milquetoast1 Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 As a communist he was an ideological athiest and believed that relgion must be removed from society in order for it to function as a socialist paradise. This being the case he specifically attacked and destroyed churches and murdered belivers and clergy. So yes I would say this was done in the name of athiesm. This was quite an important, and well documented, time in recent history, so there will be some actual evidence of this that you can point to won't there? Like him actually saying that his atheism was motivation for his actions? (Besides, he wasn't a REAL atheist. ) (Don't forget #125) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 OK lets rephrase it then - he did because he was an ideological athiest who believes that athiesm must be enforced on the population. Better? Well, it's pretty much the same. It's still not because of his atheism, but because of a belief that his worldview had to be enforced on the population. The fact that that worldview happened to be atheism is incidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted September 22, 2010 Author Share Posted September 22, 2010 If you insult athiests - i.e. a group - it can't by definition be personal abuse can it!? And did I get "all upset"? I merely pointed out that you resorted to personal abuse straight away when someone doesn't like something you post... Expect of course I don't, if they like you abuse me be it in their post or their sig I clearly have no problem with responding in a like manner though. I posted a comment on the quality of piece of "sattire" you immediately respond with personal abuse and name calling - does that strike you as a rational or tolerent response? If so you obviously use very different definitions of the word from the rest of the world... Good job ignoring the fact that I was principally responding to your abusive sig. But anyway I'm completely tolerant in that I think people have an absolute right to say things I don't like just as I have a right to say things that they don't like. So long as what you do doesn't violate the basic rights of others you can do whatever you like, regardless of whether or not I like it. Seems pretty tolerant to me, unlike of course all too many theists who you claim I am indistinguishable from. For the Nth (where N is a large number) it's not WHAT is said it is HOW it is said. In behaviour a shrill intollerent theist is pretty indistinguishable from shrill intollerent theist. They will both quite happilly rant, abuse and attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't share their views. Leaving the hilarious hypocrisy of you complaining about others being abusive or attempting to belittle others aside. This is precisely why your sig is such a terrible attempt at satire. Was Orwell saying that the likes of Stalin & his cronies simply had a similar manner of speaking to the Tsar & his ministers or was he saying that in practice they acted very much alike and had a like affect upon those under their power? You have taken an iconic line from an allegory all about how regardless of their rhetoric the soviets in practice were little different from the Tsarists and have attempted to twist it so that it is all about the tone in which people say things regardless of what they actually say or actually do. Which is why your attempt at satire fails so appallingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Well, it's pretty much the same. It's still not because of his atheism, but because of a belief that his worldview had to be enforced on the population. The fact that that worldview happened to be atheism is incidental. So if he was a - for example Christian - and enforced that on Russia to the extent of specifically targetting and making laws against atheists that would be incidental too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Mod Note Back on topic please, this is the second warning, don't count on any more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 Expect of course I don't, if they like you abuse me be it in their post or their sig I clearly have no problem with responding in a like manner though. Just getting your response in early then... But anyway I'm completely tolerant I take it that's your attempt at satire? Leaving the hilarious hypocrisy of you complaining about others being abusive or attempting to belittle others aside. This is precisely why your sig is such a terrible attempt at satire. Once again I complained where? Was Orwell saying that the likes of Stalin & his cronies simply had a similar manner of speaking to the Tsar & his ministers or was he saying that in practice they acted very much alike and had a like affect upon those under their power? You have taken an iconic line from an allegory all about how regardless of their rhetoric the soviets in practice were little different from the Tsarists and have attempted to twist it so that it is all about the tone in which people say things regardless of what they actually say or actually do. Which is why your attempt at satire fails so appallingly. I've taken an iconic line and given it a twist - believe it or not that happens quite often in satire. Of course you're perfectly at liberty to not like like it but your constant attacking of a simple signiture line does show your lack of tolerence for other people's world view now doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted September 22, 2010 Author Share Posted September 22, 2010 As a communist he was an ideological athiest and believed that relgion must be removed from society in order for it to function as a socialist paradise. This being the case he specifically attacked and destroyed churches and murdered belivers and clergy. So yes I would say this was done in the name of athiesm. No it wasn't. Atheism is completely incidental to communism which is overwhelmingly concerned with economics. You get both atheist and theistic communists, indeed North Korea by some measures the only surviving communist state is a theocracy. Lenin and Stalin targeted the Orthodox Church because it was a major pillar of the tsarist state and as such in the way of their desire to completely remake society. In that drive they also destroyed secular organisations and rival equally atheistic socialist groups, because as I said atheism was incidental to who the Soviets decided should be disappeared. Which of course is one reason why later on Stalin was able to work with the (substantially remodelled) Orthodox Church in the 'great patriotic war' against the Nazis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 I always thought Jesus was a communist. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted September 22, 2010 Author Share Posted September 22, 2010 I always thought Jesus was a communist. Just saying. As of course do Christian Communists who would I suspect be more than a little confused by evildrneil's declaration that as "as communist" they are "ideological atheist" who believe "that relgion must be removed from society in order for it to function as a socialist paradise". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValW Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 I enjoyed the original satire, but I like pictures, so here's an animation with a similar message... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.