A day or two, I'd guess. I'll keep watch. (Denver Post) || In other billboard news: A will-you-marry-me? billboard is just another ad. (Kansas City Star)
twerp,
"Communism" usually refers to the beliefs and tenets as spelled out in the "Communist Manifesto" by a couple of jokers named Marx and Engles in 1848.
That kind of Communism is explicitly atheist. Its not real popular these days owing to be wholly unsound economically, ethically, and every other way--not too mention some serious wack jobs got their hands on it.
I think you might be think of communalism--sharing living quarters and resources. Many religious organizations promote some form of communal behavior. Now that I think of it though, communal living seems to bring up it own fair share of odd behavior; but you are correct in that *communal* living does not promote atheism. Unless its a bunch of atheists living communally. Which, frankly, can be a hell of a party.
Posted by: nellagain | Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 10:16 AM
40 hour work week, child labor laws, minimum wage, safe working environment- straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet, since we've adopted them, they're now quintessentially American ideals, and, at that, we even avoided the emergence of some Bloody Josef Stalin like Dictator. Despite the best prognostications of some of America's wealthiest citizens. Gosh Shucks.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 11:24 AM
hey, let's everybody put aside our differences on this and go torture some animals. Because that would be so kEWl.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Isn't it possible that this is causing such an uproar because it is in Colorado, right where Dr. James Dobson is headquartered? Just a thought.
Posted by: lawdog | Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM
It wasn't Marx's fault that a bunch of thugs seized upon his academic theories as an excuse to grab power and eliminate their enemies (both real and imagined).
Similarly, it wasn't Jesus Christ's fault that some of his followers seized upon his teachings as an excuse to grab power and eliminate their enemies (both real and imagined).
Even innocuous and positive ideas can be perverted by ruthless people. And when they get their hands on bad ideas, watch out.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 11:42 AM
"Religion is an excuse for human behavior."
Actually, i heard it's genes now.
Posted by: richard | Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Nice Point Phranq. Very Nice.
{Gold Star and a kiss on the forehead.}
Posted by: nellagain | Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Religion is a form of insanity.
It was invented by a couple of slackers who found a way to get the other members of their tribes to give them food, money, chicks, little boys, whatever for them to "talk to god" for them to get rain, a good harvest, etc.
Posted by: RUSTY | Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Hey, you have a 'soul' and your 'soul' will live on after your body dies....so you'd better do what I'm telling you or else your 'soul' which is your 'mind' will experience pain and suffering after you die. I have no proof, no evidence, no repeatable experiments to support my claims...but if you point out the absurdity I will scream religious persecution till my many chins quiver.
Oh please...atheists killed more than religionists? Are you serious? Crusades. Religionist against religionist. Forget killing, how many atheists went seeking out primitive tribes to mess with in an attempt to win more souls for jebus? That dog won't hunt!
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 04:27 AM
Thats the great thing about America Sean, we all have the right to scream whatever we want.
And do you think you can think of something more recent than the Crusades to support your argument?
Posted by: | Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 07:13 AM
Sorry, it's idiots like you that are the problem for promoting sophomoric views that are tragically uninformed and devoid of logic.
Would you care to throw in a little more substance to your comments before going on a personal attack? No? Ah OK. I guess you're one of the sophomoric idiots that you're raving about.
It was invented by a couple of slackers who found a way to get the other members of their tribes to give them food
The same is said about government. Since you live in a country and follow its rules, then you must be one of the insane.
atheists killed more than religionists? Are you serious? Crusades. Religionist against religionist. Forget killing, how many atheists went seeking out primitive tribes to mess with in an attempt to win more souls for jebus? That dog won't hunt!
OK let's blow this argument out of the water once and for all:
Take the largest Christian atrocities
People killed in the Crusades: ~ 1,200,000
People killed in Spanish Inquisition: ~ 150,000
People killed in the Pogroms: ~ 200,000
People killed in Salem Witch Trials: 25
Total people killed by Christianity: 1550025
If you want to add miscellaneous murders in the past 2000 years, we can tag on another 25 million. So let's call it 26,500,025 deaths attributed to Christianity.
Let's look at atheist atrocities by atheist governments in the past 200 years (excluding political non-atheist movements, non-religious movements):
People killed by Soviet Gulag: 61,911,000
People Killed by Chinese Ant Hill: 35,236,000
People killed by Khmer Rouge: 2,035,000
People killed by Vietnamese Communist Effort: 1,670,000
People killed by North Korean Regime: 1,663,000
Total people killed by atheist governments: 102,515,000
References:
Link 1
Link 2
Now either respond to the comments offering valid counter arguments (rather than personal attacks) or STFU about this atheist soapbox that really isnt any better than the religious one. Accept the fact that there are atheists and there are religionists and get over it. Making idiot remarks like "sky wizard" or "organized religion" won't gain converts.
Posted by: Naga Please! | Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 08:06 AM
The difference, Naga, is that those hundred million slaughtered by the Soviets et al weren't killed in the name of or defense of a religion, but in order to gain or hold power in the material world. Stalin simply hijacked a system that had peasants believing those in power to be divine, so in many ways his "atheist" regime capitalized on the existing religious fervour of his subjects. It was an evil, misguided regime that was in no way indicative of the morality of atheists any more than Hitler was indicative of the morals of the average Roman Catholic.
The twenty-six million killed by Christians were killed because they believed in the wrong imaginary friend.
In neither case was it justifiable, but if you want to make it a numbers game, then you should also include all the people killed world wide in the name of ALL religions since the opposite side of the atheist coin isn't just Christianity, but all believers.
For instance the Japanese in WWII believed in their Emperor as a god (or at least god-like) and their actions could be viewed as those of religious warriors.
The point is that religion has a bloody history and the mindlessness that it cultivates in its followers makes them easily led by charismatic fanatics like Stalin.
If you can find a government truly based on the writings and teachings of atheists and deists like Spinoza, Jefferson and Paine that has created gulags and slaughtered its own citizens in the name of atheism, then you might have an arguement.
Posted by: Thatguy1 | Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 09:52 AM
Naga, I do try to help you out with these things as I firmly dislike the bad habit of blaming religous beleif for everything from the St Barthlomew's day Massacre to Britney Spears underwear.
However, what, precisely, did you mean by this:
"excluding political non-atheist movements, non-religious movements".
Posted by: nellagain | Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 10:19 AM
However, what, precisely, did you mean by this:
I meant that I excluded events that were purely political (like WW1, WW2, Revolutionary War) because those wars did not possess a sufficient element of atheism or religion in it to count. While Hitler did claim that he was doing his work in servitude of God, it's understood that his version of antisemitism was modern not classical; therefore it's not religiously motivated.
if you want to make it a numbers game, then you should also include all the people killed world wide in the name of ALL religions since the opposite side of the atheist coin isn't just Christianity, but all believers.
That can be done as well. Either way the point remains the same: atheism isn't blameless, and it is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. This is a plain fact in the face of the atheists who claim moral superiority.
The twenty-six million killed by Christians were killed because they believed in the wrong imaginary friend.
The same argument can be made here as well. Religious leaders wanted to become political leaders and used religion as a means of gaining a power base. The whole "imaginary friend" thing was just a means to an end. Atheist governments like China do, in fact, murder civilians because they do not follow a state approved belief system.
For instance the Japanese in WWII believed in their Emperor as a god (or at least god-like) and their actions could be viewed as those of religious warriors.
The Japanese motivation in WW2 was not religiously motivated. While it "can" be viewed in that way, that's not how it happened. Japanese imperialism was brought about by a racial superiority complex.
The point is that religion has a bloody history and the mindlessness that it cultivates in its followers makes them easily led by charismatic fanatics like Stalin.
That was never my argument. My argument is that atheism has a far bloodier history in a shorter amount of time than religion.
If you can find a government truly based on the writings and teachings of atheists and deists and slaughtered its own citizens in the name of atheism, then you might have an arguement.
Likewise, the same argument can be made when atheists point their fingers at people of religion. However, arguments like that are a cop out because the petitioners truly believed they were in service of their beliefs.
The problem isn't atheism. It's the hypocritical atheist who goes around condemning people of religion and whining at the same time that people won't respect his beliefs.
Posted by: Naga Please! | Wednesday, June 11, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Naga -
You actually make my point for me:
"Atheist governments like China do, in fact, murder civilians because they do not follow a state approved belief system."
There is no belief system in atheism. Lack of belief is not a belief. If you think that atheism is a belief system then you also think that sitting down is a dance step.
If a government does execute people for not following the "state approved belief system", then by definition that government is NOT atheistic although it might qualify as anti-theistic. If any belief system is in place, regardless of its structure, it cannot be atheistic.
Posted by: Thatguy1 | Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 10:38 AM
China does permit its people to participate in religions approved by the state. Religions not approved by the state are expressly forbidden. Communism, however, is atheist by nature. After speaking with some co-workers here from mainland China, I was told that the vast majority of people do not follow a religion.
My point is still valid even though you tried to use a loophole to get out of it.
Nice try.
Posted by: Naga Please! | Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Karl Marx said:
"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion."
A religious government wouldn't change his words. They would simply add three more:
"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of (all) religion (except ours)."
The Chinese government isn't killing people because they aren't atheists. It's killing them because it sees a threat to its existence. It's not right, but it's also not atheism. Anti-theism, maybe, but the issue isn't the belief but the advocacy that the groups in question engage in. If it was a matter of belief, there would be no state approved religions at all.
Again, I'm not defending the action, but pointing out that the motivation cannot fairly be labelled atheistic.
If you can find a statement from the Chinese government that plainly says "This person is being put to death for believing in god" I'll come over to your side. On the condition that you come over to my side if I can find a statement from a theocracy that plainly says "This person is being put to death because they don't believe in our God."
Deal?
Posted by: | Friday, June 13, 2008 at 01:10 PM