Hilter/Stalin/Mao/Marx & atheism?

[a-train]

Only communism and socialism came a century later and were not directly advocated nor attempted by participants in the Enlightenment.
-a-train

I didn't say that communism and socialism were invented by Enlightenment participants.  I said the Enlightenment made it possible to develop socialist thinking, just like it made it possible to develop pro-capitalist thinking.

Enlightenment thinkers didn't just create the groundwork for free-market economies.  They overthrew government mercantilism and replaced it with free markets.

-a-train

[Existentialist]

Only communism and socialism came a century later and were not directly advocated nor attempted by participants in the Enlightenment.
-a-train

I didn't say that communism and socialism were invented by Enlightenment participants.  I said the Enlightenment made it possible to develop socialist thinking, just like it made it possible to develop pro-capitalist thinking.

Enlightenment thinkers didn't just create the groundwork for free-market economies.  They overthrew government mercantilism and replaced it with free markets.

-a-train

You said the Enlightenment 'discovered', "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people."  My challenging this meant that I do not think this was actually an Enlightenment 'discovery' in the same sense as a discovery of a scientific fact like the laws of gravity.  It is not a physical truth that we must all live by.  You may not have meant this, but it is the wording you used, and I disagreed with it.  

I'm sorry now I'm off out for a few days.  See you in a while.

[a-train]

You said the Enlightenment 'discovered', "the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people."  My challenging this meant that I do not think this was actually an Enlightenment 'discovery' in the same sense as a discovery of a scientific fact like the laws of gravity.  It is not a physical truth that we must all live by.  You may not have meant this, but it is the wording you used, and I disagreed with it.  

I'm sorry now I'm off out for a few days.  See you in a while.

Understood, and I acknowledged that not everyone will agree that this was a "discovery".  I gave the example of the conservatives who opposed liberalism.  But to those that disagree I point to the dramatic difference in the standard of living for the average citizen of states with free enterprise economies and those living in controlled economies.

-a-train

[hackenslash]

In view of this and your previous foul comment to me in another thread, I think you're on the wrong website for the type of relationship you're looking for.  Anyone who thinks a member of this forum must compulsorily participate to the masochistic side of the type of relationship you seem to be looking for has missed the point of why people are asked to show civility.  It's not the first time in your case.  I can assure you this is the last comment I will be posting to you in this thread.   Goodbye.

I've showed you nothing but civility. Your nonsense, however, is a different matter. You really don't want to see incvility.

Having said that, the entire reason I post in the way I do is that it sorts out the wheat from the chaff. See, it's clear that you're notactually interested in addressing why you're wrong, or discussing it in any way. You only want to support your previously held conclusions. In that light, giving you the get-out clause that you have apparently taken is just another way for me to ensure that I am only dealing with people who are actually interested in learning. If you can't separate yourself from your arguments, and recognise that comments levelled at your posts are not levelled at you, and more importantly, if you're interested in addressing your errors, then I'm really not interested in discussion with you. Indeed, I never really was interested in discussion with you unless you showed a willingness to learn. All my post were aimed at the onlookers, as is always the case.

BTW, you should recognise what a foul comment actually is, and perhaps familiarise yourself with Goldenmane's Third Rule Of Public Discourse. You might find it educational.

[Ultima22689]

Guess he didn't understand what a snide ass was either, those semantics and intellectual gymnastics he argues with are rather annoying.

Existentalist, if you want to participate on these forums you need to be a whole lot more mature than that,  Sandwich has been nothing but civil, there is a reason you got a warning over him, I suggest you change your attitude quickly if you want to remain on this forum yourself.

[Existentialist]

Guess he didn't understand what a snide ass was either, those semantics and intellectual gymnastics he argues with are rather annoying.

Existentalist, if you want to participate on these forums you need to be a whole lot more mature than that,  Sandwich has been nothing but civil, there is a reason you got a warning over him, I suggest you change your attitude quickly if you want to remain on this forum yourself.

Thanks Ultima22689.  Just on a point of fact, I wasn't aware that I had received a 'warning' that has any status in the rule-enforcement process of the forum.  Please could you or anyone point me to this so that I can make representations and defend myself.  I certainly wouldn't want to participate in a forum that requires me to debate with someone using the bullying model of argument I have referred to above.  Thank you.

I am afraid I am on my holidays till Sunday so I am on a time-limited computer at the moment.  I regret I do not therefore have time at the moment to add any further to the substance of the actual topic that this thread is about.  Please feel free to post something on-topic in my absence so I can respond on the subject on my return.  Thanks.

[Ultima22689]

Guess he didn't understand what a snide ass was either, those semantics and intellectual gymnastics he argues with are rather annoying.

Existentalist, if you want to participate on these forums you need to be a whole lot more mature than that,  Sandwich has been nothing but civil, there is a reason you got a warning over him, I suggest you change your attitude quickly if you want to remain on this forum yourself.

Thanks Ultima22689.  Just on a point of fact, I wasn't aware that I had received a 'warning' that has any status in the rule-enforcement process of the forum.  Please could you or anyone point me to this so that I can make representations and defend myself.  I certainly wouldn't want to participate in a forum that requires me to debate with someone using the bullying model of argument I have referred to above.  Thank you.

I am afraid I am on my holidays till Sunday so I am on a time-limited computer at the moment.  I regret I do not therefore have time at the moment to add any further to the substance of the actual topic that this thread is about.  Please feel free to post something on-topic in my absence so I can respond on the subject on my return.  Thanks.

In the last thread you got into a spat with Legendary Sandwich. I must apologize as I won't go looking to link said thread or quote said post as I don't think it's my job to go about quoting mod warnings out of fear that I may dig myself a hole.  There has only been one thread where you've had a similar discussion with Legendarysandwich, unless i'm mistaken, I suggest you start there if you would like to find out what i'm referring to, good luck to you, you're too intelligent to be lumped up with the rest of those who fall in bad favor on these forums, do think about the things said. I don't dislike you nor am I or anyone else trying to goad you into these type of conversations however I can guarantee you that carrying on in such  a condescending manner that you've previously displayed isn't going to do you well in conversation on this forum.  LegendarySandwich, myself and many others on the forum will speak with crude humor and/or language however we never personally attack people in such a manner and that is why we're still here. With all due respect, if you can't deal with "colorful" language on this forum, which is one of the most hospitable i've seen, then you would do well to learn to accept it or abandon internet forums altogether.

[Ken2468]

Hitler was born and raised Catholic, but never practiced the faith as an adult.

Stalin was indeed an atheist, though he did attend seminary school as a young man and was planning to be a priest.

My position on the matter is as follows:

I reject ANY supreme authority / supervisory figure in which there can be no dissent and whose rules one must follow on threat of punishment. Thus, I reject any "God", not only because I don't believe in such a being or his representative on earth (hello Pope), but also because religions / religious books outline rules one must follow (often ridiculous and/or immoral ones at that) without question. Similarly, totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China played a similar game: There is a supreme authority figure, you must obey his rules/commands, you can't question this authority or voice dissent lest you be punished, executed, etc. Totalitarian regimes have this in common with religious ones, and I reject all of them.

I would suggest people consider reading the secular advice of men like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Baruch Spinoza re. how a society could function without the need for belief in a supernatural being. If such a secular society (full of atheists) follows the advice of these men yet descends into chaos, violence, persecution, and ruin, then I'll consider the theist argument that only a society based on Christian or Jewish principles can succeed / be free / be moral, etc.

[a-train]

If such a secular society (full of atheists) follows the advice of these men yet descends into chaos, violence, persecution, and ruin, then I'll consider the theist argument that only a society based on Christian or Jewish principles can succeed / be free / be moral, etc.

Even that would be no evidence that the theistic morality has any merit.  In order for man to make any use of morals he must follow them.  If dishonesty and self-deceit can be considered moral, then man is doomed anyway.  It is imperative that man understand the universe as it is and use that knowledge to accomplish his ends, or else he cannot accomplish them.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -Francis Bacon, Novum Organum

-a-train

[hvargas]

These historical figures were not atheist by their up bringings. Marx may have been closer to being an atheist at a later time in his life but not as a boy. The rest just knew how to get to the masses. Religious fanatics do used them from time to time as examples of the worst of criminals. But, were these the worst of criminals? History saids that more than 90% of all wars is due to religious beliefs, so the very worst criminal is religion ( religious beliefs ). Some just want to clean themselves and their religious beliefs with historical figures such as these.

[AnimatedDirt]

These historical figures were not atheist by their up bringings. Marx may have been closer to being an atheist at a later time in his life but not as a boy.

Because that's when it counts as true Atheism.

[hvargas]

When you entered the minds of so called historical political thinkers you find hidden agendas which they keep away from their followers. Their transitions periods are noted much later in life just as they are about to leave this physical world. There are no true atheist or whatever in this world. They are all attached one way or another with an inhereted gene that has evolved deep within each individual according to their particular race and family. Since religion is mark with the blood of the innocents and not innocents it looks outside as to compare and say that such figures as Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Marx were the worst killers of history. The true of the matter is that both religious and political leaders throughout the history of the world had been the destroyers of LIFE. There is not one that is worst then the other or more atheist or less. In their last day they are saying something to this effect -- " dear god forgive me all of my sins ", they say this in their silent mind just in case. Now, what will you say in your last day of this life ?

[Ken2468]

In their last day they are saying something to this effect -- " dear god forgive me all of my sins ", they say this in their silent mind just in case. Now, what will you say in your last day of this life ?

Are you referring to "Pascal's Wager" here? Pascal's Wager is the idea that believing in God is a no-lose proposition (If you believe in God and are wrong, you are no worse off. But if you believe in God and are right, you hit the jackpot of enternal life in heaven, so it's best to believe).

If a person does this, it seems to me they would be doing it for their own self-interest and not due to a genuine belief in God or a desire to lead a life of good works (or a "deathbed conversion" after a life of not following what Jesus asks of you). If so, a God who can read minds (eg. silent prayer) should easily be able to know what your thoughts are and I suspect he would likely take this into consideration when sitting in judgement of you after you died. Further, I think a God would have much more respect for an atheist stating he was just being honest with himself in not believing vs. a "Christian" who believed / did good works / made a deathbed conversion for the sole purpose of getting themselves admitted into heaven after they died if such a place does indeed exist.

[Whitney]

" dear god forgive me all of my sins ", they say this in their silent mind just in case. Now, what will you say in your last day of this life ?

In case you can't figure it out, AD is not an atheist  :blink:

[a-train]

Btw, thanks for giving me a good laugh with that no true atheist comment; I always think it is funny when someone claims to psychically know what others are thinking.  

Don't be surprised by the mysticism of the mystic.

-a-train