist doesn't question the source of his morality too extensively may be even inconsequential. He's there when a giving hand is needed because, for some reason, it is the right thing to do.

What concerned Dostoyevsky, however, when he questioned whether without God, doesn't anything become possible, isn't that Dostoyevsky himself believed that anything could become possible. Instead, he was troubled that some nihilists would come to that conclusion, that being, without God as an objective source for morality, something else could take over and become that source for right or wrong.

He feared that if state communism ever took root, the atheist government would position itself as the center for what is right or wrong, and it would do so at the expense of the individual's right to dissent (because disloyalty to the state contravened what the atheist state declared to be "right"), the individual's right to practice religion (because the state would impose atheism), and would oppress anyone who did not conform to the state's dictation of what was right.

Dostoyevsky wrote in the late 1800s and he chillingly foresaw Stalin, Mao, et al. In his book The Possessed a/k/a The Demons, he wrote that, if state atheism ever removed God as the objective source of right or wrong, he feared 100,000,000 deaths in the coming century.

So I've got nothing against the individual atheist, but I will fight back when some posters here say that society should cast away religion as some superstitious remnant of a less reasoned era. History tells us that state atheism must be feared and defeated.

Moreover, it is a critical failure of the contemporary atheist that he refuses to deal with the brutal and repressive nature of state atheism. Witness the effort here to try to disassociate atheism from the horrendous deeds of Stalin and Mao. This is precisely why modern atheism is largely a dead philosophical movement.

Atheism is not a shared belief system.

[AZGrizFan]

There are a lot of holes in that opinion piece, most significantly that it does not distinguish individual atheism from collective (state) atheism.

Your next door neighbor can be atheist and be a fine, moral person and even enjoyable to be around because he doesn't drone on endlessly about how smarter, better, or whatever he is than you because he is an atheist. There are even a number of such fine moral persons on this board. That this atheist doesn't question the source of his morality too extensively may be even inconsequential. He's there when a giving hand is needed because, for some reason, it is the right thing to do.

What concerned Dostoyevsky, however, when he questioned whether without God, doesn't anything become possible, isn't that Dostoyevsky himself believed that anything could become possible. Instead, he was troubled that some nihilists would come to that conclusion, that being, without God as an objective source for morality, something else could take over and become that source for right or wrong.

He feared that if state communism ever took root, the atheist government would position itself as the center for what is right or wrong, and it would do so at the expense of the individual's right to dissent (because disloyalty to the state contravened what the atheist state declared to be "right"), the individual's right to practice religion (because the state would impose atheism), and would oppress anyone who did not conform to the state's dictation of what was right.

Dostoyevsky wrote in the late 1800s and he chillingly foresaw Stalin, Mao, et al. In his book The Possessed a/k/a The Demons, he wrote that, if state atheism ever removed God as the objective source of right or wrong, he feared 100,000,000 deaths in the coming century.

So I've got nothing against the individual atheist, but I will fight back when some posters here say that society should cast away religion as some superstitious remnant of a less reasoned era. History tells us that state atheism must be feared and defeated.

Moreover, it is a critical failure of the contemporary atheist that he refuses to deal with the brutal and repressive nature of state atheism. Witness the effort here to try to disassociate atheism from the horrendous deeds of Stalin and Mao. This is precisely why modern atheism is largely a dead philosophical movement.

Atheism is not a shared belief system.

Yes it is.

[kalm]

Atheism is not a shared belief system.

Yes it is.

So the chinese, russkies, and cambodians were all 100% on board with it then.

[AZGrizFan]

Yes it is.

So the chinese, russkies, and cambodians were all 100% on board with it then.

Yep. 100%. Every single one of them. To a man.

[kalm]

So the chinese, russkies, and cambodians were all 100% on board with it then.

Yep. 100%. Every single one of them. To a man.

Well thank god they've changed their minds and are no longer killing by the millions.

[AZGrizFan]

Yep. 100%. Every single one of them. To a man.

Well thank god they've changed their minds and are no longer killing by the millions.

Exactly. Real humanitarians, those folks are. It's the atheist way.

[kalm]

Well thank god they've changed their minds and are no longer killing by the millions.

Exactly. Real humanitarians, those folks are. It's the atheist way.

A regular nation of DIB's they are.

[AZGrizFan]

Exactly. Real humanitarians, those folks are. It's the atheist way.

A regular nation of DIB's they are.

Precisely.

[JoltinJoe]

Yes it is.

So the chinese, russkies, and cambodians were all 100% on board with it then.

No ... but the ones who were really vocal about their opposition were sent to gulags and permitted to starve to death.

[kalm]

So the chinese, russkies, and cambodians were all 100% on board with it then.

No ... but the ones who were really vocal about their opposition were sent to gulags and permitted to starve to death.

And that is precisely my point.

[JoltinJoe]

Yep. 100%. Every single one of them. To a man.

Well thank god they've changed their minds and are no longer killing by the millions.

Yes, thank God for men like Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa ... religious men who helped to tear down the Iron Curtain.

BTW, kalm, do you see any irony/symbolism that a man that the KGB tried to assassinate because he was "dangerous" ultimately played a most critical role in bringing down that most brutal state -- completely peacefully?

When I was a kid, the thought of the Soviet Union melting away without firing a single shot in its own defense was unthinkable. Even today, it seems quite miraculous to those of us who remember the Soviet Union.

[JoltinJoe]

No ... but the ones who were really vocal about their opposition were sent to gulags and permitted to starve to death.

And that is precisely my point.

No, your point was that atheism was not a shared belief system.

I agreed with that. My point is that those who did not share that belief were sent to their deaths.

[AZGrizFan]

And that is precisely my point.

No, your point was that atheism was not a shared belief system.

I agreed with that. My point is that those who did not share that belief were sent to their deaths.

Which was a fairly big incentive to share the belief.

[kalm]

And that is precisely my point.

No, your point was that atheism was not a shared belief system.

I agreed with that. My point is that those who did not share that belief were sent to their deaths.

So it's pretty tough to blame this evil on atheism as a belief system isn't it?

[JoltinJoe]

No, your point was that atheism was not a shared belief system.

I agreed with that. My point is that those who did not share that belief were sent to their deaths.

Which was a fairly big incentive to share the belief.

True enough ... but many quietly still practiced and the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Catholic Church ultimately prevailed over their oppressors. (Not to get all kooky on you, but that was the second prediction of Fatima -- the conversion of the Russian state).

[kalm]

Well thank god they've changed their minds and are no longer killing by the millions.

Yes, thank God for men like Pope John Paul II and Lech Walesa ... religious men who helped to tear down the Iron Curtain.

BTW, kalm, do you see any irony/symbolism that a man that the KGB tried to assassinate because he was "dangerous" ultimately played a most critical role in bringing down that most brutal state -- completely peacefully?

When I was a kid, the thought of the Soviet Union melting away without firing a single shot in its own defense was unthinkable. Even today, it seems quite miraculous to those of us who remember the Soviet Union.

Well that's how it works out sometimes. I also see the irony that Walesa would be considered a pinko/commie union sympathizer in today's America.

[JoltinJoe]

No, your point was that atheism was not a shared belief system.

I agreed with that. My point is that those who did not share that belief were sent to their deaths.

So it's pretty tough to blame this evil on atheism as a belief system isn't it?

It was THE belief system of the state and those who controlled it.

It is easy to blame state (collective) atheism. It was, in fact, THE cause.

[kalm]

So it's pretty tough to blame this evil on atheism as a belief system isn't it?

It was THE belief system of the state and those who controlled it.

It is easy to blame state (collective) atheism. It was, in fact, THE cause.

No, it was the actions of a crazy few who took control. Assholes transcend belief or lack thereof.

[JoltinJoe]

It was THE belief system of the state and those who controlled it.

It is easy to blame state (collective) atheism. It was, in fact, THE cause.

No, it was the actions of a crazy few who took control. ******* transcend belief or lack thereof.

George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[AZGrizFan]

It was THE belief system of the state and those who controlled it.

It is easy to blame state (collective) atheism. It was, in fact, THE cause.

No, it was the actions of a crazy few who took control. Assholes transcend belief or lack thereof.

I believe this.

Douche1Bag does not. In D1B's mind If they're atheist mass murderers, that's ok. If they follow any religion and are mass murderers, they're the devil.