Why is it always Atheists vs Christians?

[Uncensored2008]

There have been sanctions on North Korea for decades. On and off since 1953 in fact.

Sanctions by the US against North Korea are every bit as effective as sanctions by me against you.

Since there was no trade or tie in the first place, sanctions are a hollow and meaningless gesture. North Korea was, is, and will continue to be, a client state of China. The only sanctions that would EVER effect North Korea are those imposed by China.

Again, it ain't Cuba.

And military aid is a huge help to the south.

It did keep the Communists from incorporating them into the giant prison camp that is the north.

But it has zilch to do with the economic progress of the South.

Every dollar in military aid we give them is a dollar they don't have to spend. Not to mention, our having troops there is the number one reason NK hasn't invaded.

It is not as black and white as you pretend. North Korea is a vassal of Communist China. Korea was the first of the proxy wars. Without the struggle between the Communist bloc and the USA, there would have been no war in the first place. We have kept the north at bay, allowing the South to develop on it's own.

No shit. What little trade they have is with China. And they have received some aid from China (as I said) although that ebs and flows with the rhetoric coming out of the dictator.

Which has nothing to do with supposed "sanctions" from us. I point to Vietnam, a country that had far more stringent sanctions, yet now has robust trade - including with the USA. North Korea has isolated itself.

It's a self perpetuating issue. Poverty leads to unrest. Unrest to fear by dictators. Fear leads many to tyranny. And the tyranny often leads to more unrest.

This is why these leaders love to have an enemy they can blame.

While true, this misses the base issue that tyranny stifles economic growth leading to ever greater poverty.

In the age of industrialization, where famine and drought can be overcome, the cause of poverty is tyranny.

What has that to do with anything? There is no question the leader is paranoid. Most dictatorial rulers are. He's put to death a lot of people of all ilks.

It is the core issue. It is the fact that there is no "freedom of religion" as you claimed, and the religion is severely oppressed.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

So, does this post suggest that you endorse a theocracy?

 

[Underhill]

No, poverty does not lead to dictatorship. Why am I not surprised you have difficulty with cause and effect? Most people who support totalitarianism do.

Dictators typically rise to the top by tricking the people into thinking they represent a form of government they do not, and then they put into place, one by one, policies that oppress the people and remove their means of resistance. They find excuses to imprison, kill or otherwise remove people who stand in opposition...usually via laws that the people approve of at the time.

By the time the people realize what has happened while they were asleep at the wheel, it's too late.

It's happening in our country as we speak.

Right. And I am the one who doesn't understand.

Got it.

We weren't talking just about dictators, but brutality by government. It usually comes at the hand of a single leader (it's hard to find a group diabolical enough to sign on) but it doesn't have to.

The claim was that brutality is worse among atheist. Something that the facts simply do not support. And my point is that most brutality is in response to fear by leaders. The cause of that fear is usually unrest brought on by the shitty conditions the people face.

I suppose it doesn't have to work that way. It didn't with Hitler. But in most cases throughout history it does.

My point is it isn't about faith or lack of faith. So in a sense, the religious here are right. The inquisition was not about faith. Faith was a pretense for brutal control. Just as lack of faith was sometimes used as a pretense for brutal control.

It's not a complicated concept to understand.

 

[Underhill]

It is the core issue. It is the fact that there is no "freedom of religion" as you claimed, and the religion is severely oppressed.

Yes, as is everyone in North Korea. Anyone with an idea at odds with the leadership, or perceived to be at odds with the leadership, is crushed.

But it is not limited to Buddhist or Christians, or the religious. It may be worse for them, I don't know. And articles I have read on the subject offer mixed perspectives. It is hard to tell from outside such a tightly controlled country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, does this post suggest that you endorse a theocracy?

Maybe she endorses reading comprehension?


In Salem, Massachusetts, the Christians established a Theocracy. Over a hundred year period, 19 people were killed.

Last week, Islam killed 10 times as many. But don't let that sway your undying fealty to Islam - they hate Americans, after all.

 

[koshergrl]

No, poverty does not lead to dictatorship. Why am I not surprised you have difficulty with cause and effect? Most people who support totalitarianism do.

Dictators typically rise to the top by tricking the people into thinking they represent a form of government they do not, and then they put into place, one by one, policies that oppress the people and remove their means of resistance. They find excuses to imprison, kill or otherwise remove people who stand in opposition...usually via laws that the people approve of at the time.

By the time the people realize what has happened while they were asleep at the wheel, it's too late.

It's happening in our country as we speak.

Right. And I am the one who doesn't understand.

Got it.

We weren't talking just about dictators, but brutality by government. It usually comes at the hand of a single leader (it's hard to find a group diabolical enough to sign on) but it doesn't have to.

The claim was that brutality is worse among atheist. Something that the facts simply do not support. And my point is that most brutality is in response to fear by leaders. The cause of that fear is usually unrest brought on by the shitty conditions the people face.

I suppose it doesn't have to work that way. It didn't with Hitler. But in most cases throughout history it does.

My point is it isn't about faith or lack of faith. So in a sense, the religious here are right. The inquisition was not about faith. Faith was a pretense for brutal control. Just as lack of faith was sometimes used as a pretense for brutal control.

It's not a complicated concept to understand.

The point is..it almost always starts with small erosions of liberty. And usually the starting point is to limit religious freedom.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

So, does this post suggest that you endorse a theocracy?

No, it doesn't. It suggests that you're an idiot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The point is..it almost always starts with small erosions of liberty. And usually the starting point is to limit religious freedom.

Or the right to self-defense and the possession of arms.

 

[koshergrl]

For the ignorant...freedom of religion is not theocracy.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The sheer absurdity of these theist/atheist debates is that they all devolve into the same thing: "You're more brutal. No, YOU are."

These rundowns of numbers mean nothing. Atheism is a pretty new thing in the course of human history, so in terms of a percentage of the human population slaughtered, it's a pointless debate. Man's inhumanity to man is timeless. Every group of power in history, whatever their motivation, have engaged in it. Power is power, and even the most brutal regimes have something in them that thinks they are doing things for the good.

And, once and for all, can theists and atheists alike stop using the Holocaust as an example in this ludicrous battle? The Holocaust stands as the greatest shame of the Western world, and guess what, all hands were in on it. Hitler may have had an some atheistic agendas, but copies of Martin Luther's On Jews and Their Lies were also displayed during the Nuremberg rallies as a source of inspiration. I've seen the Holocaust used by both sides more times than I can possibly count. I understand that nobody wants to accept that people of their ilk had anything whatsoever to do with the Holocaust, but please, knock it off already.

There is a larger psychological picture here that should be examined. Atheists and theists pointing fingers at one another as more brutal, or evil, or whatever, is really just an displacement mechanism. Human beings are capable of tremendous inhumanity. Instead of accepting that we might also have that capability (which we all do) we redirect it.

One of the worst consequences of the Holocaust, besides the atrocities themselves, are that it has provided the ultimate displacement scapegoat for virtually all of humanity, except for Germans themselves of course, who spent decades saddled with the stereotype baggage that Hitler gave them. I give Germans a lot of slack. Every German I've known has been the salt of the earth. This country in which such an atrocity took place, and their people are just as awesome as can be. This tells me that good people can do horrible things, or at least accept the horrible things that are being done by their own.

Anyway, that's my observational opinion. Feel free to bash it you must.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

So, does this post suggest that you endorse a theocracy?

Maybe she endorses reading comprehension?


In Salem, Massachusetts, the Christians established a Theocracy. Over a hundred year period, 19 people were killed.

Last week, Islam killed 10 times as many. But don't let that sway your undying fealty to Islam - they hate Americans, after all.

I have no fealty to Islam at all, let alone undying fealty. Fuck you for suggesting that I do. Asshole.

 

[newpolitics]

No, poverty does not lead to dictatorship. Why am I not surprised you have difficulty with cause and effect? Most people who support totalitarianism do.

Dictators typically rise to the top by tricking the people into thinking they represent a form of government they do not, and then they put into place, one by one, policies that oppress the people and remove their means of resistance. They find excuses to imprison, kill or otherwise remove people who stand in opposition...usually via laws that the people approve of at the time.

By the time the people realize what has happened while they were asleep at the wheel, it's too late.

It's happening in our country as we speak.

Just thought I should point out that, what you explained here was "how" a dictatorship might arise, not why. The post you are responding to was answering the question of "why" a dictator might arise. Yours is a red herring, or a distraction from the point that person was trying I make. Logic...

To add my own two cents (as long as we're speculating causes), countries in bad socioeconomic situations with little political cohesiveness may be vulnerable to military coups by power hungry contingents with strong leadership, who in some sense, may want to help things (at least, as was their original intent), but in their need to maintain power and prevent another military coup, rule with an iron fist. In doing so, they ironically can become the same problem they set out to solve, over time. Example: Castro, who took out Batista.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

It's hard for humans to accept when someone won't listen to us. Even the most cool headed person can get heated if they think someone is doing something they believe is stupid. Take that and mix in already excitable people and you get a recipe for hatred.

Most of the theist/atheist/agnostic arguments that fly around here we've all heard a thousand times before. What can I say? When hard heads collide expect some hard feelings.

As for the atheist/agnostic comparison that has gone back and forth... It's hard to fit humans with complex thoughts and motivations into little convenient boxes and call them This or call them That.

For those discussing proof... It is not possible to prove that the statement "God exists" is false. That is not a victory for theists. It is a simple fact. It is practically impossible to prove that God does exist. That is not a victory for atheists. It is a simple fact. There is no burden on anyone to prove definitively one way or the other on the issue. Anyone is free to believe either notion, and there is nothing that anyone can do about that freedom. Even if you suppress my right to speak for or against God you cannot change the beliefs that I hold. They are beyond your reach and belong only to me.

For a final thought... remember without assholes we'd all be full of shit.

 

[amrchaos]

Prove or disprove god?

Which specific god are you talking about?

 

[Underhill]

No, poverty does not lead to dictatorship. Why am I not surprised you have difficulty with cause and effect? Most people who support totalitarianism do.

Dictators typically rise to the top by tricking the people into thinking they represent a form of government they do not, and then they put into place, one by one, policies that oppress the people and remove their means of resistance. They find excuses to imprison, kill or otherwise remove people who stand in opposition...usually via laws that the people approve of at the time.

By the time the people realize what has happened while they were asleep at the wheel, it's too late.

It's happening in our country as we speak.

Right. And I am the one who doesn't understand.

Got it.

We weren't talking just about dictators, but brutality by government. It usually comes at the hand of a single leader (it's hard to find a group diabolical enough to sign on) but it doesn't have to.

The claim was that brutality is worse among atheist. Something that the facts simply do not support. And my point is that most brutality is in response to fear by leaders. The cause of that fear is usually unrest brought on by the shitty conditions the people face.

I suppose it doesn't have to work that way. It didn't with Hitler. But in most cases throughout history it does.

My point is it isn't about faith or lack of faith. So in a sense, the religious here are right. The inquisition was not about faith. Faith was a pretense for brutal control. Just as lack of faith was sometimes used as a pretense for brutal control.

It's not a complicated concept to understand.

The point is..it almost always starts with small erosions of liberty. And usually the starting point is to limit religious freedom.

Um, no that wasn't the point. It never was the point.

On top of which, I don't know of anyone eroding religious liberty. If I did I would join the fight against them. Religious freedom protects us atheist too. A fact too many people seem to miss consistently.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

It's hard for humans to accept when someone won't listen to us. Even the most cool headed person can get heated if they think someone is doing something they believe is stupid. Take that and mix in already excitable people and you get a recipe for hatred.

Most of the theist/atheist/agnostic arguments that fly around here we've all heard a thousand times before. What can I say? When hard heads collide expect some hard feelings.

As for the atheist/agnostic comparison that has gone back and forth... It's hard to fit humans with complex thoughts and motivations into little convenient boxes and call them This or call them That.

For those discussing proof... It is not possible to prove that the statement "God exists" is false. That is not a victory for theists. It is a simple fact. It is practically impossible to prove that God does exist. That is not a victory for atheists. It is a simple fact. There is no burden on anyone to prove definitively one way or the other on the issue. Anyone is free to believe either notion, and there is nothing that anyone can do about that freedom. Even if you suppress my right to speak for or against God you cannot change the beliefs that I hold. They are beyond your reach and belong only to me.

For a final thought... remember without assholes we'd all be full of shit.

My feelings aren't hurt. A guy said I have an undying fealty to Islam when in reality I have absolutely none, nor is there anything I've ever posted on this site that would suggest otherwise. For all I know that man is an absolute prince among men most of the time, but at that moment he was being an asshole, and I called him one. It actually had nothing at all to do with the argument.

 

[koshergrl]

Right. And I am the one who doesn't understand.

Got it.

We weren't talking just about dictators, but brutality by government. It usually comes at the hand of a single leader (it's hard to find a group diabolical enough to sign on) but it doesn't have to.

The claim was that brutality is worse among atheist. Something that the facts simply do not support. And my point is that most brutality is in response to fear by leaders. The cause of that fear is usually unrest brought on by the shitty conditions the people face.

I suppose it doesn't have to work that way. It didn't with Hitler. But in most cases throughout history it does.

My point is it isn't about faith or lack of faith. So in a sense, the religious here are right. The inquisition was not about faith. Faith was a pretense for brutal control. Just as lack of faith was sometimes used as a pretense for brutal control.

It's not a complicated concept to understand.

The point is..it almost always starts with small erosions of liberty. And usually the starting point is to limit religious freedom.

Um, no that wasn't the point. It never was the point.

On top of which, I don't know of anyone eroding religious liberty. If I did I would join the fight against them. Religious freedom protects us atheist too. A fact too many people seem to miss consistently.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I'm more at odds with the repeated claims that people seeking to establish Christian theocracies are just as brutal and dangerous as those who establish atheist and muslim regimes.

I keep asking for the evidence of current oppression by Christian tyrants....anything to support the assertion that Christians as *just as bad* and that Christians are just as big a threat, and that Christians are seeking to establish a theocracy....so far, nobody has coughed up a single example, a single picture, a single piece of proposed legislation, a single NAME.

Meanwhile, atheists, with the blessing of the state in China, in North Korea, and in other countries where religion is forbidden, are killing and torturing Christians who dare to worship God...right NOW. While totalitarians in this country insist that the only way to stop violence is for the state to remove freedom of religion and replace it with laws that make it illegal to raise your children in the church, or mention God outside the confines of your own home.

So, does this post suggest that you endorse a theocracy?

No, it doesn't. It suggests that you're an idiot.

I asked a question about a post where there is at least a suggestion that you may endorse Christian theocracy, and this is the answer I get. What a dick. At one time I thought you were capable of civil discourse.

 

[koshergrl]

If I have to explain to you that a post I wrote, which in no way endorses theocracy, doesn't endorse theocracy..then we aren't having a conversation anyway.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

If I have to explain to you that a post I wrote, which in no way endorses theocracy, doesn't endorse theocracy..then we aren't having a conversation anyway.

A post in which you contrast Christian vs other theocracies in a way that clearly favors a Christian theocracy, while not a direct endorsement of a Christian theocracy, at the very least justifies the question. You responded with nothing more than a petty insult.

Now, my observation is that most Christians, particularly of the evangelical ilk, would welcome, or at least be okay with, a Christian theocracy. It was an observation and I was very clear about that. I made absolutely not claim that there are politicians actively seeking to establish one. I suspect that was an attempt at misdirection on your part to discredit my observation by asking me to validate something I never said.

I've seen evangelicals saying "Christian nation this" and "Christian nation that" for years. It is based on that observation that I suspect Christians would welcome a Christian theocracy, and that's really about it. You may disagree with that observation, but don't ask me for evidence to support a claim I never made.

You could have simply answered my question with a simple "no" and that would have been fine, but your petty insults show your true colors.