Is Christianity in Decline in America?

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you count Stalin and Mao's atrocities as deaths perpetrated by atheists, then you have to count Hitler's as deaths perpetrated by religious people. Either is pretty silly though, because they weren't inspired by their atheism or theism, but by political ideologies.

it seems like atheism is related to communism in the same way that nationalism was related to nazi ideology

where as my understanding is that the nazi ideology wasn't necessarily pro-christian... more it managed to coexist with christianity on a pragmatic basis and perhaps drew some cultural cues from christianity... but overall nazi ideology wasn't contingent on being christian, and in some cases even deviated into a sort of neo-paganism.

i think a better comparison could be made to say the conquering of the american continent under the banner of manifest destiny.

but my issue with this whole numbers argument of which side is worse is this... yea stalin and mao and them killed a shit ton more than let's say isis has. is this because stalin and mao were just that much more evil than isis? not really, imo. the death tolls are more a circumstance of history than anything else. largely just people being crushed under the weight of frantic efforts to industrialize agrarian peasant based societies at a rapid pace and consolidate power in said societies under a one party state. so any significant point that could be made about the danger of dogmatic ideologies is lost once you start playing that numbers game.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i feel like it's a bit different though isn't it... because atheism is actually a crucial part of the marxist/communist ideology

It didn't play like that at all though, Stalin enforced good relationships with the Russian Orthodox Church when he felt they could be useful. Also, there is a relevant difference between atheism and anticlericalism.

i am basically repeating my understanding of history, and i am no historian so i could be off on what i say, but this is how i understand it

marx wrote about religion being the opiate of the masses, basically a needless distraction. basically people find peace in religion and it prevents them from becoming agitated enough to do something about the unjust system (capitalism) they exist in

this promotion of secularism and atheism becomes a crucial part of communist ideology, with communist regimes eventually deeming it desirable and/or necessary to promote atheism in the population and minimize religious sentiments, basically regarding religion as a possible source of subversion. something about having a dogmatic all encompassing ideology that starts to regard other dogmatic all encompassing ideologies with some hostility.

yea, stalin compromised as a pragmatic strategy when it was beneficial to do so. but for all intents and purposes, the communist agenda was still inherently pro-atheism and anti-religion. not that these are the only or even main concerns of communist ideology. but they are considered necessary aspects of it.

but yea clearly the communist regimes we've seen will compromise their principles. communism was also supposed to work against nationalist sentiments... but look how that turned out.

Originally posted by red g jacks
marx wrote about religion being the opiate of the masses, basically a needless distraction.

People always quote the "opium of the people" part without the line that follows the next which élaborâtes on it: " (it's the)sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions".

I'd argue that secularism, while included as part of a theoretical communist society, was never meant to be forcibly applied so "early" in the process described by Marx. But yeah, all historical movements spiced it up as they saw fit for conveniance's purposes.

i'm not saying that marx himself would have signed off on soviet policies or anything like that

but didn't he pretty much spell out that people should ideally be set free from the shackles of religion so they could make more rational decisions regarding their status and autonomy?

basically just saying that the ideological connection between communism and atheism seems much stronger than the ideological connection between nazism and christianity. that's the distinction i was trying to make.

nazism used and embraced and/or subverted christianity as it saw fit... as a pragmatic approach because it just so happened to arise in a christian society.. where as communism didn't arise in an atheist society but rather (unsuccessfully) sought to turn societies atheist... and pragmatically compromised with religious power where they saw fit.

Originally posted by red g jacks
nazism used and embraced and/or subverted christianity as it saw fit... as a pragmatic approach because it just so happened to arise in a christian society.. where as communism didn't arise in an atheist society but rather (unsuccessfully) sought to turn societies atheist... and pragmatically compromised with religious power where they saw fit.

As I see it, Nazism clearly appealed to a misguided sense of christianhood to push it's agendas, which is akin to the kind of practical anticlericalism pushed by actual Communist regimes. You could argue that if Communism were to be created outside a religious society, it wouldn't have had the same anticlerical undertones.

The nazis were anticlerical in their own way.

Originally posted by Star428
Because, as I said, the Crusades were just a reaction to Muslim aggression against Christians. All the atrocious acts that were committed during Crusades would've never happened if not for that because there wouldn't have even been any Crusades. If Muslims had been persecuting atheists and/or shown aggression towards them on the same scale that they did to Christians then I"m sure atheists would've taken drastic action as well. I seriously doubt they'd just keep sitting around and continue to take it with a smile on their faces.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That isn't accurate on any level. With that said, looks like we finished the discussion just at the right time.

For example, you discounted Imperial Japan despite their state sponsored Shinto. It was actually one of the big things we dismantled after the war. Emperor Hirohito, allegedly even after be forced to renounce his faith post WWII, believed he was a straight up descendant of Amaterasu dude.

I think it's a mostly silly discussion, but we need to be fair if we're going to have it. If "killing while atheist" is the only criteria for the atheist column, then "killing while religious" should be the only criteria for religious column...and most of the world is religious. I'd see the religious outpacing the atheists pretty quick on kill counts.

Not that it means anything of course. Assholes are assholes.

Hell, even Buddhists in Myanmar are slaughtering Muslims right now. No Monotheism involved, but that's religious violence.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hell, even Buddhists in Myanmar are slaughtering Muslims right now. No Monotheism involved, but that's religious violence.

If Muslims are getting killed, monotheism is the target (hence involved), so your wording fails biscuits

I think it's a mostly silly discussion, but we need to be fair if we're going to have it. If "killing while atheist" is the only criteria for the atheist column, then "killing while religious" should be the only criteria for religious column...and most of the world is religious. I'd see the religious outpacing the atheists pretty quick on kill counts.

If Muslims are getting killed, monotheism is the target (hence involved), so your wording fails

Originally posted by Bentley
As I see it, Nazism clearly appealed to a misguided sense of christianhood to push it's agendas, which is akin to the kind of practical anticlericalism pushed by actual Communist regimes. You could argue that if Communism were to be created outside a religious society, it wouldn't have had the same anticlerical undertones.

The Nazis were anticlerical in their own way.

No, the Nazis were very clerical. Hitler gave taxes from Catholics to the Catholic Church. Owing to his involvement with the church, he went after gays, outlawed abortion, and set discipline standards. The Nazis ordered that Christianity be taught in schools. Religious mottos were part of Nazi uniforms. German troops were often required to be blessed by Catholic priests before going out. The SS enforced discipline against heresy against church doctrine.

One of the first things he did after gaining power was go after atheists.

Originally posted by Trocity
He has no argument.

Of course he doesn't, psmith is an Anti-Abortion freak who defends fascistic scum such as the Orange Order or the Pro-Life militants.

To answer his argument, Stalin was an atheist (which is debatable, owing to his choosing to study for the priesthood), but the countless deaths under his regime werent in the name of atheism, they were in the name of power.

While he came down on the Russian Orthodox Church, it should be remembered that this was the church whose seminary school he could not finish. He later named them a patriotic group during World War II and they revived parishes. Likewise, Mao (and his replacements) killed anyone who flouted his rules, including those of atheist religions such as Buddhism, Falun Gong, Taoism, etc. Dictators without fail kill to maintain and demonstrate their power, whatever excuses get put forward.

Religious people on the other hand, have killed for their Religion. Most murders in the world occur in Religious countries.

Originally posted by Bentley
If Muslims are getting killed, monotheism is the target (hence involved), so your wording fails biscuits

Originally posted by psmith81992
That isn't a good argument. Simply stating that since there are more religious people in the world, there are also more religious related deaths in the world begs some kind of proof.

👆
The antireligious always try and put a religious label on most atrocities.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I know you're trolling me, but I meant monotheism isn't necessary for religious people to perpetrate violence.

Lol @ you thinking his post supports your arguments. He was razzing me over the wording of my post, not the idea behind it.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Of course he doesn't, psmith is an Anti-Abortion freak who defends fascistic scum such as the Orange Order or the Pro-Life militants.

To answer his argument, Stalin was an atheist (which is debatable, owing to his choosing to study for the priesthood), but the countless deaths under his regime [b]werent in the name of atheism, they were in the name of power.

While he came down on the Russian Orthodox Church, it should be remembered that this was the church whose seminary school he could not finish. He later named them a patriotic group during World War II and they revived parishes. Likewise, Mao (and his replacements) killed anyone who flouted his rules, including those of atheist religions such as Buddhism, Falun Gong, Taoism, etc. Dictators without fail kill to maintain and demonstrate their power, whatever excuses get put forward.

Religious people on the other hand, have killed for their Religion. Most murders in the world occur in Religious countries. [/B]

this seems like a dogmatic double standard to me. what specifically prevents atheists from acting 'in the name of atheism?'

let me give an example... in china you can get sent to prison for your religious beliefs or going to the wrong church or being perceived as 'spreading' your religion. the network of prison/labor camps that people are sent to, very often on the basis of their religious or political beliefs, is called the laogai. laogai in chinese means 'reform through labor,' and the camps are designed to alter people's beliefs by basically using them as slave labor for a while and then releasing them back into society once their stint is done. supposedly over half of the world's slaves are being held in these camps.

one example that was documented by al jazeera shows a christian woman who was sent to prison for 'spreading her religious views' and was told that she was being taken to the laogai 'to teach her that her belief in jesus is wrong.'

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/slaverya21stcenturyevil/2011/10/2011101091153782814.html

now imagine the roles were reversed. imagine it was a religious theocracy like iran that were imprisoning atheists and forcing them to do slave labor in order to reform their religious views and indoctrinate them into becoming muslims. would you not call that religious persecution in the name of religion? be consistent.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so you believe that whenever atheists kill or persecute religious people, they don't do it in the name of atheism... yet when religious people do it they can do it in the name of religion?

this seems like a dogmatic double standard to me. what specifically prevents atheists from acting 'in the name of atheism?'

let me give an example... in china you can get sent to prison for your religious beliefs or going to the wrong church or being perceived as 'spreading' your religion. the network of prison/labor camps that people are sent to, very often on the basis of their religious or political beliefs, is called the laogai. laogai in chinese means 'reform through labor,' and the camps are designed to alter people's beliefs by basically using them as slave labor for a while and then releasing them back into society once their stint is done. supposedly over half of the world's slaves are being held in these camps.

one example that was documented by al jazeera shows a christian woman who was sent to prison for 'spreading her religious views' and was told that she was being taken to the laogai 'to teach her that her belief in jesus is wrong.'

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/slaverya21stcenturyevil/2011/10/2011101091153782814.html

now imagine the roles were reversed. imagine it was a religious theocracy like iran that were imprisoning atheists and forcing them to do slave labor in order to reform their religious views and indoctrinate them into becoming muslims. would you not call that religious persecution in the name of religion? be consistent.

Nobody takes that lewis kid seriously. The minute he sees someone defending religion, they're already anti abortion and freaks. Basically, his stupidity is transparent.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so you believe that whenever atheists kill or persecute religious people, they don't do it in the name of atheism... yet when religious people do it they can do it in the name of religion?

this seems like a dogmatic double standard to me. what specifically prevents atheists from acting 'in the name of atheism?'

let me give an example... in china you can get sent to prison for your religious beliefs or going to the wrong church or being perceived as 'spreading' your religion. the network of prison/labor camps that people are sent to, very often on the basis of their religious or political beliefs, is called the laogai. laogai in chinese means 'reform through labor,' and the camps are designed to alter people's beliefs by basically using them as slave labor for a while and then releasing them back into society once their stint is done. supposedly over half of the world's slaves are being held in these camps.

one example that was documented by al jazeera shows a christian woman who was sent to prison for 'spreading her religious views' and was told that she was being taken to the laogai 'to teach her that her belief in jesus is wrong.'

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/slaverya21stcenturyevil/2011/10/2011101091153782814.html

now imagine the roles were reversed. imagine it was a religious theocracy like iran that were imprisoning atheists and forcing them to do slave labor in order to reform their religious views and indoctrinate them into becoming muslims. would you not call that religious persecution in the name of religion? be consistent.

No. Communists did not kill in the name of atheism. The killed in the name of the state. The killed to maintain power.

Those killed because they were a different religion by the religious were also killed to maintain power but religion was the excuse.

The same can not be said of those atheist regimes.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
No. Communists did not kill in the name of atheism. The killed in the name of the state. The killed to maintain power.

Those killed because they were a different religion by the religious were also killed to maintain power but religion was the excuse.

The same can not be said of those atheist regimes.

Yes, it can. Substitute "religion" for "political ideology" and you have the same thing. Especially if religion goes against a particular political ideology, then you get religious persecution. But we already know you're emotionally anti religious so you're going to come up with double standards.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, it can. Substitute "religion" for "political ideology" and you have the same thing. Especially if religion goes against a particular political ideology, then you get religious persecution. But we already know you're emotionally anti religious so you're going to come up with double standards.

Wrong again. The point here is that there is no "name of atheism". In the name of means "by the authority of". Unless the sole purpose and "justification" for his killing was to rid the land of theists, and outlaw religion, then it is illogical to suggest that he was killing in the name of atheism. An atheist can justify killing in a variety of ways that has nothing to do with atheism. Conversely, when a religious person believes in killing in the name of God, that is a religious cause.

Last time I checked i believe that religiously motivated people are constantly looking for their martyr ticket to be punched.

No. He isn't "wrong" at all.