Come talk to me about Hitchens?

[ICBINEG]

How did I not know about Hitchens?

How do I not stay up all night trawling youtube....

Seriously..I have been a kinda quiet atheist...don't poke me with your religion and I won't poke you with how stupid it all sounds to me.

I feel like someone stuck a fire cracker up my back side.

What if there is a moral imperative that atheists get out there and attempt to rid the world of the evil that is religion?

I am all confused now.

mao's cultural revolution and the khmer rouge sorry for the generalisation.

There are actually notable instances of bloody "state atheism"...french revolution cult reason and of the supreme being with a mini genocide of the royalist catholic "Chouans" and in Vendee.
Cuba? North korea? Contemporary russia....
Cant think of more now but in all these examples, significant damage inflicted on at least 2 generations....
Thats not anecdotical in my book.

In china today there is very strong resistance to overt displays of faith. Its just not politically correct.

The french revolution? Didn't they kill people because they were in charge rather than because they were catholic?

Hitch said something about the russia thing....something that implied it wasn't atheism to blame (unsurprisingly) but something which I didn't understand on account of being an imbecile when it comes to any topic that isn't physics (or octonauts).

regarding china, are we talking strong resistance as in societal peer pressure? Or strong resistance as in armed violence?

Yes, there was one particular episode in the FR During what is called the reign of terror. I would expect that to be common knowledge but anyone who knows a bit about the FR would know.

But lets come back to contemporary Asia. Is that not evidence enough?

Many Chinese Christians congregate in safe houses to avoid the state-controlled churches. They risk imprisonment, torture, and even, in some cases, death. Its well documented in the media.

Have you followed whats been going on in inner china with chinese muslims along the khyrgiz borders. We are tLking 2% of the chinese population just to put things in perspective.
Now i dont want to drop the bomb, by might as well in this region....tibet anyone?

ICBINEG, i think i might just have re-ignited that firecracker

seriously, all am saying is we cant hold the moral high ground as atheists if we start being militant about it.

Of course for the party, religion is just an expression of a particularism and is meant to be stiffled as such to keep a cohesive policy.
But still....its opportunistic atheism and just as bad as a means to an end.

How about spain during the civil war? Not to mention the nationalst german worker's party....thats a biggie no?

Thanks, Master. Saved my gnarled fingers some work there!

Yes, a militant atheism is the one which imposes it, one that ignores the right to religion.

Anyone still in doubt could go to

www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

The death tolls of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao given here are very much on the low side. Even Mao's 75 million is probably an underestimate, and the figures for Stalin are ridiculously low because they do not include the deaths caused directly by him in Eastern Europe. Moreover, some of the figures on this list - Bin Laden, say - are partly motivated by religious militancy and bigotry.

Nonetheless, the militant atheists have it on numbers last century.

I know all atheists are not dangerous militants. So why don't YOU know that not all people of faith are?

No I refuse to accept that someone who is both militant and an atheist is necessarily a militant atheist.

I don't know what Stalin was attempting to achieve but I don't think the primary motive was the removal of religious activity.

You can likewise be militant and theist without being a militant theist. But religions have caused a fantastic body count on missions whose primary goal WAS to spread their religion.

See I am not counting the evils done by the british empire as done by religion even though it was C of E at the helm at the time.

As with all the examples listed below, they cannot be laid at the door of atheism simply because the person in charge was atheist.

"I know all atheists are not dangerous militants. So why don't YOU know that not all people of faith are?"

Who is 'you' in this please?

No I refuse to accept that someone who is both militant and an atheist is necessarily a militant atheist

chill thats exactly what we are saying
But those who are proved to be real baddies as attested by contemporary history.

So what IS your point then?

Much evil has been done by individuals in the history of the world, regardless of their faith / lack of faith.

But much evil has been done by organised religion also. My point was that this implies that organised religion is also a force for evil in the world, above and beyond the actions of individuals.

As far as I know there has been no equivalent body count to lay at the feet of organised atheism (if that even exists).

All major religions have a body count due to their expansionistic tendencies alone, and as far as I can tell atheism has no equivalent. (maybe we just aren't organised enough yet).

I checked out Stalin a very little and I can't find religion/anti-religion listed as a motivating force in his personal body count....

master but what of the aids deaths caused by the catholic insistence on unprotected sex?

This isn't one bonkers person, but the entire institution of the church killing millions of people?

Sorry off to bed now, not ignoring you....be back tkmorrow!

Before i go, and back hitchens, you must find the article where he decides to whiten his teeth and have a crack, sack and back waxing job!
Never mind the waterboarding

Hitch's 8 point plan (as an addendum to Steyn's) for the Middle East:-

"Steyn ends his book with a somewhat slapdash ten-point program for resistance to Islamism, which includes offhand one-line items such as ?End the Iranian regime? and more elaborate proposals to get rid of the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Authority, and (for some reason) NATO. His tenth point (?Strike militarily when the opportunity presents itself?) is barely even a makeweight to bring the figure up to ten.

Steyn is much more definite about the cultural side of his argument, in other words, than about the counterterrorist dimension. If I wanted to sharpen both prongs of his thesis, I would also propose the following:

1. An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it. The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation, and until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death. Now, though, all manner of antisocial practices find themselves validated in the name of religion, and mullahs have begun to issue threats even against non-Muslims for criticism of Islam. This creeping Islamism must cease at once, and those responsible must feel the full weight of the law. Meanwhile, we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces.

1. A strong, open alliance with India on all fronts, from the military to the political and economic, backed by an extensive cultural exchange program, to demonstrate solidarity with the other great multiethnic democracy under attack from Muslim fascism. A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants and a reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates.

1. A similarly forward approach to Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, and the other countries of Western Africa that are under attack by jihadists and are also the location of vast potential oil reserves, whose proper development could help emancipate the local populations from poverty and ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

1. A declaration at the UN of our solidarity with the right of the Kurdish people of Iraq and elsewhere to self-determination as well as a further declaration by Congress that in no circumstance will Muslim forces who have fought on our side, from the Kurds to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, find themselves friendless, unarmed, or abandoned. Partition in Iraq would be defeat under another name (and as with past partitions, would lead to yet further partitions and micro-wars over these very subdivisions). But if it has to come, we cannot even consider abandoning the one part of the country that did seize the opportunity of modernization, development, and democracy.

1. Energetic support for all the opposition forces in Iran and in the Iranian diaspora. A public offer from the United States, disseminated widely in the Persian language, of help for a reformed Iran on all matters, including peaceful nuclear energy, and of assistance in protecting Iran from the catastrophic earthquake that seismologists predict in its immediate future. Millions of lives might be lost in a few moments, and we would also have to worry about the fate of secret underground nuclear facilities. When a quake leveled the Iranian city of Bam three years ago, the performance of American rescue teams was so impressive that their popularity embarrassed the regime. Iran?s neighbors would need to pay attention, too: a crisis in Iran?s nuclear underground facilities?an Iranian Chernobyl?would not be an internal affair. These concerns might help shift the currently ossified terms of the argument and put us again on the side of an internal reform movement within Iran and its large and talented diaspora.

1. Unconditional solidarity, backed with force and the relevant UN resolutions, with an independent and multi-confessional Lebanon.

1. A commitment to buy Afghanistan?s opium crop and to keep the profits out of the hands of the warlords and Talibanists, until such time as the country?s agriculture? especially its once-famous vines?has been replanted and restored. We can use the product in the interim for the manufacture of much-needed analgesics for our own market and apply the profits to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

1. We should, of course, be scrupulous on principle about stirring up interethnic tensions. But we should remind those states that are less scrupulous?Iran, Pakistan, and Syria swiftly come to mind?that we know that they, too, have restless minorities and that they should not make trouble in Afghanistan, Lebanon, or Iraq without bearing this in mind. Some years ago, the Pakistani government announced that it would break the international embargo on the unrecognized and illegal Turkish separatist state in Cyprus and would appoint an ambassador to it, out of ?Islamic solidarity.? Cyprus is a small democracy with no armed forces to speak of, but its then?foreign minister told me the following story. He sought a meeting with the Pakistani authorities and told them privately that if they recognized the breakaway Turkish colony, his government would immediately supply funds and arms to one of the secessionist movements?such as the Baluchis?within Pakistan itself. Pakistan never appointed an ambassador to Turkish Cyprus.

When I read Sam Harris?s irresponsible remark that only fascists seemed to have the right line, I murmured to myself: ?Not while I?m alive, they won?t.? Nor do I wish to concede that Serbo-fascist ethnic cleansing can appear more rational in retrospect than it did at the time. The Islamist threat itself may be crude, but this is an intricate cultural and political challenge that will absorb all of our energies for the rest of our lives: we are all responsible for doing our utmost as citizens as well as for demanding more imagination from our leaders"

I realise it's a bit long but it's worth a read. It's far more sensible than any suggestions made by Blair or any other 'experts'. I'm not saying Blair is an expert, other than of being a fool for agreeing to back an illegal war and a different unwinnable war.

There seems to be a confusion here.

Even in instances where violence is put upon the religious by the non religious, this is not driven by atheism. It may be political, it may be that the individuals are anti-religion, but there's no atheist doctrine that tells them to kill all the religionists.

On the other hand, most religious texts say, either explicitly or can easily be interpreted as saying, kill the unbelievers.

I'm not saying Blair is an expert, other than of being a fool for agreeing to back an illegal war and a different unwinnable war.

He is a raging Catholic though, and has some pretty weird ideas. Also debated Hitchens.... Worth a watch!

pedro" Yes Sam Harris goes beyond other atheist writers and speakers to advocate not just a moral crusade but a military style crusade against the Muslim world." =

"It wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a pretty lengthy list of Muslims who want to bomb the Western world and would actually follow through with it (or already have) so yes, I think Harris has a point."

So you say you never suggested military action against all groups which include one fundamentalist, but after your further comments accepting it is 0.1% of Muslims which would want to bomb the west, in conjunction with your comment that it only takes one fundamentalist with a nuke, it sounds like you are saying that people who advocate military action against groups with one fundamentalist within them have a point.

Nicholas

"The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation" Is it really down to an atheist who is strongly anti religious to dictate to the adherents of a religion how to intepret their books?

"reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates." How do you get to the conclusion that fundamentalism dominates in Pakistan? are the ordinary people of Pakistan fundamentalists according to him? As there are many who would beg to differ. I am sure you all know people from Pakistan who are in no way fundamentalists.

Ok, now we see the brilliance of your position.... If atheists commit crimes, even crimes directed specifically at members of religious groups, then that has nothing to do with their atheism. Even if they say it has. Whereas if even the most tangentially faith-led people commit crimes - as the British empire - then those are caused entirely by their religious beliefs.

Come the fuck off it.

On Stalin and religion:

Stalin took [atheism] further than his predecessor, Lenin, and initiated a nationwide campaign to destroy churches and religious property and even persecute and kill church officials.2 It is said that under Stalin, the Russian Orthodox Church went from 50,000 to 500 open and operating churches.

Stalin once said:

'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God? all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.'

In the war years he did grit his teeth and tolerate the church to build up morale. He even pretended to tolerate Islam. But all that evaporated as soon as the war was won.

I have to say in honesty that these quotations are from a website very much in the loony atheist camp, one that thinks Stalin's religion is a complex question because of his wartime tolerance. I have to go and be a mother now... but the point is that atheism was an intrinsic, non-discardable part of Stalin's communism, and Mao's too, and yes, they set out to wipe out competitor faiths, believing they were doing good, in a way. Will post tomorrow on the others I namechecked.