Nerdfighters

Before we begin, let me make something clear. This is NOT about the content of Atheism, this is about the conduct shown at this event.

This is really quite upsetting...

The "Reason Rally" the largest public organised event for atheists ever held, is proving to be the worst example of the excesses of the "new" atheism

Firstly, although they happily welcome the people from the Westborough Baptist Church to come along and engage with them, the organisers have said to the people of Ratio Christi "Make no mistake - you are not welcome at the rally". This is classic strawman. I can completely understand the desire of the atheists organising the event to not want to do a debate, but you can't have it both ways. You can't invite the crazies to make yourself look good and then deny the moderates.

 

Secondly, this

In his brief address, Dawkins encouraged fellow atheists to ridicule those who claim to be religious.

Exemplifying how he would approach religious persons, Dawkins said, "Do you really believe, for example if they're Catholic, that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ?"

"Mock them, ridicule them in public," he urged. "Don't fall for the convention that we're all too polite to talk about religion."

Making fun? Mocking? Really? This is acceptable behaviour? This is ENCOURAGED behaviour?

Thirdly, as part of their advertising campaign, the rally quoted Collossians 3:22 completely out of the broader context of the passage, trying to imply that the Bible was supportive of the slavery seen in the New World, with pictures of African slaves in neck chains.

Is this really acceptable. This, at the largest atheist event in the world ever held? This, at the event to show the world that its okay to be an atheist?

If you've been on this forum for any significant length of time, you know my position on matters of religion, but I have known plenty of passionate, engaging and incredibly polite and reasonable atheists on this forum. This isn't what I am seeing in this event.

Surely you would agree that this kind of thing isn't what atheism should be about.

Views: 1093

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think that it is really wise to expect that the Atheist community as a whole would condemn the actions/words of Richard Dawkins. He holds extremist viewpoints just like Christians that I know and are related to


I think if he attends the largest public event ever held for atheists, and writes one of the most popular books about atheism, then it is reasonable to call him a "leader" in the community. Extremists are on the fringe, Dawkins seems to be at the centre of the new Athiest movement.

unfortunately atheism has its extremists too... to clarify yes as an Atheist i condemn this. 

Forgive the length of this response.

I’m afraid I cannot condemn Richard Dawkins’ words.
 

This discussion is symptomatic of his wider point; Religion cannot be criticised in ‘polite society’, no matter how ridiculous* its assertions are, due to a disproportionate respect within society. Dawkins gives the example of when people say they call themselves a Christian in England they say so because they ‘like to think of themselves as a good person.’

*The idea that a wafer literally being the body of Christ, or wine literally being his blood, is ridiculous. People can, and do, argue all day about which bits of religion are ridiculous or not, and many religious people respond by saying ‘well it isn’t supposed to be believed literally,’ forgetting to add ‘[because it is ridiculous].’

If someone were to advocate a position that is clearly untrue in the realm of politics, economics, history or physics, most people would mock them. Why, when it comes to religion do we not have the same rules? It’s because religion holds an authoritative, traditional place within our society. So as I see it, the point of the ‘new atheism’ is to challenge this authority that religion holds at large. There are many more atheists than the ‘extremists’ who shout out, but they are conditioned not to, are afraid to, because society demands respect for religion - sometimes regardless of its content.

The reaction here, of atheists too, show how far this respect for religious belief has permeated society – ‘I am a non-believer and I find supernatural belief ridiculous but thinking it and [acting] on it are two different things.’ It is sad, that people do think things to be ridiculous but are unable to criticise because the of the backlash that will come, and we’re still only talking about a social reaction, straying from social politeness, being considering a nasty person, being ostracised as ‘the atheist extremist’ – not physical threats or violence, which do come.

I also take exception to Richard Dawkins being called an extremist. Actually, scratch that, because it’s a fantastic juxtaposition; the extreme atheists, (Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) are considered extreme for being abrasive, blunt and ridiculing their opposition. The extreme side of religion is called so because it advocates violence, death and destruction to their opposition.

The extreme side of atheism wants to challenge belief and separate it from the state. The extreme side of religion wants no questions asked and to synthesise state power and religious organisation.

What was I supposed to be condemning again?

We live in an intellectually curious and rapidly expanding world, constantly pushing the boundaries to discover the edge, should there be one. People should be free to believe whatever they wish if they keep it to themselves, but if they wish to express that belief’s validity in public, and I would assume you would if you do believe it, then you should be prepared to justify it. This is why you see visible indignation and anger from Atheists about being unable to say what they think or to challenge what others think.

 

 

I have taken so much time on this point, that I barely have time to talk about the letter and invitation of the WBC. It’s a piece of political manipulation of Machiavellian character. It should indeed be condemned as predictable, bland and avoiding the challenge.. but as I understand it that isn’t the point of the rally. So it find this to be only media manipulation by the organisers.

I’m afraid I cannot condemn Richard Dawkins’ words.

I think you don't understand the nature of transubstantiation, if you think it is as absurd as you seem to believe. It is much more complex than the wine literally turning. Here's some quotes on the subject.

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of wheat bread and grape wine changes into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus while all that is accessible to the senses (the appearances - species in Latin) remains as before…"Substance" here means what something is in itself. A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.


You might not agree with the belief, but unless you have some kind of evidence that the supernatural does not exist, you cannot and should not ridicule this belief.

You can disagree, you just should not ridicule.

Firstly, I will address the things that actually dealt with my point, and then the distraction.

"You might not agree with the belief, but unless you have some kind of evidence that the supernatural does not exist, you cannot and should not ridicule this belief."

There are 2 points to this.
First you claim the privileged position of religious belief again. Why can it not be ridiculed if one finds it ridiculous? If I believe I am a Unicorn - does that not deserve ridicule? It is only because it is religious that ridicule and criticism is objected to. That is the whole point.

Secondly "Unless you have some kind of evidence that the supernatural does not exist." If every proposition requires proof that it is NOT true, and you believe it until it is proven so, then you must believe in every deity that is written about. The idea that you cannot disprove something so you must believe it is nonsense. It is ridiculous because you would have to believe so many contradictory things simply because they cannot be disproved. That position does not make sense.


Now to the distraction, a common accusation thrown by both sides in these kinds of debates; "You don't understand..."

If Transubstantiation is not that what I described in my previous post, then that is not what I find ridiculous. I didn't even use the word Transubstantiation. I do find the idea of wafer and wine literally being Jesus ridiculous, but I've met people who say they believe that so I know what Dawkins is talking about. The ridiculous stuff is ridiculous. Claim whatever you like as above me, out of my irreligious understanding or whatever. It only shows an avoidance of the actual topic, and considering you criticise the setting up of straw men in your original post, it seems hypocritical of you to do so now. I will take it as ridicule of my post.


What I am really interested in is the power of religion in the world that really matters; this one. I would not wish social or political dominance of beliefs to remain unquestioned. Regardless of whether they are religious or not. 

Tradition, offence and popularity are not reasons for why you shouldn't ridicule something. Perhaps it can be impolite, quite hurtful at times, offensive even, but we do not have a right to NOT be offended. Let people behave as they wish within the law, let those who ridicule to do so, and hold your own debate and beliefs with those you should wish to. I wouldn't like to offend anyone, but I also wouldn't wish to restrict free speech of anyone either. Criticism of religion should be allowed, because criticism of anything should be allowed.

The reason I cannot condemn Dawkins' words is because he is opposing this huge social pressure to conform to and NOT to criticise religious sensibility and authority. You may not agree with him, you may be offended by him. But he can ridicule anyone he likes. You will undoubtedly judge him as he judges you, but I really don't think it was meant maliciously.

First you claim the privileged position of religious belief again. Why can it not be ridiculed if one finds it ridiculous?



Ridicule is name calling. You can simply say "I don't believe". It has reasons, you might disagree with them, but it isn't without reason, therefore is not worthy of ridicule.


Secondly "Unless you have some kind of evidence that the supernatural does not exist." If every proposition requires proof that it is NOT true, and you believe it until it is proven so, then you must believe in every deity that is written about.


The point I was making is that the belief is not of the level of absurdity requiring ridicule. Ridicule is reserved for something very differnt. Something logically contradictory, something fudimentally impossible etc, that's what you have to ridicule. This isn't the case with this belief.

Tradition, offence and popularity are not reasons for why you shouldn't ridicule something


No, I agree. But that isn't the reason. The reason you shouldn't ridicule it is because it has reasons. You may not agree with them, but they have reasons. And unless you can demonstrate them as being actually impossible, all you can do is disagree.

You will undoubtedly judge him as he judges you, but I really don't think it was meant maliciously.


I don't really see that. He encouraged people to publicly ridicule others. If that's not malicious, I don't know what is.

You can simply say "I don't believe". It has reasons, you might disagree with them, but it isn't without reason, therefore is not worthy of ridicule.

 

There could be any number of reasons why a person might believe they are a unicorn. That does not mean it is not ridiculous. Without being able to prove it to someone else, without having a good reason for believing it, it really doesn't matter about any other reasons such as; tradition, preference, comfort, popularity or desire. Lots of cultures have very silly secular traditions - doesn't make them not ridiculous.

This strange belief that you can be diametrically opposed in beliefs but not allowed to ridicule something is the worst kind of political correct, self-congratulatory culture that has spread around. Conflict of ideas breeds progress. The only reason to stifle debate, discussion and criticism is to maintain the status quo - or in other words, religion's privaledged position within society. Sometimes criticism does degenerate into full blown ridicule and contempt, but that is a necessary evil of having free speech and lively, passionate discussion across such a wide collection of people.

The only reason that religions in general have to adopt this new position of 'anyone can believe whatever they like' (Or 'live and let live') with non-belief is because it has been pushed back by those who demand evidence and reason be allowed their share in society. Imagine this kind of 'new atheism' 100 years, or even 50 years ago? Furthermore imagine what 'the moderate' would have believed 100 or 50 years ago.



Something logically contradictory, something fudimentally impossible etc, that's what you have to ridicule.

I don't know about have to ridicule, but I agree that those are the sort of things that if pointed out to be contradictory, impossible etc.. and still believed by people, will probably be ridiculed by those trying to reason with them. And your view here points out that it is exactly not the ridicule of something ridiculous that you object to, but rather you feel that religious belief, perhaps Transubstantiation, is not ridiculous.

In other words, it is not the action of ridiculing others you object to, but that religion has been ridiculed. As I have stated in every post, people should be free to say and ridicule whatever they like. Furthermore you said ‘have to’ ridicule. I’m interested in what you mean by this. Do you mean you should ridicule people with logically contradictory, fundamentally impossible beliefs? Because then surely, your position is not different from Dawkins? Except as I pointed out, you disagree on what is contradictory and impossible.



He encouraged people to publicly ridicule others. If that's not malicious, I don't know what is.

Perhaps I should give you a quick few facts about religious maliciousness then?
How does, raising the money for the Sistine Chapel from special sale of indulgences sound? (That is, promises for time out of purgatory for money)
How does burning people at the stake for reading the bible in English instead of Latin sound? (As Sir Thomas Moore did, a long time ago I know, but he was only canonised in 1935!)
How does the current Pope telling people that condoms spread AIDS/HIV sound?


And never mind about the other examples spread throughout this thread. But perhaps all these acts are not those of 'moderate practitioners.' Well, I disagree but let's accept that point for one moment. Because what is malicious, is trying to restrict what people can say about certain organisations, about certain beliefs, about certain people. Let the debate flow and you have a thriving society. To stifle debate and restrict speech is the malicious act. And this is exactly what is happening! Is anyone encouraged to criticise, or should I say allowed to criticise religious belief? No. Society is encouraged not to do so. Being discouraged from criticism is much more malicious than ridiculing something.

There could be any number of reasons why a person might believe they are a unicorn. That does not mean it is not ridiculous.


It would depend upon the exact nature of their belief. Something that you don't seem to appreciate.


This strange belief that you can be diametrically opposed in beliefs but not allowed to ridicule something is the worst kind of political correct, self-congratulatory culture that has spread around.


No, it isn't. You can disagree, point out the flaws, but ridicule is something fundamentally unkind.


Conflict of ideas breeds progress.


Ridicule =/= Conflict of ideas. Debate = conflict of ideas. A debate that the athiests seem to be loosing, what with worldwide growth in religion, and the unwillingness of many atheists to debate leading religious academics.

Perhaps I should give you a quick few facts about religious maliciousness then?
How does, raising the money for the Sistine Chapel from special sale of indulgences sound? (That is, promises for time out of purgatory for money)
How does burning people at the stake for reading the bible in English instead of Latin sound? (As Sir Thomas Moore did, a long time ago I know, but he was only canonised in 1935!)


Poor debating. Shall I bring up the communists and the Nazis as athiests doing horrible things. The past isn't what I am arguing about. I am talking about NOW. 

Also, you are dodging the arguemnt. Do you accept such a thing is malicous or not.

How does the current Pope telling people that condoms spread AIDS/HIV sound?

Proof? All I see is that he said it was not the best way to solve the problem. That's his opinion. I don't agree, but I don't see him saying that condom's will actively make it worse, except in so far as the myth spreads that condoms are 100% effective at stopping the spread of HIV.

Let the debate flow and you have a thriving society. To stifle debate and restrict speech is the malicious act.


I have no problem with debate. I have a problem with ridicule.


Is anyone encouraged to criticise, or should I say allowed to criticise religious belief? No.


Erm, I see no law stopping you. You will probably be criticised for doing so, but that's free speech.


Society is encouraged not to do so. Being discouraged from criticism is much more malicious than ridiculing something.



Because religion is, at its heart, a good thing. And people hold it dear. So you can examine it, and criticise it in an accademic context, but outright ridicule is unkind.

It would depend upon the exact nature of their belief. Something that you don't seem to appreciate.

What am I missing then? Don’t go to the trouble of telling me I’m wrong and not pointing out in what way.

 

You can disagree, point out the flaws, but ridicule is something fundamentally unkind.

You didn’t seem to care about that when you said in your previous post that you have to ridicule something that is logically contradictory and fundamentally impossible. You avoid this point.

 

Ridicule =/= Conflict of ideas.

Indeed, but the wider point was that ridicule is always part of the conflict of ideas, and furthermore ridicule of authority is a very important conflict of ideas. If something is so good, and so true – then ridicule will have no basis upon which to undermine it. I suspect this is why religions are keen to stamp it out.

 

Poor debating. Shall I bring up the communists and the Nazis as athiests doing horrible things. [?]

Communism and Nazism do not require, and received no benefit from, Atheism. Hitler was a Roman Catholic and on many occasions professed the ‘Christianess’ of Nazism, also do look up the Reichskonkordat that Hitler and the Pope signed trading the dissolution of the Catholic Centre party in Germany for Catholic schools being allowed in Germany.

Although Stalin was in fact an atheist – was he motivated by his atheism to be the brutal autocrat he was? Did his atheism aid him in any way? There is no evidence that this is the case. Furthermore nobody gained more from the Russian Orthodox Church being resurrected than Stalin himself!

So I’m not sure what terrible things you are talking about, and I find the accusation that Atheism was responsible for the horrors of Nazism and Communism to be a base and low accusation based not in fact, but in desperation and prejudice. Nevertheless, you claim the past doesn’t matter so why did you bring it up?

 

The past isn't what I am arguing about. I am talking about NOW.

Apart from you would not be talking about it now if there wasn’t a rich history and tradition sprawling behind our lifetimes. How near to ‘now’ should my evidence be? Only from the reason rally onwards, or does today’s pope suffice? I chose a range of examples from time, but as I said, there are many better examples in this thread already.

 

Also, you are dodging the arguemnt. Do you accept such a thing is malicous or not.

HA. You acuse me of dodging the argument when you have not answered or even addressed many of my points! Or even some of your own. (EG; that you think it fine to ridicule people who hold logically contradictory and fundamentally impossible beliefs, but then complain when someone does exactly that. A position I should point out is in itself, logically contradictory.)

Also, I would have thought it obvious from my first post, where I juxtapose the ‘extremeness’ of Dawkins who is calling for ridicule and being abrasive to that of a religious extremist who uses threats, coercion and violence. I also deal with the point in my last post – obviously I do not think ridicule is malicious, nor this calling for it. What this does show, if the extreme twisting of logic and perspective religious apologists must employ- Ridicule is malicious – but call them out on anything malicious done for religious purpose and you get either ‘The past isn't what I am arguing about’ or you get asked for proof!

Proof?

‘The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". ‘

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

 

I have no problem with debate. I have a problem with ridicule.

No you don’t. You even call for it, and ignore that you did so. You object to ridicule of your beliefs.

 

Erm, I see no law stopping you. You will probably be criticised for doing so, but that's free speech.

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

Thankfully abolished by 2008. But only thanks to advances away from religious thought in society, perhaps evidence against your hypothesis that ‘atheism is losing.’ Also, I’m aware that the past doesn’t matter to you, so sorry for bringing up something irrelevant.

 

Because religion is, at its heart, a good thing.

Opinion. And besides, this is your response to society being discouraged from criticism? As Nietzsche said, 'convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.'

 

And people hold it dear.

If it is so dear, why is it not an entirely private matter? One that does not inform public policy or debate, that would be fine. If I had something I did not want scrutinised or ridiculed I would keep it out of the public domain.

 

I feel I have answered your points over and over, yet you have not answered mine. I feel I have said enough on the subject, as I doubt either of us will budge. Thanks for the discussion but I feel you are too set in your ways to be open on this. Although, I’m not sure what I excepted with a provocative title such as “atheists please condemn this.” To reiterate; No I won’t.

Ridicule is malicious – but call them out on anything malicious done for religious purpose and you get either ‘The past isn't what I am arguing about’ or you get asked for proof!


Please show me where I claimed that religious people were perfect. Of course religious people have done malicious things in the past. But the examples you are talking about are massively out of date and irrelevent to the discussion, so I see no reasoning behind why you brought them up.

‘The pontiff, speaking to journalists on his flight, said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".


Yes, and I answered that. The pope believes that condom's exagerate the problem because of the myth that spreads with them that they are 100% effective in the prevention of HIV/AIDS spreading.


What am I missing then? Don’t go to the trouble of telling me I’m wrong and not pointing out in what way.


I already explained about how you were wrong about transubstantiation.

You didn’t seem to care about that when you said in your previous post that you have to ridicule something that is logically contradictory and fundamentally impossible. You avoid this point.


I thought it was clear. Someone who literally was saying black is white clearly needs ridicule, because simply saying they are wrong isn't enough. However, religion is more complex than that. To simply say it is "wrong" to the exent that it should be ridiculed is inacurate. Debate, discuss, criticise, but ridicule is fundamentally wrong.

Indeed, but the wider point was that ridicule is always part of the conflict of ideas, and furthermore ridicule of authority is a very important conflict of ideas. If something is so good, and so true – then ridicule will have no basis upon which to undermine it. I suspect this is why religions are keen to stamp it out.

Religion's do not want to "stamp out" ridicule. They just don't want it to happen.  No one likes being mocked. Religious people are quite happy to enter into debate (more so than many athiests) however, they don't like being laughed at. There are very few religious movements that want to use legal force to stomp out anyone saying anything bad about religion. Although curiously, there are several atheists who want to stop at nothing to prevent the government saying positive things about religion.


Communism and Nazism do not require, and received no benefit from, Atheism. Hitler was a Roman Catholic and on many occasions professed the ‘Christianess’ of Nazism


Check again. The following are all quotes from Hitler. He might have liked to talk things up in public, but...

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure"

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together"

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is  Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity"

"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea."

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity."

"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>."


Although Stalin was in fact an atheist – was he motivated by his atheism to be the brutal autocrat he was? Did his atheism aid him in any way? There is no evidence that this is the case.


False. The fundimental logic behind communisim is that man is the most developed and logical being, and that the state is the arm by which this logic is carried out. Athiesm is a central pillar of communism because it eliminates the idea of an external authority against which the individual or the state shall be judged.


Nevertheless, you claim the past doesn’t matter so why did you bring it up?


In response to you bringing up medievialism, which you did as a knee jerk reaction.

If it is so dear, why is it not an entirely private matter? One that does not inform public policy or debate, that would be fine. If I had something I did not want scrutinised or ridiculed I would keep it out of the public domain.


Scrutiny is fine, ridicule is not. Unless someone is saying that black is white, ridicule is not apt as part of public debate.

You consistently refuse to answer my points in any detail, except when you veer way off topic into misdirection, or you set up straw men. There are a few things which annoyed me so much I must comment on.

There is no myth that condoms are 100% effective, using condoms is one of the most successful ways of not getting HIV, along with abstinence. To pretend that the Pope was pointing this out instead of saying that condoms exacerbated the problem is a complete lie.

Hitler’s views on Christianity were complex and varied a lot over his political career. He also said that Jesus was a brilliant man who stood up to the Jews. Either way he never did the things he did because he was an Atheist and to pretend that he did is again, a gross falsification. Hitler and the Nazi party had a strong anti-clericalism in its earlier days, but when it came to choosing whether to pursue the unsuccessful road of trying to replace the Christian faith with a Nazi faith or work with the established churches - he decided to work closely with the established religions.

The Bolsheviks did spend a lot of effort trying to rid Soviet Russia of religion and promoting atheism in a very violent manner. However it was not Stalin’s Atheism that drove these actions but his political ideology of Communism, where religion (and especially religious property) were viewed as part of the Tsarist regime. Stalin personally revived the Russian Orthodox Church during World War 2 as a patriotic institution. Atheism is not the ‘fundamental’ logic behind Bolshevism / Leninism or Communism. In fact the Vangaurd Party is developed exactly because ‘class consciousness’ had not developed enough.

Athiesm is a central pillar of communism because it eliminates the idea of an external authority against which the individual or the state shall be judged.

Now this is a ridiculous accusation. You act as if the whole reason Communism is opposed to religion is because it removes the idea of an external authority. There is no evidence to back this assertion up. Nevermind that it is laden with your morality that Man needs an ‘external authority’ to judge the state and individual. This is a position I find offensive. And your blatant misrepresentation of History for this discussion is deplorable.

There is no myth that condoms are 100% effective, using condoms is one of the most successful ways of not getting HIV, along with abstinence. To pretend that the Pope was pointing this out instead of saying that condoms exacerbated the problem is a complete lie.


There IS a myth in that regard across Africa, because in many circumstances, people lack full education on that point. If you do your research, you notice that the pope, in your article, did not explain why he thought condoms caused the problem. The myth issue is one that is well known.

Hitler’s views on Christianity were complex and varied a lot over his political career.



Nice save, so you now retract your "Hitler was a Roman Catholic" argument. Hitler was not religious at all. He may have occasionally talked about it to seem like a member of the wider population, but after 1935, his speeches show a marked drop in usage of it.

The Bolsheviks did spend a lot of effort trying to rid Soviet Russia of religion and promoting atheism in a very violent manner. However it was not Stalin’s Atheism that drove these actions but his political ideology of Communism, where religion (and especially religious property) were viewed as part of the Tsarist regime.


Yes, but his athiesm legitimised these actions, in that communisim proclaimed that the individual, being the most rational of actors, ultimately had no one else to answer to. I am arguing that his athiesm permitted the actions.

Now this is a ridiculous accusation. You act as if the whole reason Communism is opposed to religion is because it removes the idea of an external authority.



No. I act as if Communisim's objection to religion is because it regards the individual as the highest authority, which it does.

You consistently refuse to answer my points in any detail,


Pot, meet kettle.

RSS

Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service