Topic: Miracles of Bible... - page 3. (Read 4607 times)

Yep.

Not all atheists are communists, far, far from it. But if you do not belong to the liberation theology mindset, and you are a communist, then you cannot believe in any deity. It is that simple.

Yet we are all wired to believe and trust as social creatures. That is why you have a delicatessen disguised as a mausoleum  with a mummified piece of green meat deity inside, still worshiped by millions...


A strawman is a strawman is a strawman and communism is still a cancer, even for atheists... No miracle cures for that fact. Not even in 2000 years.


 

That still does not excuse the repeated attempts to create the dishonest association between Communism and Atheism. The Communists also ate bread, does that mean everybody who eats bread is a communist and a discussion about bread should, in fact, be about Communism instead?

They did not dictate that atheism be the norm in order to promote atheism as an intellectual position, they dictated atheism be the norm because they did not want to lose control of the people to the Russian Orthodox Church.

To question those at the top of any powerful organisation is to be a threat to that organisation.

The Chinese, for example are predominantly atheist, yet they still believe no end of superstitious nonsense because their atheism is not one borne of rejecting theism as an unsound premise because, if that was the case, they would also reject their superstitious claptrap too.

So, yet again, we are back at this situation where you are desperately still trying to make excuses for your false insistence that atheism should be associated with Communism simply because you want it to be in order to paint it as negatively as possible rather than actually being honest enough to acknowledge that Atheism is simply the rejection of the theist assertion, "There is a God", on the basis that said assertion is baseless.

Where does the rejection of a fallacious assertion equal sociopolitical ideology? I'll answer that for you - It doesn't.

Are you ready to be honest about your 'Holy' book's origins yet?

They are the most prolific atheists in history. Naturally everybody associating atheism with Communism.

Communism isn't just a social system it's a full featured ideology with it's own moral and ethics, basically a kind of religion.

Again with the forced association of atheism with Communism, why?

This is not a discussion about communism, this is about theism and atheism, why are you repeatedly bringing in a social system that is nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with communism?

Why can't communism be communism without a centralized daddy like figure to guide its people? Because communism needs sheep to slaughter. That is what history has told us thus far, with millions of dead sheep as proof... Way more than any free, any free market driven societies...

Make up your mind which point you're trying to make here. I don't think anybody claimed that Communists were not Atheists, but there is a massive distinction between being told that religion is forbidden by the State and having the intellectual capability yourself to recognise the multiple fallacies required to maintain a religious 'belief' based on dogma.

As for your "I'm not saying that all atheists are commies", why bring it up then? Atheism is, by definition, *solely* a position held by a person which rejects the theist position on the basis that it is a logically fallacious assertion.

Communism is absolutely some else entirely, but I get that theists like to, as RodeoX quite rightly pointed out, attempt to demonise-by-association a word which has long since lost its negative image as more people have gained the intellectual capability to properly understand what it actually means.

Atheism is a religion like "Not collecting stamps" is a hobby.


That's called prejudice.

But you need to understand the major difference between the fact that knowing somebody is a theist, from which you can reasonably apply a set of values that person must have without ever meeting them, and knowing somebody has, say, black skin, from which you cannot reasonably assert any values as skin colour does not tell you a single thing about the type of person they are.


That's a baseless assumption you are attempting to imply is a fact in order to bolster your position. Being 'social creatures' does not correlate with 'needing' a figure to 'worship'.

The two things are unrelated.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms:   faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

God does not exist under communism. Yet as social creatures humans need a figure to worship. This is why you have a red square with a gigantic portrait of the one who had replaced God, Lenin, Stalin mummified, etc... The cult of personality under communist societies is the answer of forbidding one opium and replace it with another mummified cancer...

The world of religion is becoming history and atheism is simply not a bad word anymore. That is what I think led to the current arguments that attempt to tie atheism with something people don't like. Or to try arguing that it is really a religion. A religion without a God?

Commies, in fact were atheists. I'm not saying that all atheists are commies. What I'm saying is some atheists are acting pretty similar way as religious fanatics at their best when someone talking about God in their presence.



If you encounter the same harmful behavioural pattens several times from some ethnic groups then you will naturally form preconceptions.

Again, it appears you are implying that the Communist practice of forbidding religion is equal to the Atheist position of rejecting the theist assertion for the fact it is a fallacious argument.

Care to explain why?

I don't understand what you mean by this, could you expand on it?

Ah, yes, the Atheists as Communists schtick, never get tired of hearing that old one.

Atheism is not Communism. Communism is Communism.

Forbidding religion is not the same as educating people enough to intellectually understand why religion is delusional nonsense.

For what you call "racism" some IRL experience used to be enough .

Just on the side note, the perfectly atheist commies and their "worshippers" did exactly the same .

Looks good. +10.


I ain't Imam.


Uh! I had no intention to hurt you. You posted a meme about a car to tease me amd BADecker spread some lie or something(I don't remember correctly), so I took that car into what I said. I apologize if I had offended you. However, posting a meme there made you involve*!in the discussion.

* Cause to experience or participate in an activity or discussion.

Well, then we discovered a whole network of drug abusers

You can change your avatar anytime. I have already put a contingency plan in place...


I only care about ideas shared in this forum. "Imam bruce lee" represents a set of ideas. It is you now, but we had plenty before you and plenty after you.

I understand the feeling though. When someone makes a joke about sending a car bomb to my neighborhood when I wasn't even involved in a back and forth discussion, it was a little bit disconcerting to say the least...

Well I am telling you that in order for you to believe that *any* religious book contains truthful answers to the questions of life you have opted to employ fallacious reasoning or, for that matter, you are insufficiently able to practice objective reasoning or critical thinking.

For you to 'choose' the Islamic version of 'truth' is no difference to any other theism. Your book contains statements which purport to be true, yet common sense would tell you, for instance, that if I were to say to you that I had a vision of a god speaking to me while I was having an epileptic fit, chances are pretty damn likely the experience I had was caused by neurological misfiring taking place.

But because your book is chock full of 'mystical' woo and magic, which you again fail to question sufficiently, you choose to believe that your 'prophet' was, indeed, a messenger spoken to regularly by a god.

Because, you know, he said so.

Your failure to recognise that him saying so is no different, IN ANY WAY, from me saying so, is why your erroneously believing you have a worthwhile investment in that particular brand of intellectual dishonesty, continues to deceive the one small part of your mind that is capable of acknowledging that you're not being particularly honest about how you choose to look at your theism-of-choice.

I get that everybody wants answers to the deep, meaningful, questions. What I don't get is the willingness most show towards simply accepting when one person, or a group of people, profess to have those answers and that all you have to do is accept their word for it. In any other aspect of your life you would not accept that, but when it comes to theism, you give it a 'special' pass on looking too closely at it for fear of seeing all the cracks and flaws it is riddled with.

Here's something for you, to keep this post on topic, most American Christians profess their love of the Bible, particularly the King James Version, which is full of 'thee' and 'thou' and much in the way of olde-worlde English terms and phrases. Except that at the time King James commissioned it, most people didn't actually speak that way anymore, but he specifically required his version of the Bible maintain the old-fashioned-even-for-back-then style of language because he felt, quite rightly it turned out, that people would be more inclined to feel it had gravitas and deep meaning.

So, today, we see the Xtian yanks citing Bible quote after Bible quote with their hearts aflutter at the use of 'thee' and 'thou' etc. etc. completely oblivious to the fact that it is an artificial spin on the original texts.

I have researched about difference, similarity and contradictions in different religions and atheims. I found Islam is better and I chose it. Reading Qur'an also gave me good knowledge.

This will be different for differen people. I think you are Islamaphobia, so when you read it, you will always think in a biased way which will always make you feel you are right.* If you think something is wrong/right, it is good to tell wrongdoers they are wrong in a peaceful way. You can always come up with a biased statement just like many theists because you are theistophobia. Happy debating!

* I am not telling what you think isn't right or wrong.