Banning religion?

[Balerion]

Balerion,


Nonsense. These things come about through the mind, and manifest themselves throughout different ideologies, the main one being politics.

I don't think you even know what you mean by that. Of course ideologies "come about through the mind." Where else would they come from? But some ideologies--particularly religious ideologies--bind people to a set of ethics and behaviors that they may not have otherwise adopted. In that sense, it kind of is like a precursor to modern politics: if you are a Democrat, you're likely to vote Democrat regardless of what any of the candidates actually say, and you're more likely to defend your candidate even in cases where their actions would be intolerable if committed by a candidate outside of your party. Same goes for religion, where you will follow a code of conduct because it is part and parcel with believing in a particular god. Now, of course there are Catholics who, for example, don't teach their children to fear hell, and Muslim men who would never strike their wives...just as there are Democrats who actually pay attention to the issues and vote based on who has the best ideas and best chance of accomplishing their goals.

It depends on your definition of ''religion''. I see religion as an extention of politics, because it is a human affair, and you don't.
So I see ''a lack of religion'' as a replacement for whay YOU regard as religion, simply because I don't believe it is possible to be without religion. Without God? Yes.
We can in a sense be ''irreligious'', but that depends on what the standard of ''religion'' is within a society.

If you want to define "religion" as simply any set of beliefs, you're devaluing the word. "Beliefs" is a sound enough term for things you believe in with or without evidence; "Religion" has theistic connotations, and you only muddy the issue by using it as a catch-all for things like politics. Colloquially, sure, people say things like "'The Sopranos' is my religion," but that doesn't mean something you enjoy or believe in is literally a religion.

In any event, none of this changes the fact that religion is dangerous. Even if all it did was give motivation and justification to bad people doing bad things, it would be dangerous. But we know it does far worse than that.

Alot of religions are man-made, like the goo-to man text by the pope of the evolution theory, and evangelised by the priests of darwinism. Religions aren't man made anymore than a voting system is man made. While it may look like that on the surface, they are human endeavours, how to become politically, and spiritually successful. That's the point.

All religions are man-made. The thing you inaccurately refer to as "Darwinism" is not a religion; it is a standard model based on empirical evidence. One does not need to have faith to know that evolution happens--even you, having absolutely zero understanding of evolutionary theory even on a grade-school level, cannot argue that it happens. You rail against the "goo-to-man" aspect of it because it does not jibe with your worldview, and as you've said in the past, you'd rather be happy than informed.

:wtf:

What was not clear about that? Religion is the institutionalization of a set of beliefs and a code of conduct. If this concept is beyond your grasp, I suggest you drop out now.

That's not religion. You are talking about polictics, using the someones personal idea of a scripture. Again, people are corrosive, not religion.

But that interpretation of scripture is the foundation for a religion. Unless you're trying to say that Wahhabi Islam isn't a religion, in which case, I can't wait to hear your rationale.

Religion doesn't make them do it, their own mind does.

No, religion makes them do it. These mandates are found in the texts. Where do you think these people get the idea that beating their wives is okay? Did they just make it up? Or did they read it in the Quran?

 

[Jan Ardena]

RedStar,

Religion is, in many ways, a cause of many social problems. It is wholly scientifically illegitimate, and counter-productive. It is divisive and deceptive. Should religion, therefore, be banned?

I think you're wrong about religion, and it shouldn't be banned.
If you try to ban something like religion, you have to employ all the descriptions (and more) you listed.

The argument against banning religion would stem from the idealistic "free speech" principle, but in this case, it is more beneficial for society to protect religious "free speech" or to do away with religion? Which is materially more beneficial?

Banning religion is like banning colour.

This is akin to another argument: is it more important to protect a man's right to "private property" or to seize his property and feed hungry children? Which is more important, ideals and principles or material benefit for society in general?

Religion is quite likely to help feed the children, so there is no need to do away with anything, as food can be shared.

Enver Hoxha, the leader of the People's Republic of Albania, instituted a number of anti-religious reforms. In 1946, the Agrarian Reform Law nationalized most of the property of private religious institutions (e.g. churches) and therefore removed the wealth from the institutions.

Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stated "The State recognises no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in the people".

Much as I don't like to quote from Wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania#Communist_Albania

These measures were largely successful. Although some Albanians continued to worship in secret, Albania today is one of the least religious countries in the world.

And very violent.

Thoughts?

Banning religion is banning an essential part of the human expression, I don't think it is a good idea.


jan.

 

[youreyes]

Why do you think this?

jan.

Well I too agree with Crunchy Cat, I also believe that atheists value truth over feelings (including happiness). I believe that atheists are such because they do not trust other people as much, or maybe had some kind of a problem when they were growing up, perhaps issues with their parents and etc.

 

[RedStar]

Yeah, but that's what someone like Red Star wants. So you're actually making him froth in the loins.

Nope.

And all those people who threw off communism in the late 80's were all "anecdotes" but you're not! Right.

I think you should double-check your history. At the time of the dissolution of the U.S.S.R, most people voted to keep it, and today, much of Europe has an active and strong communist movement.

Contrary to the history you may have learned, the Soviet Union did not "collapse" and it wasn't "thrown off". It was dissolved by a political coup by Yeltsin.

I think you're making shit up.

Why did your wonderful family leave then? Where are they now?

Russia today is a shithole.

Do you have the comparative statistics of preference?

Do you?

That's not a reason to ban religion. The state was a criminal under Stalin, so while "crime" was lower, people were getting slaughtered.

Care to back that statement up, or are you just repeating talking points?

So your comparative reasoning is to take the second most vile government in the world and say, "HEY, at least we ain't Nazis! Eh, Comrade!"

No, my reasoning is that industrializing and doubling life span and improving literacy and education are good things.

How'd that work?

Quite well. The Eastern bloc is less religious than the West.

 

[youreyes]

Russia today is a shithole.

So true =/

 

[Balerion]

Banning religion is like banning colour.

I wouldn't go that far. Religion is a kind of proto-philosophy meant to explain the origins of our universe. If we come to find the answer, or simply stop worrying so much about it, it's theoretically possible that religion will simply go away.

In other words, it isn't something we must have. It is a relic of our ignorant past, and one that could likely be driven out by education. This is why so many religions fight against things like evolution; they know it could mean their demise.

Religion is quite likely to help feed the children, so there is no need to do away with anything, as food can be shared.

Wait, so whenever someone does something bad, it's their own fault, but when they do something good, it's because of their religion?

Banning religion is banning an essential part of the human expression, I don't think it is a good idea.


jan.

It isn't any more essential than stupidity. Both are very curable ailments.

 

[superstring01]

Probably due to your inability to adjust, creatively make something of yourself, identify a trade or otherwise utilize that giant brain evolution delivered to you and are now embittered by the notion that -- shucks -- some people have more "things" than you so life must be unfair.

Besides, I was doubting his claim of roots in the USSR.

~String

 

[RedStar]

Probably due to your inability to adjust, creatively make something of yourself, identify a trade or otherwise utilize that giant brain evolution delivered to you and are now embittered by the notion that -- shucks -- some people have more "things" than you so life must be unfair.

If you think Marxists just complain about people "having more stuff", you need to read more.

Besides, I was doubting his claim of roots in the USSR.

~String

The USSR hasn't even been gone 25 years. Everybody in Russia older than 21 has "roots in the USSR".

 

[superstring01]

Do you?

Red Star. I'm three seconds from banning you. NOT for disagreeing with me but for being stupid and making statements and refusing to back them up.

Let me explain. YOU stated a fact about Albanians, not me. I made no claims about Albanians. I did, however, ask you to support your claim. I don't care about you being a communist, my dearest friend -- who lives in Spain (who I'm visiting for the month of October) is a died-in-the-wool communist (well, democratic communist: like Tiassa). So, spare me the "you don't like communists" drivel you're about to puke.

You made the statement about Albania, I'll give you 24 hours to support it with credible statistics. If not, you can take a leave from the place for a while.

See, if you want to say all the lofty things you want about how horrible capitalism is or how horrible the west is, I don't care, but when you start quoting facts, you better have the ability to support them . . . or you get a vacation.

Your choice.

Care to back that statement up, or are you just repeating talking points?

You want me to show you internationally accepted figures for the deaths as attributed to Stalin? I will, of course, if you like.

No, my reasoning is that industrializing and doubling life span and improving literacy and education are good things.

Okay. So, I know a guy who weighed 310lbs. He gave up all meat and became a vegan. He started exercising and now runs around claiming that being a vegan saved his life and it's the "only lifestyle" that people should be living.

I disagreed. Sure, sure, the veganism certainly saved his life, but that's more because ANY change would have dropped the weight and he's stilted the comparison: Peter weighed 310lbs before the exercise and vegetable based diet. He never studied whether similar exercise and the inclusion of fish and eggs would have delivered the same or better results. Since his previous diet was of Twinkies and Hohos and KFC, anything would have been an improvement. He cannot state, for certain, that the vegan diet did it. He can only state that it helped. In fact, it's just as likely he would have seen the same results if he ate small amounts of eggs, fish and perhaps lean meats. But he could not in all honesty claim that the absence of all meats "made him thin". More likely it was the exercise, and absence of junk food.

The real truth is: INDUSTRIALIZATION improves lives. It creates surplus wealth. The same thing happened in the west. Now, I'm not disputing or discussing the morality or superiority of consumerism vs. collectivism. You may well be right: Marxist-Socialism may well be superior. What I'm saying is that Authoritarian-Forced-Atheistic-Communism is not a superior state, especially since there is simply no way to check a tyrant's power and especially since free movement of people and free decisions of what people want to do with their wealth (i.e. their property) is inevitably the only guarantor of a humanist society.

Technology in Russia before the rise of communism was paltry. Most of the population were less than a generation from being freed from serfdom (de facto slaves) so OF COURSE any change was a change for the better. They were living on rock-bottom, the only direction was up: whether it be laissez faire economics, hybrid socialist-capitalism, communism or something else. Those people lived under one failed oppressive scheme after another. In fact it was technology and industry that made all those Russian lives better. Same thing would have happened with a capitalist industrialization.

Quite well. The Eastern bloc is less religious than the West.

Look dude. I'm a militant atheist. I'm flying DOWN TO TEXAS in September for an Atheist convention and to meet the people of my favorite TV show (http://www.atheist-experience.com/), I have devoured every book by Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins. I write diatribes about the evils and stupidity of religion at Quora all the time. In fact, along with Barry Hamp, I'm the most vocal writer on Atheism-related questions on the whole goddamned website. Nothing sets me off more than religion and how it's vile, despicable and worthless. BUT, even more important than that is the value of human individuality. It's not that I don't think the world would be better off without religion (I'm certain of it), it's just that every single path to that end that includes an authoritarian approach always invalidates human worth and inevitably leads to massive deaths. From Pol Pot to Stalin, too much power to one regime always results in harm to society. And don't even get me started about how the USA is the exact opposite and heading even further in the direction of corporate tyranny (again, I've written at length on that), it's just that, there is a balance, a middle road. An ability to still allow people to run their lives, make money, be rewarded AND provide health care, a basic retirement (at 75 years of age) while checking the power of super powerful corporations. But you miss that entirely and want the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction of corporate tyranny. Been there. Done that. Frankly, I doubt your intellectual capacity and I sense a little boy who's screaming for attention and who is otherwise devoid of a work ethic, skills and ability to make something of himself and thus you -- like my born-again Christian, Texas-Militia, Racist brother -- have latched on to the easy thing to give your life worth: a revolutionary cause that is--ultimately--doomed to the kind of miserable failure that only such nonsense can bring.

And I realize there's no point in reasoning with you. You're convinced You've drunk the Flav-or-Aid and don't care. Everybody else is "brainwashed". You're the loan smart guy here who's on to the real truth. Whew! Thank Allah! What you don't realize -- like all technologically unacquainted individuals -- that the future lies in not a communist revolution but in a technological revolution. You may yet live to see an egalitarian society of relative socialistic rule. It's just that it won't come through revolution. It will come through the technologies human beings are working on now. You'll just have to wait a bit longer and actually do something worthwhile with your life for now.

Communism failed for a reason: people like me who would revolt at anybody taking away my rightfully earned things. It fell for a reason: no society can long endure that doesn't have absolute respect for each individual. And while it may seem that individualism can lead to the destruction of a society (it can), such a destruction cannot compare with an inhuman government that seeks to impose its will on individuals because of elite notions about what those individuals should do with their bodies, time and wealth.

~String

 

[RedStar]

Red Star. I'm three seconds from banning you. NOT for disagreeing with me but for being stupid and making statements and refusing to back them up.

Like most people do, especially when they make assertions about the history of the communist movement.

Let me explain. YOU stated a fact about Albanians, not me. I made no claims about Albanians. I did, however, ask you to support your claim. I don't care about you being a communist, my dearest friend -- who lives in Spain (who I'm visiting for the month of October) is a died-in-the-wool communist (well, democratic communist: like Tiassa). So, spare me the "you don't like communists" drivel you're about to puke.

From what I have gathered, Tiassa is a liberal.

And my claim about Albanians is that many Albanians miss the days of socialism. I don't quite understand how you want me to "back this up"; it's a rather unremarkable statement.

This is the best I could find regarding Albania
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/albania-s-communists-seek-revival-at-polls/

Regarding Russia and Romania:

http://mondediplo.com/2004/03/11russia
http://www.balkanalysis.com/romania...a-opinion-polls-show-nostalgia-for-communism/

It should not be a stretch to expect a similar situation in Albania. I also have statistics for East Germany, if you want me to dig them up.

You made the statement about Albania, I'll give you 24 hours to support it with credible statistics. If not, you can take a leave from the place for a while.

See, if you want to say all the lofty things you want about how horrible capitalism is or how horrible the west is, I don't care, but when you start quoting facts, you better have the ability to support them . . . or you get a vacation.

I support pretty much everything I say about the Soviet Union and the history of socialism, as well as the crisis in Syria. Unlike the people throwing accusations of "crimes" and not backing them up. But, since that is the "prevailing opinion", apparently Bells gets to make absurd statements abut Cuba or Syria or Lenin and not have to provide any sources for them.

You want me to show you internationally accepted figures for the deaths as attributed to Stalin? I will, of course, if you like.

Please do. Most analyses attribute famine deaths to Stalin, as well as some of the more ludicrous ones (e.g. The Black Book of Communism) attributing some WW2 deaths to the communist movement. This is hardly intellectually honest; and I can just about as easily quote and support a death toll for American and British capitalism.

The real truth is: INDUSTRIALIZATION improves lives. It creates surplus wealth. The same thing happened in the west. Now, I'm not disputing or discussing the morality or superiority of consumerism vs. collectivism. You may well be right: Marxist-Socialism may well be superior. What I'm saying is that Authoritarian-Forced-Atheistic-Communism is not a superior state, especially since there is simply no way to check a tyrant's power and especially since free movement of people and free decisions of what people want to do with their wealth (i.e. their property) is inevitably the only guarantor of a humanist society.

What's with the fear-tactics regarding "force"? All political authority is force. Do you seriously believe people are "free" in the West or in the United States? How do we check the tyranny of corporations which have grown to such a state as to be virtually untouchable?

Technology in Russia before the rise of communism was paltry. Most of the population were less than a generation from being freed from serfdom (de facto slaves) so OF COURSE any change was a change for the better. They were living on rock-bottom, the only direction was up: whether it be laissez faire economics, hybrid socialist-capitalism, communism or something else. Those people lived under one failed oppressive scheme after another. In fact it was technology and industry that made all those Russian lives better. Same thing would have happened with a capitalist industrialization.

True, but socialist economic policies achieved industrialization in 20 years whereas the United States and Britain industrialized over a much longer period supported by imperialism. At least there was equitable distribution in the Soviet Union, or at least, less inequality.

Look dude. I'm a militant atheist. I'm flying DOWN TO TEXAS in September for an Atheist convention and to meet the people of my favorite TV show (http://www.atheist-experience.com/), I have devoured every book by Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins. I write diatribes about the evils and stupidity of religion at Quora all the time. In fact, along with Barry Hamp, I'm the most vocal writer on Atheism-related questions on the whole goddamned website. Nothing sets me off more than religion and how it's vile, despicable and worthless. BUT, even more important than that is the value of human individuality. It's not that I don't think the world would be better off without religion (I'm certain of it), it's just that every single path to that end that includes an authoritarian approach always invalidates human worth and inevitably leads to massive deaths. From Pol Pot to Stalin, too much power to one regime always results in harm to society. And don't even get me started about how the USA is the exact opposite and heading even further in the direction of corporate tyranny (again, I've written at length on that), it's just that, frankly, I doubt your intellectual capacity and I sense a little boy who's screaming for attention and who is otherwise devoid of a work ethic, skills and ability to make something of himself and thus you -- like my born-again Christian, Texas-Militia, Racist brother -- have latched on to the easy thing to give your life worth: a revolutionary cause that is--ultimately--doomed to the kind of miserable failure that only such nonsense can bring.

I generally agree, except a) "authoritarian" needs to be better defined (after all, we ban drugs and prostitution) and b) don't compare Pol Pot to Stalin

And I realize there's no point in reasoning with you. You're convinced -- like all technologically unacquainted individuals -- that the future lies in a communist revolution when clearly it lies in a technological revoluttion. You may yet live to see an egalitarian society of relative socialistic rule. It's just that it won't come through revolution. It will come through the technologies human beings are working on now. You'll just have to wait a bit longer and actually do something worthwhile with your life for now.

Marx anticipated this. The development of the productive forces will reach a state allowing us to circumvent the need for authority over capital or competition for resources.

Communism failed for a reason: people like me who would revolt at anybody taking away my rightfully earned things. It fell for a reason: no society can long endure that doesn't have absolute respect for each individual. And while it may seem that individualism can lead to the destruction of a society (it can), such a destruction cannot compare with an inhuman government that seeks to impose its will on individuals because of elite notions about what those individuals should do with their bodies, time and wealth.

~String

The attempted socialism of the 20th century was generally an astounding success, in fact. I've already explained why numerous times, so I'll not post all the reasons here; you can look at my historical threads for that.

 

[superstring01]

Like most people do, especially when they make assertions about the history of the communist movement.

You seriously want to taunt me on this? Again, I don't care about your support of communism and most of the time I've read your posts and enjoyed what you have to say. It's when you make quotes and start making chants that you utterly lose credibility. Make a claim, back it up.

From what I have gathered, Tiassa is a liberal.

He is a liberal. That's like saying, "From what I have gathered, Tiassa is a human" or ". . . is from Earth." or ". . . is a guy".

No doy!

But he's more of a democratic-socialist.

It should not be a stretch to expect a similar situation in Albania. I also have statistics for East Germany, if you want me to dig them up.

Not needed. You've supported your point adeqately.

Remember, the correct reply when someone--especially the mod of the forum in which you're posting--asks you to back something up is not to come up with some sophomoric rhetorical tactic and say, "No, do you!?" Wrong. I wasn't making the statement of fact.

I support pretty much everything I say about the Soviet Union and the history of socialism, as well as the crisis in Syria.

Yeah. I don't give a shit about Syria. Let Syria deal with, fix, slaughter itself. The world has 7 billion people, the USA is not nor should be in the business of meddling in what other countries do. People -- by and large -- stayed out of our civil war. We should remember that.

Unlike the people throwing accusations of "crimes" and not backing them up.

Re: Syria? Again. I don't care, but I believe the reports about Assad. But, again, I don't care.

Wait. I do care. I want him to respect the individuality of his people, but I don't care enough to say, "Let's do something" because we'll be maligned even worse if we do.

But, since that is the "prevailing opinion", apparently Bells gets to make absurd statements abut Cuba or Syria or Lenin and not have to provide any sources for them.

I'm sorry. Who judges absurd? You? Sorry. Doesn't work like that.

And while I'm not fond of arguments ad populum, I would say that the prevailing book of evidence is that Lenin, Castro and Assad are authoritarians with no regard for human beings.

Most analyses attribute famine deaths to Stalin

Well, since he refused to dissolve the collective farms and sent thousands to gulags, let's just agree that he killed -- purposefully and directly -- many hundreds of thousands. The millions were cold disregard and willful neglect. Either way, his job was to care for his people, he refused aid, he refused to ask for it and he exacerbated the situation.

as well as some of the more ludicrous ones

Wait. . . NEW RULE!!!!

I HEREBY ANNOUNCE A NEW RULE, LET THE SCRIBES WRITE IT UPON THE HOLY SCROLLS!

When we speak, we must henceforth use only the English language when determining what is and what isn't a valid use of a certain word or fact.
Ergo, we must agree upon a common definition before engaging each other. I will also accept input about what is and what isn't factual.

So, if -- for example -- you determine that "morality equals Christ" and I say "No, morality is morality", we no longer have a common frame of reference and cannot continue beyond that point until we arbitrate the matter.

Ergo, who is to determine what is a "ludicrous" source? You? Me? I'd say me because I'm not an idealist (well, except for a humanist), but that horse isn't in this race.

But, if you want to defer to Tiassa on this matter, we can.

I submit the academically accepted sources for deaths in the USSR.
Which do you submit?

[You do realize that I work with a family of Ukrainians who carry pictures of their dead family members who died while Russian soldiers carried food off their farms to feed starving Russians, right? Anecdotal, for sure, but clearly supported by the wealth of evidence.]

(e.g. The Black Book of Communism) attributing some WW2 deaths to the communist movement. This is hardly intellectually honest;

Refer it to the arbitrator.

and I can just about as easily quote and support a death toll for American and British capitalism.

I've told you this: stupidity and dishonesty will get you banned, not defending your point.

Let me explain, we aren't discussing the USA. If you want to do that, create another thread.

Let me give you an example a (COMMUNIST) professor of mine taught me years ago:
Kelly: "Suzy, I was walking through the park and I saw your mother hit a little boy in the face"
Suzy: "Whatever Kelly, your mother's a whore and everybody knows it!"

See, that didn't really address the factuality of what Kelly was saying. I mean, sure, her mother could be a whore, but that doesn't prove that Suzy's mother wasn't hitting a little boy in the mouth.

Geddit? Good. What you did was a puerile (and frankly exhausting) attempt at distraction called a "red herring". We aren't talking about the USA. So spare me the bullshit about what the USA does. I'm quite the historian and the liberal and the humanist, I know full goddamned well about the crimes of my country. You'll pardon me if I exit the witless rantings about them when they are not germane to the discussion.

What's with the fear-tactics regarding "force"?

RedStar, you're being stupid again. I've clearly demonstrated that when power can gather in unreachable places it leads to terrible things (including corporate places, which I've acknowledged). This was never about "force" it was about un-checkable force. You're attempting to alter the narrative of my statements, that is both dishonest and stupid. We've covered what happens when you do that.

All political authority is force.

But the questions are: From where is it derrived? How is it checked?

Do you seriously believe people are "free" in the West or in the United States?

What is freedom? You can shift the perspective.

There's a Bene Gesserit saying: "Seek freedom and you will become a slave to it. Seek discipline and you will find your freedom."

But to answer your question, yes, I'm free. Now, to you I may not be free, but to me I am. I have everything my hands can reach.

Know why? I work hard. I make six-figures and I've earned it. I have freedom of thought. I have freedom of movement. I have freedom of belief and religion (or no religion in my case). I have freedom to leave the country (which I am doing very soon). I have the freedom to debate you. I have freedom of expression and freedom of protest. Is there some other kind of freedom that I'm not aware of, which you are coyly keeping from me?

Now, I know it's all exciting for people like you to claim that we aren't free. But what--specifically--do you want? What freedom is there that you aren't given which you (a) don't already have and (b) cannot earn with a bit of work.

See, this is where I doubt your honest. People like you love to say, "We aren't free in the USA! Everything is controlled by the government!" To which I say, "I'm not a sheeple, and I would challenge you to prove it! I consider myself most definitely free and I love my freedom!"

How do we check the tyranny of corporations which have grown to such a state as to be virtually untouchable?

Got me. Start a new thread. You might find me agreeing with your hatred of them.

True, but socialist economic policies achieved industrialization in 20 years whereas the United States and Britain industrialized over a much longer period supported by imperialism.

The USSR received factories, metals, designs and supplies in massive quantities from the USA during WWII. After the war it disassembled factories from Poland, Austria, Germany and Czechoslovakia and shipped them East. On top of that, it used massive sums of funds from the sent over during the war to offset industrial misappropriation to build much of its industry. War has a way of inspiring people to do great things.

At least there was equitable distribution in the Soviet Union, or at least, less inequality.

Right. Instead of a few rich, a large middle class and about 10% poverty level, all of the USSR lived with no freedom, equal poverty for most of the nation, a secret police force locking people up in Lubyanka and gulags too numerous to name and an elite ruling class with Dachas on the Krimea with absolute power over every day life.

And, mind you, I'm not praising the American model as perfect in every way, only that it was clearly LESS imperfect in terms of respect for human dignity, delivery of creative technologies and overall contribution to human culture.

And still, you're using "polar opposites" to make your claims.

Clearly the USA could have a hybrid model and still be mostly capitalistic while not being oppressive or tyrannical in people's lives.

. . . supported by imperialism.

Wait, so, I'm sorry. Was there some kind of a dig there? You do realize that the USSR conquered it's entire territory before and after Stalin and oppressed every racial minority within its borders, right? All your showing is that people are authoritarian and racist, not any innate superiority of communism.

I generally agree, except a) "authoritarian" needs to be better defined (after all, we ban drugs and prostitution)

Authoritarian in this case is any power that attempts to control human lives beyond the bare necessity to hold a society together.

and b) don't compare Pol Pot to Stalin

Or what?

But you're right. Stalin slaughtered far more than 9 million people.

The development of the productive forces will reach a state allowing us to circumvent the need for authority over capital or competition for resources.

No shit.

Think about it Red Star. Communism as a goal is perfect and on the spot, you're just going about it wrong. You're attempting to subplant human nature without allowing individuals to chose the next step of their evolution.

Let's follow the steps.

We're already developing technologies that can--right now--hard-wire computer equipment into our nerves.

By 2020 we'll have the first abilities to hard wire things for non-handicapped reasons.
By 2035 we'll have begun re-arranging our DNA. We'll start to weed out many of the really horrible traits. We won't get rid of human imperfections (not necessary), but if 90% of the crime can be linked to biological lack of initiative, lack of focus and propensity to desire chaos, then that's 70 billion dollars a year, ALONE, freed from criminal policing and housing in the USA.
At that same time we'll begin to engineer plankton which can eat our waste and produce methane that can be siphoned off for fuel.
We'll have engineered vegetables that produce better harvest (sorry, I don't buy the anti-GMO fad, it's immoral to allow half the world to starve because of a desire to be organic)
By 2045 we'll have reverse-engineered the human brain and will be living parts of our days/lives in some form of augmented reality.
By 2100 we'll have designer life-forms, nano-technology that has universal-assemble capabilities.

My dates may be off by a few years, but there's no doubt that all of these technologies are coming.

How can I be so sure? Simple: nature beat us to them.

Nature already uses bacteria and plankton to break down "things" and turn it into methane. We'll just perfect the process.
Nature already builds microscopic nano machines, they're called bacteria and viruses. We'll just perfect the process.

You'll see your dream and you won't even have to force people to become atheist: Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Finland are all free nations (the freest) but have atheist rates well over 50%. Leave a people educated long enough and they give up religion. Religion only had a place when people lived in pain and needed answers to their suffering. Technology and education alleviates those things. We know this is true because, where are the most religious places on earth? You got it! The least educated and least technologically advanced places on Earth. Ever wonder why the USA is so religious? Take a look a the places where religion holds: the deep south our countryside (where people have the least access to education) and the inner cities.

Human history takes time. Yes, there's suffering along the way. That cannot be helped. Remember: You're talking to a gay guy who was paraded in front of his Navy unit back in the 90's before being locked in a mental hospital (homosexuality was considered a mental illness back then). But I knew things were changing. I have faith in that. I'm 37 now and I'll live just long enough to see history change. Look how much it's changed from 1900! My great grandmother (died at 95 in 88) remember shitting in outhouses and taking a buggy to town. Now we're building robots that can go to mars or be inserted into the human cell. A single laptop today is more powerful than all of the computers on earth in 1980. A single laptop in seven years will be more powerful than a human brain (according to Moore's law-- and it's been right for 50 years). By 2040 a single laptop (or whatever is a laptop sized computer) will have more power than all human brains on earth. Imagine what can be accomplished.

Why not spend your energy living an amazing life for yourself, finding love, making love, getting educated, finding a great job and living long enough to see everything you want. Patient people live longer and happier lives and they harm far fewer people.

~String

 

[Aqueous Id]

Albania today is one of the least religious countries in the world.

Thoughts?

Yes, let's use a country that has epitomized the failure of Soviet influence and hold it up as a banner of success, because someone thinks it's "one of the least religious of countries". What a crock and what a bogus proposition. Yes, let's ban the freedom of expression of this individual who is merely pretending to be Russian just to prank-troll the masses.

Bro! Can I get a Comrade! from the peanut gallery? Let's not only regress to the worst political fiasco since the rise (and before the rise) of fascism, let's regress to the era when it had the world by its family jewels (literally and figuratively), laying seige to world events, dominating and intruding into the lives and affairs of people and nations, setting emerging economies 50 years back, instituting the arms race, wars, attrition, indoctrination, work camps, food shortages, and all of the sadist trappings of authoritarianism, including atrocitities, interventions, invasions and human rights violations world wide.

Let's revisit all of this in their flagship republic, Albania.

In other words, come over to my house for a sample of some of the fine Cabernet I have stowed in the cellar. But when you get there I'm going to pour you some of the worse rotgut of the harvest, and we'll be puking out brains out long before we even get a buzz on.

Yeah, sure, why not. Makes perfect sense to me. Given the source of this funky sludgebucket.

 

[RedStar]

You seriously want to taunt me on this? Again, I don't care about your support of communism and most of the time I've read your posts and enjoyed what you have to say. It's when you make quotes and start making chants that you utterly lose credibility. Make a claim, back it up.

I'm not referring to you in this case.

He is a liberal. That's like saying, "From what I have gathered, Tiassa is a human" or ". . . is from Earth." or ". . . is a guy".

Liberals are far from being socialists of any sort. Actual socialists don't consider liberals to be socialists.

Yeah. I don't give a shit about Syria. Let Syria deal with, fix, slaughter itself. The world has 7 billion people, the USA is not nor should be in the business of meddling in what other countries do. People -- by and large -- stayed out of our civil war. We should remember that.

My sentiments exactly. I hope Syria can work out a good solution for themselves and have a better future. What I'm referring to is the mindless rambling on this forum about that "evil Assad" without ever backing it up (I won't list who but you know who you are).

It's not as simple as "evil Assad vs noble rebels". It's a complicated situation, based on all the Syrians I've spoken to.

And while I'm not fond of arguments ad populum, I would say that the prevailing book of evidence is that Lenin, Castro and Assad are authoritarians with no regard for human beings.

According to whom? Certainly not Cubans, Russians, and Syrians.

Your history books and media are biased; I am unsurprised at the way they portray people that are unfriendly towards the United States.

I dare you to back up your claims that Lenin or Castro were "authoritarians with no regards for human beings."

Well, since he refused to dissolve the collective farms and sent thousands to gulags, let's just agree that he killed -- purposefully and directly -- many hundreds of thousands. The millions were cold disregard and willful neglect. Either way, his job was to care for his people, he refused aid, he refused to ask for it and he exacerbated the situation.

Why should he have dissolved the farms? That defeats the point of collectivization.

And we're talking about a time period in which Russia was recovering from a World War I, the world was in a depression, and the country was a backwater, all the while leading up to World War II

I wouldn't have expected peaches and cream. Stalin did what had to be done to carry Russia through World War II and through the European landscape at the time.

I submit the academically accepted sources for deaths in the USSR.
Which do you submit?

The same. For example, Robert C. Allen's "Farm to Factory" is a good read, and I have a few books on Albania (I can dig them up for the titles).

And, I'm not an idealist. I'm a materialist. Hence why I don't brush off the Soviet Union by saying "that wasn't real socialism" the way idealists do (e.g. libertarians who tell you "this isn't real capitalism")

[You do realize that I work with a family of Ukrainians who carry pictures of their dead family members who died while Russian soldiers carried food off their farms to feed starving Russians, right? Anecdotal, for sure, but clearly supported by the wealth of evidence.]

There are people who debate the Holdomor. I won't be one of them. What I will say is this: nobody's hands are clean.

RedStar, you're being stupid again. I've clearly demonstrated that when power can gather in unreachable places it leads to terrible things (including corporate places, which I've acknowledged). This was never about "force" it was about un-checkable force. You're attempting to alter the narrative of my statements, that is both dishonest and stupid. We've covered what happens when you do that.

I'm just pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of people (not you, but others) who pretend American history is fine and dandy and feel they are on the moral high horse.

American and British and other capitalism was based on centuries of development at the blood of many in the third world. The Bolsheviks had no precedence; they had no former history to examine. They were going in blind.

Today, we have a wealth of historical knowledge to examine and criticize; the internet; robotics; and high industry.

What is freedom? You can shift the perspective.

Know why? I work hard. I make six-figures and I've earned it. I have freedom of thought. I have freedom of movement. I have freedom of belief and religion (or no religion in my case). I have freedom to leave the country (which I am doing very soon). I have the freedom to debate you. I have freedom of expression and freedom of protest. Is there some other kind of freedom that I'm not aware of, which you are coyly keeping from me?

Now, I know it's all exciting for people like you to claim that we aren't free. But what--specifically--do you want? What freedom is there that you aren't given which you (a) don't already have and (b) cannot earn with a bit of work.

See, this is where I doubt your honest. People like you love to say, "We aren't free in the USA! Everything is controlled by the government!" To which I say, "I'm not a sheeple, and I would challenge you to prove it! I consider myself most definitely free and I love my freedom!"

Glad to hear it, but my conception of freedom doesn't include "private property" (not the same thing as personal property), so we are talking with two different paradigms in place.

My conception of freedom includes the freedom from want and exploitation; the freedom to develop freely without the force and pressure of material conditions.

"In place of bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, shall we have an association where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" - Marx

I have a different conception of liberty than you do. And how free are you? You have the PATRIOT act in place. You have drones spying on the citizens. You have Guantanamo Bay and the use of torture. You have Obama carrying through the same fascistic policies of the Bush years.

How free are you? You don't see what goes on in the third world to support your lifestyle.

Right. Instead of a few rich, a large middle class and about 10% poverty level, all of the USSR lived with no freedom, equal poverty for most of the nation, a secret police force locking people up in Lubyanka and gulags too numerous to name and an elite ruling class with Dachas on the Krimea with absolute power over every day life.

Here's where you back that up.

And you can point to "bread lines", but you don't take it in context. Before the bread lines there was no bread. The average Soviet worker had a quality of life much beneath the average American worker; but whereas the average American worker had to go through economic and financial uncertainty, the average Soviet worker lived in a community.

People who complain about bread lines have never been in the third world, where there isn't any bread at all.

And, mind you, I'm not praising the American model as perfect in every way, only that it was clearly LESS imperfect in terms of respect for human dignity, delivery of creative technologies and overall contribution to human culture.

The United States developed according to a completely different set of material circumstances. You simply can't compare the two. Considering her origins in 1917, I'm proud of the accomplishments of the Soviet Union (e.g. the Space Race).

Wait, so, I'm sorry. Was there some kind of a dig there? You do realize that the USSR conquered it's entire territory before and after Stalin and oppressed every racial minority within its borders, right? All your showing is that people are authoritarian and racist, not any innate superiority of communism.

Not true. I've never read anything about Soviet racism. And on the whole, the Soviet Union had better womens' rights and minority rights than the United States, for sure. No, I'm not shifting the focus: but on the whole, the Soviet Union had decent civil rights.

Stalin slaughtered far more than 9 million people.

I'll believe it when I see credible evidence of Stalin deliberately and intentionally killing anybody.

Why not spend your energy living an amazing life for yourself, finding love, making love, getting educated, finding a great job and living long enough to see everything you want. Patient people live longer and happier lives and they harm far fewer people.

~String

Amen to that. I'm agreeing with you. Socialism becomes more and more possible and practical as the productive forces are developed. We shall find ourselves, in the future, in a position where there won't be any reason not to have socialism.

Yes, let's use a country that has epitomized the failure of Soviet influence and hold it up as a banner of success, because someone thinks it's "one of the least religious of countries". What a crock and what a bogus proposition. Yes, let's ban the freedom of expression of this individual who is merely pretending to be Russian just to prank-troll the masses.

Ad hominems. How cute.

Look up the history and economic development of Albania under Hoxha and I'll debate you. Until then, you strike me as an American idealist with a rosy black and white picture of the world who evidently believes all the bullshit the mainstream media shoves down your throat and the crappy history books.

 

[Mazulu]

I prefer to wipe my ass with the communist manifesto.

 

[lightgigantic]

I wouldn't go that far. Religion is a kind of proto-philosophy meant to explain the origins of our universe. If we come to find the answer, or simply stop worrying so much about it, it's theoretically possible that religion will simply go away.

Is this the part where we pretend that your take on the origins on the universe isn't a proto-philosophy??? (although it would require a substantial greater effort of pretending to think that whatever answers you offer, even of the proto-philosophical variety, could so much as halt the ultimate demise of your molars rotting ... much less any greater issues of worry and anxiety
:shrug:

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well I too agree with Crunchy Cat, I also believe that atheists value truth over feelings (including happiness). I believe that atheists are such because they do not trust other people as much, or maybe had some kind of a problem when they were growing up, perhaps issues with their parents and etc.

You've presented no reasons that explain: Why atheist? Why not ''some people''?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

But some ideologies--particularly religious ideologies--bind people to a set of ethics and behaviors that they may not have otherwise adopted.

You're all over the place here. In one breath you say that religion was invented to explain lightening and stuff, now you harping on about ''religious ideologies''
Isn't the ideology about knowing what lightening is?

In that sense, it kind of is like a precursor to modern politics: if you are a Democrat, you're likely to vote Democrat regardless of what any of the candidates actually say,

Some people, maybe, but not everyone. So your hypothesis is incorrect as in some people aren't at all likely to vote that way.

...and you're more likely to defend your candidate even in cases where their actions would be intolerable if committed by a candidate outside of your party.

Again, it doesn't work like that.
It kind of clear to see how you come to the goo to man idea, even acting as though you know it's true, but really, it isn't.

Same goes for religion, where you will follow a code of conduct because it is part and parcel with believing in a particular god.

So it's got nothing to do with knowing what lightening is anymore?

Now, of course there are Catholics who, for example, don't teach their children to fear hell, and Muslim men who would never strike their wives...just as there are Democrats who actually pay attention to the issues and vote based on who has the best ideas and best chance of accomplishing their goals.

So that means everything you've just sprouted, is nonsense, because you haven't taken this into account, and try to understand how this is so, especially as it actually goes against your understanding.

I see how this goo to man is so confidently prominent, despite not having a shred of evidence to back this confidence. It's like the financial system, there's no actual, real, money, but we're spending it anyway.

If you want to define "religion" as simply any set of beliefs, you're devaluing the word. "Beliefs" is a sound enough term for things you believe in with or without evidence;

First off. Religion is an action, not just belief. One can believe something for which there is evidence. I think you're mixing ''belief'' with ''faith''.

"Religion" has theistic connotations, and you only muddy the issue by using it as a catch-all for things like politics. Colloquially, sure, people say things like "'The Sopranos' is my religion," but that doesn't mean something you enjoy or believe in is literally a religion.

If the person believes in God, then yes it has theistic connotations, but ''religion'' is a lot more than that. All you're doing is emphasising you're not theistic, therefore I'm not religious. But you're wrong.

In any event, none of this changes the fact that religion is dangerous. Even if all it did was give motivation and justification to bad people doing bad things, it would be dangerous. But we know it does far worse than that.

Religion can't be dangerous, people are dangerous. That's a fact.

One does not need to have faith to know that evolution happens--even you, having absolutely zero understanding of evolutionary theory even on a grade-school level, cannot argue that it happens. You rail against the "goo-to-man" aspect of it because it does not jibe with your worldview, and as you've said in the past, you'd rather be happy than informed.

Nonsense. I have to be predisposed to it, to accept, because there's otherwise nothing there. It is actualisation of ''The Emperors New Clothes'', that simply fills the void, which is why Dawkins said darwinism creates intellectual fulfilment for the atheist.

What was not clear about that? Religion is the institutionalization of a set of beliefs and a code of conduct. If this concept is beyond your grasp, I suggest you drop out now.

That's your understanding of religion, and it's still apparent in what you say.
To me, there's a difference between the institute of religion, and religion, but you don't understand that, and you never did, which is
why you came out of one institute and went into another, because there was no fulfilment in the former. Were you a part of a religious institute?

But that interpretation of scripture is the foundation for a religion. Unless you're trying to say that Wahhabi Islam isn't a religion, in which case, I can't wait to hear your rationale.

You say that, but you don't understand the fullness of it.
You see scriptures as some kind of document that contains information about the material world, but that's not what it is.

No, religion makes them do it.

It would probably make you do it, because that's how you see it, but your character cannot grasp the idea
that people different, and see things differently. No different to any other empire/utopian ideologist. They just think that's right, this is wrong, end of.

These mandates are found in the texts. Where do you think these people get the idea that beating their wives is okay? Did they just make it up? Or did they read it in the Quran?

What were these people doing before why simply beating your wife is the best option. Not every scripture condones that kind of action.
So what is it about these particular people? And who does it now, and who doesn't do it? If it was a religious injunction, then every practising Muslim man would beat his wife, in the same way they pray five times a day.

Apart from that, what about the secular world? Don't wife beating a serious problem among other heinous kinds of acts? What makes that a religious injunction, in your mind?


jan.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Why do you think this?

jan.

Here are a few reasons:

* Many atheists have the courage to abandon religious belief despite the psychological satiation it provides and despite the pain they will endure from retalitory theist family members, theist friends, and possibly a theist community.

* Many atheists prefer to say "I don't know" vs. supplying an untrue answer just to artifically feel and look helpful / useful / competent.

* Many atheists have eliminated their psychological dependency on erroneous concepts such as objective purpose or objective importance.

 

[superstring01]

According to whom? Certainly not Cubans, Russians, and Syrians.

RedStar, I've asked you not to do this without backing up those claims. When you speak for a people, it's a "majority rule" thing. I'm not going to get into it with you, but we KNOW that vast swathes of those people feel some kind of anger at what's going on. That sort of anger should be addressed civily and with deft. Right now people are being massacred. They were killed and imprisoned in the USSR and Cuba.

Your history books and media are biased

When you address me, please stop saying "your". You don't know what "mine" are. Okay?

I am unsurprised at the way they portray people that are unfriendly towards the United States.

Wait. You're surprised that victors write history books. Are you going to -- here and now -- say that Stalin did any better? That he was truthful and honest?

I dare you to back up your claims that Lenin or Castro were "authoritarians with no regards for human beings."

Both invented secret police forces that imprisoned, tortured and killed people.

Or are we going to quibble over what you consider to be an acceptable source?

Why should he have dissolved the farms? That defeats the point of collectivization.

Because they were demonstrated to work less efficiently than allowing people to till their own farms. Collectivization is a means to an end: food for everybody. Once they started delivering those ends, then they fail. And I can see now that I'm talking to someone with no more heart than a NAZI. People died in millions in the USSR because of a failure of the state to act with appropriate measures to take care of its people. If collective farms would have worked, then by all means. They failed and people starved. The USSR in the 80's had more productive land than the USA but was importing grain from the USA, Canada and Argentina and denying that they were doing so and claiming it came from collective farms.

I wouldn't have expected peaches and cream. Stalin did what had to be done to carry Russia through World War II and through the European landscape at the time.

So, you think that all those deaths at his hands were worth it?

I'm just pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of people (not you, but others) who pretend American history is fine and dandy and feel they are on the moral high horse.

American and British and other capitalism was based on centuries of development at the blood of many in the third world. The Bolsheviks had no precedence; they had no former history to examine. They were going in blind.

Today, we have a wealth of historical knowledge to examine and criticize; the internet; robotics; and high industry.

All developed in capitalist societies.

Glad to hear it, but my conception of freedom doesn't include "private property"

Mine does. Most of society does. We're programmed to need immediate rewards.

Now, talk about genetic reprogramming, sure. Go ahead.

My conception of freedom includes the freedom from want and exploitation; the freedom to develop freely without the force and pressure of material conditions.

Been tried on the macro and micro scale. And that ideology is great, it's just not attainable because of human psychology.

I have a different conception of liberty than you do.

No doy!

And how free are you?

I told you how free I am and I stated my definition of freedom.

I have all the critical elements of freedom as defined by most people:
-Freedom of thought
-Freedom of expression
-Freedom of ownership
-Freedom of association
-Freedom of movement

I have made some very bold very aggressive statements about my government to my brother who is an intelligence analyst with the US's largest spy agency. I write for a website (two actually) and make very bold, blatant statements about my nation. No issues.

I'm an atheist. No issues.

I own personal and private property. No issues.

I leave the country regularly and come back. No issues.

I have all the friends and associates I want. No issues.

I earn a solid income. No issues.

I'm in college earning my bachelor's of computer science (bettering myself). No issues.

I run seven miles every morning. I have a trainer. We're preparing for several marathons and the ToughMudder in the spring. No issues.

I've explained this to you. What other type of freedom is there that I'm not getting? Be specific. What is there that I'm not getting?

You have the PATRIOT act in place.

Indeed. Not a good thing. But tell me -- specifically -- what Americans have had their Bill of Rights violated by the P.A. Name them.

Keep in mind, I'm not defending the P.A. But I want to hear what rights are currently being violated, specifically, when and where.

You have drones spying on the citizens. You have Guantanamo Bay and the use of torture. You have Obama carrying through the same fascistic policies of the Bush years.

Those are political statements. And you know full well that any of those things don't compare to the tactics of the KGB and those who were tortured in the Lubyanka. But, of course, that's mixing issues.

None of my rights that I listed have in any way been violated by those. Tell me, specifically how MY rights have been removed.

How free are you? You don't see what goes on in the third world to support your lifestyle.

I've been to Western Africa and all of the Americas. Please stop telling me what I do and do not know. We've been through this RedStar.

Here's where you back that up.

Which part? The part about Russian elite living in Dachas on the Krimea?

The average Soviet worker had a quality of life much beneath the average American worker

As determined by who?

but whereas the average American worker had to go through economic and financial uncertainty, the average Soviet worker lived in a community.

But lived in fear of an oppressive government.

People who complain about bread lines have never been in the third world, where there isn't any bread at all.

Wait. What does that matter? My cable goes out and I get pissed, rightfully, but I don't have to say, "Oh there are people starving in XYZ." I'm allowed to judge my life by my circumstances and environment.

The United States developed according to a completely different set of material circumstances. You simply can't compare the two. Considering her origins in 1917, I'm proud of the accomplishments of the Soviet Union (e.g. the Space Race).

I know you are. It's why you're blinded. Unlike you, I'm not blinded by any nation. I see them for all their sins and I have to weigh the full breadth of the good and the bad. I don't sit here denying the horrors of my past.

Not true. I've never read anything about Soviet racism.

So, since you've never read it, it didn't happen. Jews weren't moved east. Muslims weren't oppressed. Kazakhstan wasn't colonized. Right.

And on the whole, the Soviet Union had better womens' rights and minority rights than the United States, for sure.

As determined by who? (Keep in mind, I'm not denying that the USA didn't do so well in civil rights until the 70's).

the Soviet Union had decent civil rights.

Impartial jury?
Freedom to leave the country?
Freedom to protest the government?

I'll believe it when I see credible evidence of Stalin deliberately and intentionally killing anybody.

I'm not required to meet YOUR standards RedStar. It's not about you or me. You have demonstrated yourself as a blind apologist for Stalin. I could show you dead bodies and you'd still say, "Well he had to do what he had to do." I'm not talking to a person who's demonstrated enough spine to admit he's wrong and to say, "You know, you've educated me today and helped me grow. I will make the appropriate adjustments."

Amen to that. I'm agreeing with you. Socialism becomes more and more possible and practical as the productive forces are developed. We shall find ourselves, in the future, in a position where there won't be any reason not to have socialism.

Have you ever engaged in any kind of penetrative sex? I'm not trying to be gross. I'm asking a really natural question?

This applies to gay guys and straight guys.

Guess what happens when you rush a little too fast without allowing your partner to relax, get stimulated and --- ahhhhh --- prepare for entry? Yeah. Owie! Not fun.

You're rushing things and the people and things you're trying to rush into haven't been prepared appropriately. You're skipping a few steps. OH SURE, the good stuff is coming, but there are steps and you're so desperate for step 6 that you don't realize by skipping steps 4 & 5 you're just asking for disaster. Trust me, don't rush things.

~String

 

[Jan Ardena]

Crunchy Cat.

Here are a few reasons:

* Many atheists have the courage to abandon religious belief despite the psychological satiation it provides and despite the pain they will endure from retalitory theist family members, theist friends, and possibly a theist community.

And likewise many theists have the courage to abandon the idea that there is no God, or they don't believe in God, despite similar circumstances, Anthony Flew
being a famous one.

* Many atheists prefer to say "I don't know" vs. supplying an untrue answer just to artifically feel and look helpful / useful / competent.

Many theists also. Many theists just believe that there is something greater than themselves, and they identify it as God because of what the word God means.
They will tell you they don't objectively know.

Many atheists have eliminated their psychological dependency on erroneous concepts such as objective purpose or objective importance.

Many theists have also.


jan.