There were more people to kill. Communism didn’t depopulate continents like the Christians did during the European expansion. If the Communists had been as murderous as Christians for as long they would have killed billions, not millions.
And if that was meant as a slam at me, I am anti religious as well as atheist; I lump Communism in with Christianity all the time. They strike me as quite similar.
The Christians did’t murder most of those people, they were killed by diseases. According to the book 1491, they were wiped out because in the different areas they had developed different immunities. The Europeans had immunity to Pathogens and the Natives had immunity to Parasites. Cortez doesn’t really hold a candle to Pol Pot, even proportionally.
They are, in both good and bad ways.
Atheism is a belief(NOT a belief system!) that no objective evidence has been brought forth to that would cause one to believe in any god or gods. It hasn’t got jack squat to do with Communism.
Communism is an ‘atheist’ belief system, in that they violently suppressed religions in many places, and still do to this day in China, regarding Falung Gong. Karl Marx argued a strict materialist position. Communism IS a belief system, and contextually, as we were talking about atheists forming non-theistic religions, it made perfect sense in context, to the person I was directing it to, who parried it very effectively.
Communism is a religion of the State-it is NOT atheism.
It is an atheist religion of the state. It is a subset of atheism, atheism is not a subset of that. Does that deconfuse you? God was illegal in the USSR. Do you really need me to explain this to you or will you concede?
You are wrong. I do not concede. Communism is not a subset of atheism.
Yes Pope Czarcasm! Only people who disbelieve in the correct deity may be members of the true unchurch!
[sarcasm]As I non-stand here in front of my non-Apple computer, I eat my non-dinner, drink my non-beer and contemplate my non-religion.[/sarcasm]
Atheists are not playing a different version of the religion game, and we are not playing the same game with alternate rules-We have set down the dice, we have thrown away the pretty playing piece, and thrown the board away. We are not playing the religion game at all. We don’t have a church, we don’t have a religion, we don’t have Communism as some subset-we don’t even have a loose set of rules to live by. We don’t worship our gods, we don’t worship your gods, we don’t worship their gods, and we don’t worship gods set up by governments(that would be Communism, for those who haven’t gotten the point yet.)
The Messiah was supposed to be king. Jesus didn’t come any closer than the Burger King. 
I’d have guessed, beforehand, that God would see to it that his true representative lasted a bit longer than Jesus did.
Of course his prophecies haven’t exactly been right on the money either.
Nonsense. Atheism is a single component of the belief system of Communism, Communism is not a subset of atheism. You could just as plausibly claim that Communism is a subset of the color red.
Atheism isn’t a belief system, either.
The real problem here is that mswas is treating atheism as a religion, as a set of people connected in some way. The only actual connection is lacking a belief in god. Atheists have no need to defend other atheists - if the reason for a lack of belief makes no sense. A person of religion X often feels the need to defend other members of their religion.
In fact, I despise Communism for the very reason I dislike religion - it provides a set of beliefs you are supposed to accept without doubt or question. You are supposed to have faith in the eventual dictatorship of the proletariat, no matter how clearly it is not working out. You’re supposed to go to church on Christmas, I mean walk in the Mayday parade.
Communists being atheists means nothing to me, since I have no need to defend them. Any assumption that I do shows a total lack of understanding of what atheism is all about - but that’s been pretty evident for a while.
Well now, that definition leaves me in an interesting situation: I am both atheist and theist.
I am an atheist in that I believe that no objective evidence has been brought forth that would cause one to believe in any god or gods.
I am a theist in that I believe in God anyway based on faith (first) and then my own subjective experience – (Bellow’s glimpses, Tolstoy’s and Proust’s “true impressions,” and Maslow’s “peak experiences”)
Okay. Then instead of saying that "all Christians claim to “know,” you should say that most of the Christians that you’ve met or listened to or read claim to “know.” That is much different from what you originally said.
“All Christians” includes me. “Most Christians that you’ve listened to or read” must not include Polycarp or Cosmos or me. (And certainly others here.) If I understand them correctly, they talk about what they believe on faith, not what they “know.”
If you are only listening to the “knowers,” your view of Christianity is warped. You are reading and listening to only the Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists do not make up the majority of Christians. I can cite if you really need for me to.
The reason that many non-Christians think that Fundamentalists make up the majority of Christians is that they are very politically active and vocal. They are organized and they vote. They tend to have more television programs and put out religious tracts. They sometimes go door to door.
In my subjective opinion, some of these same Fundamentalists can be quick to show hostility and judgment.
Please remember that I am politically liberal like you. How do you think that it makes me feel when you think that my Christian beliefs are like those of a Fundamentalist Christian? That wouldn’t make sense.
I could be mistaken, but I don’t think the Communist Party in the USA ever made a big deal about atheism.
What about Cuba? Is religion forbidden in Cuba?
“A” may have characteristic “b” (and thus be a subset of “B”= “things with characteristic b”). “A” may also have characteristic C.
It is of course false logic to suggest that this implies that B has characteristic C.
Plus what **Czarcasm ** said.
Not to be too presumptious, but wouldn’t you say that you believe in God first due to your subjective experience (mainly your upbringing) and then on the faith that what you learned about God is actually true regardless of any contrary data.
I think possibly **Czarcasm ** needs to add: “and doesn’t believe that subjective evidence or no evidence at all is a sufficient basis for believing in any god or gods.” Or something along those lines.
In fact, I think the whole subjective/objective thing, and mention of belief at all, is unnecessary.
“Atheism is not believing there is presently any sufficient basis for believing in a god or gods.”
No, lying by ommission is dishonest. Refusing to own up to it properly and trying to weasel out of it later by attacking the person who caught you out is even more dishonest.
Now see, if this had been your point, we we would never have had this argument. But this isn’t what you started out saying, my dear.
Mu
If? If? Still weaseling, I see. I’ve quoted it before, might as well quote it again, with bolding by me:
So now, I’d like an apology without any ifs or buts. I want you to say - “I said something that I knew wasn’t true, in this debate, and I’m sorry.” That’s the only honest thing to do.
I’d also like you to say that you’re sorry for the way you tried to weasel out of your mistake by insulting me, but I won’t hold my breath.
But *I *am sorry I called you an idiot, BTW.
Well, you didn’t that time.
I know this, but you refuse to outright admit that you were mistaken about some of them, and that you got the details of the some wrong. That’s what I mean by dishonest debate tactics - refusing to admit an error or not trying to see the other guy’s points when he’s right.
Not to toot my own horn or anything, but if you want an example of how to do it, search for the “Demonic Free Will” thread. kanicbirdand others did a good job of convincing me that his viewpoint on demons made logical sense (within his beliefs.) I admitted it.
So, anyway, if allyou want to say is that “there is a lot of agreement about the nature of God among the theistic groups mentioned in the OP.” then yes, finally, I agree that you are right. But it is, still just adressing the OP, fairly non-controversial to also point out that there is also a lot of *disagreement *about the nature of God amongst those ame groups.
Your point, actually, I believe, is that the agreements are more fundamentall than the disagreements, am I right?
I should of course have said there is no necessity to include any positive belief in the definition, not that there is no necessity of mentioning it at all