20 Jun 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI have made no comment about Stalin's crimes. My sole claim was that the SoG was not the equivalent of the Gestapo or the Red Guards. Anything further that you read into my posts is purely your own invention.
It'd probably be more instructive for him to scratch his balls.
Do you also cling to the belief that Stalin's crimes were somehow different than the usual catalogue flung at 'religion' (usually tacitly defined as 'the big 3 monotheisms'đ and that atheism being the official belief system of his state had nothing to do with any of it? Please speak up.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by rwingettBut that's a dull topic. I'm asking you kindly to respond to my question on Stalin's crimes. As far as I recall you're well versed in the history, so your contribution should edify all concerned.
I have made no comment about Stalin's crimes. My sole claim was that the SoG was not the equivalent of the Gestapo or the Red Guards. Anything further that you read into my posts is purely your own invention.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI agree it is a dull topic. I'm surprised it attracted any attention at all. But then again, it didn't. It seems people are more interested in misinterpreting my remarks as being a defense of Stalin. On that regard I will not oblige you, Bosse. I am not prepared to wade into the meat of the debate at this present time. I'll confine myself to tangential items, like the role of the SoG, at present. Carry on.
But that's a dull topic. I'm asking you kindly to respond to my question on Stalin's crimes. As far as I recall you're well versed in the history, so your contribution should edify all concerned.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by rwingettI've completely given up on this one. I merely seized on you in the hope you'd say something intelligent. But you've ably fended off the SoG issue; bravo.
I agree it is a dull topic. I'm surprised it attracted any attention at all. But then again, it didn't. It seems people are more interested in misinterpreting my remarks as being a defense of Stalin. On that regard I will not oblige you, Bosse. I am not prepared to wade into the meat of the debate at this present time. I'll confine myself to tangential items, like the role of the SoG, at present. Carry on.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSorry, but I'm running a quart low on intelligence these days. Maybe I'll return to the fray when I've got a bit more time on my hands.
I've completely given up on this one. I merely seized on you in the hope you'd say something intelligent. But you've ably fended off the SoG issue; bravo.
20 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI'm saying that your entries are irrelevant to the discussion. Weeding out the trash is always useful.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read my entries in this thread, Palynka. My sole contribution to date has been to dispute Scherzo's claim that the SoG was the equivalent of the Gestapo and the Red Guards. So if you're responding to my posts, then that is the topic of discussion. If you don't care about the SoG then don't respond to my posts.
20 Jun 08
Originally posted by scherzoI am not debating what happened, rather why it happened. I will concede that it is logically possible to kill people FOR atheism, people certainly don't require coherent reasons for kiling, they never have. However, my point is that Stalin was a megalomanic, and he was dismantling any competing power structures at the time, with religion being one such.
Proof: Stalin created a student army of atheists, similar to the Gestapo in Nazi Germany or the Red Army in Maoist China. The group was called the League of Militant Godless (or the League of Militant Atheists, the Society of the Godless, or the League of Belligerent Atheists, depending on the translation you get). They sent millions of theists to labor camp ...[text shortened]... one time or another. Atheists are no exception, and that's true whether you are atheist or not.
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo you do agree that one of the impetuses for his killing spree was religion.
I am not debating [b]what happened, rather why it happened. I will concede that it is logically possible to kill people FOR atheism, people certainly don't require coherent reasons for kiling, they never have. However, my point is that Stalin was a megalomanic, and he was dismantling any competing power structures at the time, with religion being one such.[/b]
21 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe real why is irrelevant. What do you think the Inquisition was really about? Religious fervour? đ”
I am not debating [b]what happened, rather why it happened. I will concede that it is logically possible to kill people FOR atheism, people certainly don't require coherent reasons for kiling, they never have. However, my point is that Stalin was a megalomanic, and he was dismantling any competing power structures at the time, with religion being one such.[/b]
Religion was the excuse to maintain a power hold over Spain and Portugal, when the Jewish were gaining power and favour from the monarchs. The origins of the Spanish one can be traced to when Pedro of Castille was depicted as "King of Jews" by his brother (and rival) and used religion to get support in ousting Pedro out. It was then that forced conversions began, ultimately leading to the Inquisition. It was all about power.
But it's much better to be ignorant of history, isn't it?
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by PalynkaReal reasons why things happen are very important, I find it very hard to believe that any intellectually honest person could think otherwise!
The real why is irrelevant. What do you think the Inquisition was really about? Religious fervour? đ”
Religion was the excuse to maintain a power hold over Spain and Portugal, when the Jewish were gaining power and favour from the monarchs. The origins of the Spanish one can be traced to when Pedro of Castille was depicted as "King of Jews" by his brother ...[text shortened]... sition. It was all about power.
But it's much better to be ignorant of history, isn't it?
I agree that the Spanish Inquisition was about the consolidation of power. In this case, religion was being used by the ruling elite to persecute people who wouldn't tow the line. However, the church didn't seem to have any problem wih it. Not only where the church facilitating theologically-inspired brutality, they were willing party to it.
The same thing is true of parts of Islam (and indeed Christianity) today. People are kept in line by a regime of fear and repression, based on nothing more than their holy books. What percentage of it is pure power mongering, and what percentage is puritanical nonsense? Who knows. Who cares. For these brutalities, religion is very much implicated, either for acts of brutality itself, or for facilitating dictators, kings and other leaders by claiming divine right.
21 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzThey are irrelevant to the discussion if they are not about religion nor atheism. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest I meant anything beyond that, but that didn't stop you.
Real reasons why things happen are very important, I find it very hard to believe that any intellectually honest person could think otherwise!
I agree that the Spanish Inquisition was about the consolidation of power. In this case, religion was being used by the ruling elite to persecute people who wouldn't tow the line. However, the church didn't s ...[text shortened]... ality itself, or for facilitating dictators, kings and other leaders by claiming divine right.
So now you agree that the Inquisition was not religiously motivated, but you place the blame on the church for not speaking about it. Are atheists who didn't stand-up against Stalin's atrocities (the ones done in the name of atheism) in any way to blame? Obviously not.
Besides, for example in Portugal, the Church didn't want to acquiesce to Manuel I early requests for a Portuguese Inquisition. Only after significant political pressure did the Vatican agree, and only after the death of Manuel I. They only agreed when they saw his successor was also adamant about it. Moreover, did you know that the Grand Inquisitor was under the authority of the Kings and not of the Church?
A scientific like you should know the value of being informed.
You keep blaming religion, but for the same reasons you deny blame on atheism: it was an excuse. It's not consistent and it's purely based on stereotypes.