|
With that said I do think that mister "socialism in one country" was much more practical and, well, nationalist than other doe-eyed Bolsheviks. Possibly a result of the wisdom of age. I suspect that when atheism turned out to be a huge Fail he started respecting Christbros again.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:21 |
|
Kyrie eleison posted:With that said I do think that mister "socialism in one country" was much more practical and, well, nationalist than other doe-eyed Bolsheviks. Possibly a result of the wisdom of age. I suspect that when atheism turned out to be a huge Fail he started respecting Christbros again. Learn some anime. Stalin was tsundere.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:With that said I do think that mister "socialism in one country" was much more practical and, well, nationalist than other doe-eyed Bolsheviks. Possibly a result of the wisdom of age. I suspect that when atheism turned out to be a huge Fail he started respecting Christbros again. By the time Stalin came to power Socialism was in name only, it was largely a dictatorship after a few years of Stalin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:That's really interesting, but I went to the wiki page on Christian persecution by the USSR and it said the USSR killed between 12-20 million Christians and, I quote, "From 1932 to 1937 Joseph Stalin declared the 'five-year plans of atheism' and the LMG was charged with completely eliminating all religious expression in the country." Yeah, the guy did and said a lot of things to kill all kinds of people. How is this an example of an atheist regime committing crimes in the name of atheism, and not a communist regime just using atheism to further its goals? Lets again remind ourselves that atheism is merely a reactionary viewpoint to religious claims - it doesn't have the features of the institutions you're so keen on comparing it to. Antisemitism, since you bring it up, is steeped in a long societal history, legitimized by people in power who were tied to religious and social institutions that held great sway over the populace. Has atheism ever had that? Hell no. Atheism has always been a personal thing with no serious organizational status of its own until really recently (with very little power I might add). The communists co-opted it to start their revolution, and a madman ran with it so that he could stay in power. How are the resultant atrocities supposed to be left at the feet of atheism, really? It's just a disingenuous platform believers like to build themselves so they can continue telling people how bad the nonbelievers really are. It's just utter nonsense and needs to stop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat Businessman posted:Yeah, the guy did and said a lot of things to kill all kinds of people. How is this an example of an atheist regime committing crimes in the name of atheism, and not a communist regime just using atheism to further its goals? Lets again remind ourselves that atheism is merely a reactionary viewpoint to religious claims - it doesn't have the features of the institutions you're so keen on comparing it to. Antisemitism, since you bring it up, is steeped in a long societal history, legitimized by people in power who were tied to religious and social institutions that held great sway over the populace. Has atheism ever had that? Hell no. Atheism has always been a personal thing with no serious organizational status of its own until really recently (with very little power I might add). The communists co-opted it to start their revolution, and a madman ran with it so that he could stay in power. How are the resultant atrocities supposed to be left at the feet of atheism, really? It's just a disingenuous platform believers like to build themselves so they can continue telling people how bad the nonbelievers really are. It's just utter nonsense and needs to stop. Communism as 'practiced' (for lack of a better word) and exported by the USSR was explicitly atheist, as is orthodox Marxism. The communists did not 'co-opt' atheism in any sense of the word.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Communism as 'practiced' (for lack of a better word) and exported by the USSR was explicitly atheist, as is orthodox Marxism. The communists did not 'co-opt' atheism in any sense of the word. Yup, we're coming to burn you out of your churches Miltank  Shutup. If you think any athiest condones the actions of Stalin or Pol Pot, you are out of your loving gourd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Walk me through it. How did "state atheism" lead the USSR under Stalin into becoming such a tyrannical shithole? How large a portion has to do with atheism, how much with the failure of communism, and how much with the nature of autocracy, +++ all the other factors? Can you back it up with sources? E: you don't even need to source it just give me a convincing argument that is not "in the absence of God men become monsters" because that is unknowable at best and outright false on its face at worst. murphyslaw fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:Walk me through it. How did "state atheism" lead the USSR under Stalin into becoming such a tyrannical shithole? How large a portion has to do with atheism, how much with the failure of communism, and how much with the nature of autocracy, +++ all the other factors? Since this is axiomatic and self-evident, obviously the reason why avowedly anti-religious philosophies led to horrific acts was because of their lack of skydadfear, not because - say - religious authority had a huge history of being associated with economic oppression.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yup, we're coming to burn you out of your churches Miltank Noted atheist Joseph Stalin probably condoned his own actions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
He was wrong about the nature of atheism in communist philosophy. I wasn't really trying to prove a point. E: Do you deny that the philosophy of Marxism was used to justify the USSR's crimes? Miltank fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Listen, let's go easy on old Joe. Which of us, in our hearts, isn't a mass-murderer? Give the person on the street the power, and they'd kill millions, for sure. It's human nature to be that way. The ones you want to look out for are the ones who claim they're all peaceful and loving, because they're pretending they're something they're not. Deep down they want to murder, they want to do evil acts, etc. I much more respect a person who comes out and just says the evil that is in their heart. One thing I like about the Catholic Church in particular is the whole "corruption" narrative. Protestants, and atheists, they say that the church started out all sweet as daffodils and then political reality set them out into genociding heretics and using torture to prompt confessions and burning people at the stake and sexual impropriety and indoctrination and psychological abuse and doing ethnic cleansing and all these other things that everyone does. But that's just human nature, you try splitting from it to restore the "pure" kind-hearted self and before you know it you're engaging in pogroms of undesirables. The only difference between Joe and the man on the street is that Joe decided to carry out his sick vision whereas you and I are content to bitch about it -- which is really much healthier, but it also means we're subject to the Joes of the world. And to be a Joe, you know, you've got to take a lot of risks. A lot of people died, were humiliated, tortured etc. because they wanted to be like Joe. It's like winning the lottery. I'm too lazy, too afraid of pain for that. I'll take private fantasies, drunken venting, and apologizing to God for my evil heart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 07:30
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Listen, let's go easy on old Joe. Which of us, in our hearts, isn't a mass-murderer? Give the person on the street the power, and they'd kill millions, for sure. It's human nature to be that way. I'm really very sorry that people stuffed you into lockers, but dwelling on it is not a healthy response.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
So being a good Catholic is about accepting the Church as an utterly flawed institution?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Miltank posted:So being a good Catholic is about accepting the Church as an utterly flawed institution? Yes, actually -- it's a human institution, even if it was founded by Jesus. The flesh and blood of man still ruins everything, our disgraceful fallen nature. The big conceit of people who set themselves apart is that they aren't that way, they can't relate. People split apart to protect their own reputations; "oh, i'm from the good Christians, not all those bad Christians from the past 2000 years who did all sorts of objectionable things." or the atheists, "oh, Christianity is so bad, I don't want to associate with it at all." but your new denomination sticks around for long enough and it starts getting all sorts of nasty marks on its record, because it's made up of MEN, and the hearts of men (and of women, mind you) are as evil as a serpent's. So I just embrace it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Deep down they want to murder, they want to do evil acts, etc. Protip: just because a person has a fleeting thought doesn't mean he or she secretly wants to act on it. If you do, that's a problem that can be treated with medication and therapy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Listen, let's go easy on old Joe. Which of us, in our hearts, isn't a mass-murderer? Give the person on the street the power, and they'd kill millions, for sure. It's human nature to be that way. That's why the French Revolution was so baller, right? Finally an orgy of violence visited on those who so richly deserved it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's why the French Revolution was so baller, right? Finally an orgy of violence visited on those who so richly deserved it. This grotesque display proves my point. But you're wrong to suggest they deserved it anymore than you do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
People's hearts are also filled with kindness and love instead of just hate and fear. If you make the choice to embrace one and not the other, then you've explicitly chosen evil. Here's an alternative: stop projecting this guilt complex on everyone else, realize that 'humans are fallible' doesn't justify nihilism (which you then magic in 'god' to try and solve for you, but that has its own problems), seek therapy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:This grotesque display proves my point. But you're wrong to suggest they deserved it anymore than you do. No they definitely did. I only deserve it a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
It is my belief that Human Beings must display charity, compassion and patience toward other Human Beings; this is regardless of their Religion; it is regardless of their Culture; it is regardless of their physical, social, mental, financial, etc. [etcetera] differences; it is a Good Thing to do; that is to say it is devoid of any definite biological benefit but is nevertheless Ethical. I was waiting for a Train on Thursday evening-to-night [6:28 p.m. {post meridiem} to catch the 6:35 p.m. {meridiem} Train which sometimes comes up to 10 minutes early] and I had a Sandwich (peanut butter and banana) that I was anticipating the eating of; I saw a Man who was probably homeless (untidily dressed and with a beard); he was visibly underweight; I gave him the Sandwich because he was hungry and I was less hungry. This had no Benefit to me. He did not say "Thank You" and I was hungry while I rode the Train to my house [1 hour and 21 minutes]. But it was Ethical and I am proud of my actions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
Enhydra Lutris posted:It is my belief that Human Beings must display charity, compassion and patience toward other Human Beings; this is regardless of their Religion; it is regardless of their Culture; it is regardless of their physical, social, mental, financial, etc. [etcetera] differences; it is a Good Thing to do; that is to say it is devoid of any definite biological benefit but is nevertheless Ethical. I was waiting for a Train on Thursday evening-to-night [6:28 p.m. {post meridiem} to catch the 6:35 p.m. {meridiem} Train which sometimes comes up to 10 minutes early] and I had a Sandwich (peanut butter and banana) that I was anticipating the eating of; I saw a Man who was probably homeless (untidily dressed and with a beard); he was visibly underweight; I gave him the Sandwich because he was hungry and I was less hungry. This had no Benefit to me. He did not say "Thank You" and I was hungry while I rode the Train to my house [1 hour and 21 minutes]. But it was Ethical and I am proud of my actions. You fool, you had an opportunity to berate and mock him for being poor and homeless and not calling his super rich sister who is totally real to bail him out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Listen, let's go easy on old Joe. Which of us, in our hearts, isn't a mass-murderer? Give the person on the street the power, and they'd kill millions, for sure. It's human nature to be that way. But maybe we shouldn't be surprised from someone who participates in an institution where symbolic cannibalism is a big deal and use a brutal visual of murder as their primary icon, managing to turn a celebration of victory over death into a symbol of everlasting suffering, might have some less than wholesome desires vis a vis mass-murder. 
GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Apr 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Noted atheist Joseph Stalin probably condoned his own actions. And noted Catholic Adolf Hitler condoned his actions as well. What is your point? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
OP, how best to check my heart to see if it is intrinsically full of evil, sin, and beastly desire? Cuz I'm not really feeling it. Alternative explanation: you are projecting pretty hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
i really don't get this drive some people have to pull every debate concerning religion into the mud. religion is a complicated and fascinating issue and dumbing it down is a Bad Thing even if one is fundamentally critical of it imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i really don't get this drive some people have to pull every debate concerning religion into the mud. religion is a complicated and fascinating issue and dumbing it down is a Bad Thing even if one is fundamentally critical of it imo I'm all for discussing religion because I think religion is a really interesting topic (I was a staunch believer as a kid) and it has a huge impact on billions of people's lives, has a massive influence on our history, and is responsible for some truly amazing (and amazingly horrible) things. But every time there's a discussion of it online it gets completely hosed up by the time I take serious notice of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And noted Catholic Adolf Hitler condoned his actions as well. What is your point? CommieGIR posted:Shutup. If you think any athiest condones the actions of Stalin or Pol Pot, you are out of your loving gourd. A bold claim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:A bold claim.  That context, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be to hard to find additional examples. It's almost like capacity to commit atrocities is independent of religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i really don't get this drive some people have to pull every debate concerning religion into the mud. religion is a complicated and fascinating issue and dumbing it down is a Bad Thing even if one is fundamentally critical of it imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Listen, let's go easy on old Joe. Which of us, in our hearts, isn't a mass-murderer? Give the person on the street the power, and they'd kill millions, for sure. It's human nature to be that way. I don't think Kyrie is projecting so much as he's justifying his bad behavior to other people, as nobody cares if you're an rear end in a top hat to an rear end in a top hat. Just because everyone deserved Hell doesn't justify your being a jerk. "So what if I cut that guy off, he'd kill me if given the chance! He deserves far worse than getting cut off in traffic!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Kyrie, please respond:
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Kyrie, please respond: That's the guy who betrayed all his fans and burned the books they purchased and ranted about capitalism, right? Anyway I don't really know what this is trying to say, but it seems kind of sappy to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Listen, let's go easy on old Joe. Which of us, in our hearts, isn't a mass-murderer? Give the person on the street the power, and they'd kill millions, for sure. It's human nature to be that way. Most people do indeed have passing desires to harm specific others who have wronged them, but don't act on it even though they DO have the power. If you honestly think most people desire mass murder, this is probably symptomatic of a larger misconception about other people in general. Rectifying this misconception would likely go a long way toward better interacting with others, and therefore more effectively evangelizing. I would put some effort toward this end if you are at all genuine about anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Trent posted:In the increasingly unlikely case that you aren't a massive troll, I feel obligated to point out that most people do not desire to kill millions (for sure), or even tens, if only they had the power. Other people support mass murder so often, though; you talk to anyone long enough and you'll find them calling for the extermination for some behavior they dislike, or supporting some-such extermination in history. For instance, a great deal of people here in America support the Civil War, which killed hundreds of thousands, on ideological grounds; similarly, they support the killing of millions of Germans during World War II. I know countless "enlightened liberals" who think the massacre of tens of thousands of people in the French Revolution was righteous, and plenty of conservative-minded folk who think it was a good thing that two Japanese cities and their inhabitants were killed by nuclear bombs. People here on this very forum are constantly boasting of their villainous tendencies, pining for revolution (and the rolling heads that would entail). I just don't know how you can look at humanity and get this impression that you have that most people aren't cold-blooded killers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Depends whether you're speaking individually or as a group. If you gave any given person the axe and told them to kill someone, they probably wouldn't. If you got a group of people together with an ideology that calls for killing as necessary, with enough people there that someone else can be blamed other than you specifically, it becomes more probable. Which is a fairly good argument against group-based ideologies in general, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Other people support mass murder so often, though; you talk to anyone long enough and you'll find them calling for the extermination for some behavior they dislike, or supporting some-such extermination in history. For instance, a great deal of people here in America support the Civil War, which killed hundreds of thousands, on ideological grounds; similarly, they support the killing of millions of Germans during World War II. I know countless "enlightened liberals" who think the massacre of tens of thousands of people in the French Revolution was righteous, and plenty of conservative-minded folk who think it was a good thing that two Japanese cities and their inhabitants were killed by nuclear bombs. People here on this very forum are constantly boasting of their villainous tendencies, pining for revolution (and the rolling heads that would entail). I just don't know how you can look at humanity and get this impression that you have that most people aren't cold-blooded killers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Other people support mass murder so often, though; you talk to anyone long enough and you'll find them calling for the extermination for some behavior they dislike, or supporting some-such extermination in history. For instance, a great deal of people here in America support the Civil War, which killed hundreds of thousands, on ideological grounds; similarly, they support the killing of millions of Germans during World War II. I know countless "enlightened liberals" who think the massacre of tens of thousands of people in the French Revolution was righteous, and plenty of conservative-minded folk who think it was a good thing that two Japanese cities and their inhabitants were killed by nuclear bombs. People here on this very forum are constantly boasting of their villainous tendencies, pining for revolution (and the rolling heads that would entail). I just don't know how you can look at humanity and get this impression that you have that most people aren't cold-blooded killers. If you're talking about when people on this board say for instance "eat the rich," it's easy to understand your mistake! You see, those people (except in rare cases) do not actually want to themselves eat the rich, nor do they want the rich to be eaten. They would much rather the rich change their behavior so that society may be more equal. They are, however, guilty of employing strong rhetoric to make their point and make an impression; someone advocating for sensible solutions to problems isn't going to get enough people riled up to actually implement their ideas. Someone saying "eat the rich" might! Similarly, people who might argue that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is a positive thing don't actually mean that, in a vacuum, hundreds of thousands of deaths is a good thing. Generally they will be speaking in terms of what might have happened instead: by most projections, continuing the war as it was happening in the Pacific theater would have cost far more lives, not to mention the economic cost of running a war for the additional years it would have gone. If the only choices were 1) continue the war and lose a million lives or 2) drop the bombs to end the war and lose 100K lives, then dropping the bombs is a clear "better" choice. Of course, the choice was not that simple, and we can never know for sure what the other choice would have led to, nor can we know all the other choices available. And this, I think leads to a good point about the supposed innate evil in men's hearts. CS Lewis presents an example of hearing a man in danger cry for help; our instinct, he says, is to do evil: run away and protect ourselves. But God, via God-imposed morality, overrides this instinct to cause us to do good and help the man. Why God made us people whose instinct is "evil" by default is another question, but I think for most people, it really isn't a choice between "obvious good" and "obvious evil". Most of us, I think, would generally want to "do good" (and what the gently caress that means exactly is another discussion entirely). However, we have limited capacity to judge the situation and predict the various possible outcomes. If we knew for sure that, with just a little effort, we could help save the man's life, we would almost always do it. But we don't know that: what if we fail? What if, by trying to help, we end up getting us both killed? In a choice between 1) help and two people die and 2) don't help and one person dies, again, it's a clear better choice to not help. What if we try to help, save the man, but end up with both paralyzed from the waist down? Which is the better option there, one dead and one alive, or both alive but disabled? And of course, if we have a family for whom we are the sole means of support, us choosing to help and dying puts several others in danger, so it makes it even harder to know whether to try to help. Our hesitancy is CS Lewis's example situation is not because we desire to do evil but are compelled by God to do good, it's because we can't know for sure what the outcomes of our choices will be, and we're not even conclusively sure what the best outcome is even if we did know it! Yet Christians will say we are evil at our core, and left to our own devices we will only hurt and kill. And this is one of the biggest problems I have with Christianity as a whole: the idea that we are born broken, that by ourselves we aren't just fallible, not just imperfect, but we are scum, garbage, the lowest of the low, wretched sinners unworthy to untie the sandal of Jesus's shoe. I think this is one of the most destructive ideas one could possibly propagate, and yet Christianity in almost all its forms believes this as a fundamental truth, and is somehow seen as a religion of love and harmony despite that. It isn't! It's so clearly an institution of evil that it's baffling to me how few people see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:If you're talking about when people on this board say for instance "eat the rich," it's easy to understand your mistake! You see, those people (except in rare cases) do not actually want to themselves eat the rich, nor do they want the rich to be eaten. They would much rather the rich change their behavior so that society may be more equal. They are, however, guilty of employing strong rhetoric to make their point and make an impression; someone advocating for sensible solutions to problems isn't going to get enough people riled up to actually implement their ideas. Someone saying "eat the rich" might! Your argument is a false one, as we would have no way of knowing the chances of success versus failure. Is it not more virtuous to make the attempt to save the other man then? Furthermore, I am perplexed by your assertion that believing all humans are inherently evil is itself an evil idea. We know for example, that babies are inherently prefer members of their own race. The core message of Christianity is that we are all sinners, yes, but that through emulating Christ, we can improve ourselves and the lives of others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
Not buying your "babies prefer people who look like their parents, so therefore people are inherently broken" argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 23:37
|
|