Problems w/ Atheism

[josie_L]

Stalin studied to become a Catholic priest. You can minimize the implications anyway you like …

I’m sure you studied Stalin more in depth than I have (my people never produced any in-bread psychopaths like Hitler or Stalin … so we’re less interested in their life stories. When they pop up we either kill them or defeat them in some other way).

more than I ever wanted to

good for you

To people like me names like Stalin invoke one word … enemy!

**In Europe these psychopaths were always produced by the Catholics. **

because they must have really ticked him off

put it this way, if religion never influenced Stalin, then why did he hate it so much? You don’t hate something that you’re oblivious towards.

You’re saying

1. Stalin is bad
2. Stalin was an atheist
3. Therefore atheism is bad

classic false cause fallacy (nothing more than an argument designed for stupid hill billies)

You’re sounding more and more ridiculous.

 

[josie_L]

You’ve corrected him - several times now. And unless Stalin’s beliefs has some relevance to the OP, it’s off-topic. With that in mind: what’s the relevance to the OP? What bearing does the denomination of Stalin’s seminary have on the correctness of atheism?

The “Stalin was an atheist” game is a game. At the very least, it’s certainly not a rational argument against atheism.

We have corrected him more than once because he is insistent on believing a lie.

 

[gearhead]

We have corrected him more than once because he is insistent on believing a lie.

Ah. I see.

 

[josie_L]

Ah. I see.

Well it’s true.

 

[josie_L]

Ayn Rand was a thinker after my own heart (or I guess I would be after her own heart … anyway, she followed a great philosophy)

Now she was a pychopath (from what I’ve read of her)!

 

[yankee_doodle]

You’re sounding more and more ridiculous.

You can attack me all you like … it doesn’t make my statements untrue. It only makes the weakness of your argument shine.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Now she was a pychopath (from what I’ve read of her)!

Again, full of attacks and bitterness against a woman you obviously don’t have any familiarity with. Here’s a woman who directly influenced people like Alan Greenspan (he was one of several enthusiasts who would gather at her apartment in New York City to discuss philosophy).

Objectivism is the philosophy developed by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand (1905–1982).[1] Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in direct contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man’s widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy

As simple and almost obvious as her philosophy sounds, it was an innovation. The positivism of the enlightenment was followed by an obscure philosophy that trailed discoveries in quantum mechanics in the early 20th century. Those discoveries suggested conscious observation was an inherent characteristic of nature, which is only today being debunked.

Yet all you have is contempt for this brilliant woman (who I’m sure did more with her life than someone like you could ever hope for).

 

[josie_L]

Again, full of attacks and bitterness against a woman you obviously don’t have any familiarity with. Here’s a woman who directly influenced people like Alan Greenspan (he was one of several enthusiasts who would gather at her apartment in New York City to discuss philosophy).

Objectivism is the philosophy developed by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand (1905–1982).[1] Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in direct contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man’s widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy

As simple and almost obvious as her philosophy sounds, it was an innovation. The positivism of the enlightenment was followed by an obscure philosophy that trailed discoveries in quantum mechanics in the early 20th century. Those discoveries suggested conscious observation was an inherent characteristic of nature, which is only today being debunked.

Yet all you have is contempt for this brilliant woman (who I’m sure did more with her life than someone like you could ever hope for).

We’ll see when we die who did more?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Some quotes from Churchill:

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword — the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men — stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism.

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

“Put me down as an optimistic agnostic.”

“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

Here’s something else I found that you might find interesting:

On 25 July, five days after signing a Concordat with the Pope in which the Catholic Church agreed to refrain from any political activity in Germany, the Nazis passed a law providing for the compulsory sterilization of all people who were blind, deaf, deformed or mentally deficient.

winstonchurchill.org/component/content/article/37-action-this-day/666-action-this-day-fh-139

 

[yankee_doodle]

We’ll see when we die who did more?

you’re sad

 

[yankee_doodle]

We’ll see when we die who did more?

I wish I could say what I really think.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Stalin had a complex relationship with religious institutions in the Soviet Union.[252] One story reports that while he studied at a seminary, he became a closet atheist.[253] However, this story fails on several obvious accounts, including Stalin’s remaining religious, even pious, for some years longer.[254]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

and yes the Orthodox Church is a Catholic Church:

The Orthodox Church, also officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church[note 1] and commonly referred to in English speaking countries as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Listed as part of the orthodox communion:

1. Orthodox Church of Russia [45] (Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church

 

[yankee_doodle]

We’ll see when we die who did more?

isn’t that the mantra … live a mediocre and uninteresting life, but don’t worry, god will cast his revenge against all those evil thinkers and doers

 

[KyivAndrew]

Stalin had a complex relationship with religious institutions in the Soviet Union.[252] One story reports that while he studied at a seminary, he became a closet atheist.[253] However, this story fails on several obvious accounts, including Stalin’s remaining religious, even pious, for some years longer.[254]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

and yes the Orthodox Church is a Catholic Church:

The Orthodox Church, also officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church[note 1] and commonly referred to in English speaking countries as the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Listed as part of the orthodox communion:

1. Orthodox Church of Russia [45] (Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church

You are quoting wikipedia now as a source on Church History? Yankee, you have no idea how the Orthodox Church is different than the Catholic. For goodness sake I have further family who are Eastern Orthodox and they are not Catholic. Are you trying on purpose to not understand?

Even other atheists and agnostics have pointed you wrong on this point on this thread. I’m through with arguing on this thread because you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Here just look at this thread on CAF in the same subforum to try to understand how ridiculous you claiming Stalin to be Catholic to be. It’s a thread discussing the Orthodox/Catholic Schism of 1054. You’ve never even probably heard of that event have you? Atheist or not, I like to be nice to posters but when someone is so ridiculously off-base. Here, here’s the thread. Educate yourself a bit, and I mean that in all honesty. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=391497

 

[yankee_doodle]

You are quoting wikipedia now as a source on Church History? Yankee, you have no idea how the Orthodox Church is different than the Catholic. For goodness sake I have further family who are Eastern Orthodox and they are not Catholic. Are you trying on purpose to not understand?

Even other atheists and agnostics have pointed you wrong on this point on this thread. I’m through with arguing on this thread because you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Here just look at this thread on CAF in the same subforum to try to understand how ridiculous you claiming Stalin to be Catholic to be. It’s a thread discussing the Orthodox/Catholic Schism of 1054. You’ve never even probably heard of that event have you? Atheist or not, I like to be nice to posters but when someone is so ridiculously off-base. Here, here’s the thread. Educate yourself a bit, and I mean that in all honesty. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=391497

I don’t care what anyone else says, I’m providing authority (and if you have a problem with the Wiki article, which provides footnotes, then show me why its wrong and provide independent sources).

I understand the RCC is different than the EOC, however, they are both Catholic (and even recognize each others apostolic succession).

Are they different churches, obviously, but they come from the same tradition (and recognize many of the same saints). They are CATHOLIC!

Notwithstanding their differences, they have much more in common with each other. They venerate saints & Mary (and use icons in their veneration rituals), they both adhere to the concept of patronage, and they both adhere to the directives set forth by the ecumenical councils. They differ in two main areas. The western church has more rigorous theology, and obviously the East views the pope as merely the bishop of Rome. The East believes it’s adhering more closely to early Christian practices (while it believes the west continued down the path of theological sophistry largely due to its own schism with protestants and the ensuing doctrinal disputes between those two branches of Christianity).

 

[KyivAndrew]

I don’t care what anyone else says, I’m providing authority (and if you have a problem with the Wiki article, which provides footnotes, then show me why its wrong and provide independent sources).

I understand the RCC is different than the EOC, however, they are both Catholic (and even recognize each others apostolic succession).

Are they different churches, obviously, but they come from the same tradition (and recognize many of the same saints). They are CATHOLIC!

All you have to do Yankee to realize their differences is look at the encounters between the two Churches on CAF. For starters they differ on the filioque, on Papal Infallibility, on the Immaculate Conception, but hey, why should I start? And from the Wikipedia Article you quote I will quote since you accept it:
In the 11th century what was recognised as the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation from the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Byzantine Churches, now the Eastern Orthodox. There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause and the authority of the Roman Pope involved in the split, but these were greatly exacerbated by political factors of both Church and state, and by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to 1054, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during the periods of Eastern iconoclasm and the Photian schism.[64]

The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the capture and sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204; the final break with Rome occurred circa 1450. The sacking of Church of Holy Wisdom and establishment of the Latin Empire as a seeming attempt to supplant the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire in 1204 is viewed with some rancour to the present day. In 2004, Pope John Paul II extended a formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, which was importantly also strongly condemned by the Pope at the time (Innocent III, see reference at end of paragraph); the apology was formally accepted by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Many things that were stolen during this time —holy relics, riches, and many other items—were not returned and are still held in various Western European cities, particularly Venice.[65][66]

Reunion was attempted twice, at the 1274 Second Council of Lyon and the 1439 Council of Florence. The Council of Florence did briefly reestablish communion between East and West, which lasted until after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In each case, however, the councils were rejected by the Eastern Orthodox people as a whole, and the union of Florence also became very politically difficult after Constantinople came under Ottoman rule, so in both cases came to fail. Some local Eastern Churches have however renewed union with Rome in time since (see Eastern Catholic Churches). Recent decades have seen a renewal of ecumenical spirit and dialogue between the Churches

So from Wikipedia you should understand the Two Churches are still in Schism and have not Reunited. I do not think it’s that difficult to understand, but then again it seems that way to you.

This thread is going nowhere in the face of your stubborness over admitting factual mistakes. Would it kill you to relax sometime? Anyway, post away…why let facts get in your way now? Wish you well.

 

[yankee_doodle]

All you have to do Yankee to realize their differences is look at the encounters between the two Churches on CAF. For starters they differ on the filioque, on Papal Infallibility, on the Immaculate Conception, but hey, why should I start?

I know, yet they’re both Catholic.

And from the Wikipedia Article you quote I will quote since you accept it:
In the 11th century what was recognised as the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation from the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Byzantine Churches, now the Eastern Orthodox. There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause and the authority of the Roman Pope involved in the split, but these were greatly exacerbated by political factors of both Church and state, and by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to 1054, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during the periods of Eastern iconoclasm and the Photian schism.[64]

yes I know, but yet they are both Catholic?

The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the capture and sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204; the final break with Rome occurred circa 1450. The sacking of Church of Holy Wisdom and establishment of the Latin Empire as a seeming attempt to supplant the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire in 1204 is viewed with some rancour to the present day. In 2004, Pope John Paul II extended a formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, which was importantly also strongly condemned by the Pope at the time (Innocent III, see reference at end of paragraph); the apology was formally accepted by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Many things that were stolen during this time —holy relics, riches, and many other items—were not returned and are still held in various Western European cities, particularly Venice.[65][66]

Venetians have always been good at hanging onto their riches

Reunion was attempted twice, at the 1274 Second Council of Lyon and the 1439 Council of Florence. The Council of Florence did briefly reestablish communion between East and West, which lasted until after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In each case, however, the councils were rejected by the Eastern Orthodox people as a whole, and the union of Florence also became very politically difficult after Constantinople came under Ottoman rule, so in both cases came to fail. Some local Eastern Churches have however renewed union with Rome in time since (see Eastern Catholic Churches). Recent decades have seen a renewal of ecumenical spirit and dialogue between the Churches

So from Wikipedia you should understand the Two Churches are still in Schism and have not Reunited. I do not think it’s that difficult to understand, but then again it seems that way to you.

but nevertheless their both Catholic. Two divorced halves of one whole.

This thread is going nowhere in the face of your stubborness over admitting factual mistakes. Would it kill you to relax sometime? Anyway, post away…why let facts get in your way now? Wish you well.

Answer one question, ARE YOU SAYING THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH DOES NOT CONSIDER ITSELF CATHOLIC?

 

[yankee_doodle]

This thread is going nowhere in the face of your stubborness over admitting factual mistakes. Would it kill you to relax sometime? Anyway, post away…why let facts get in your way now? Wish you well.

WRONG, the only reason this thread isn’t getting anywhere is because you people insist on acting silly. Of course I know the RCC and EOC are different churches … but yet they’re both Catholic. One is Roman Catholic the other Eastern Orthodox Catholic. They broke from each other, and the EOC not only fails to recognize papal infallibility they don’t even recognize the pope as anything more than the bishop of Rome.

Did I ever say anything different? Do you seriously think I needed the history lesson?

NEVERTHELESS THEY’RE BOTH CATHOLIC.

Let me remind you how this started:

KyivAndrew:

Oh and while we are at “Freethinkers” and Communism, we should recall there were many Marxists at the beginning of the Russian Revolution who practiced “freethinking” and ridiculed such archaic ideas as marriage, the family, and so forth. Heck, even an Atheist Icon like Christopher Hitchens, free thinker par excellence, was a Trotskyist in the 80s. Trotskyism, Atheism, same idea on God.

yankee_doodle:

So what about Winston Churchill, Voltaire, Ernest Hemingway, Robert Frost, Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, John Stuart Mill, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Jay Gould, John Maynard Smith, Richard Branson, George Soros, Adam Smith, David Hume, Isaac Asimov, and the many other great people who self-identified as either atheist or agnostic.

Additionally, deists and famous people who were probably agnostic include Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Albert Einstein, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, James Madison, Spinoza, Hobbes, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen, and I could probably go on all night long.

As the tit for tat went along you guys thought you might prove me wrong on one of the aforementioned names (Churchill), but after a few quotes by Churchill I guess you guys gave up (even though I think you probably should have stuck with that fight, since it’s much more debatable than trying to say the EOC doesn’t call itself Catholic).

The same old thing, the stupid old and dry Christian argument that atheism will lead to another Hitler or Stalin. Now that I’ve pointed out these mad-men were both hatched by the Catholics (RCC and EOC respectively) your having a fit. Yes I do say that it’s far more likely Christianity influenced these men (particularly Hitler) as opposed to atheism.

It’s nothing more than a red neck argument (and while it may have appeal among the illiterate … anyone with even rudimentary intelligence should understand this argument for the false cause fallacy and ad hominem it is).

No more defending talking snakes and rising dead men. Now you’re just going on about how the evil of Hitler and Stalin was informed by their atheism. Now that it’s clear how absurd that line of reasoning is … I wonder what’s next?

I know, atheists caused the stock market collapse. Or even better, atheists caused Katrina

You raise Christopher Hitchens, but ignore Adam Smith, Abe Lincoln, virtually all of our prominent founders, Thomas Edison, and the list is endless. Gee let me see if I can think of any Christians in history who had bad ideas or who were bad people … geesh I gave you far too much credit for intelligence.

 

[AntiTheist]

This thread has become utterly ridiculous, and yankee is looking more hysterical and silly by the second. “Catholic” and “Orthodox” are clearly two different religions, even if one of them still has the word “Catholic” somewhere in its official title.

Now, that being said, both of those religions are Christian. You could point out that Stalin was a Christian and studying to be a Christian priest. But what purpose would that even serve the argument any more?

This thread has descended into trying to “score points” and prove which side has the most number of “bad guys” or “good guys” on it. How incredibly childish.

 

[yankee_doodle]

This thread has become utterly ridiculous, and yankee is looking more hysterical and silly by the second. “Catholic” and “Orthodox” are clearly two different religions, even if one of them still has the word “Catholic” somewhere in its official title.

whatever dude … so you think you’re Mr. mature? :bowdown:

Why not do what I do when I see you ranting away

btw the term Catholic is taken from a Greek word that simply means “universal” (they all call themselves Catholic … and they are distinct from protestants in a very profound way, unlike the minor differences they have with each other). They’re both have similar superstitions, rituals, and beliefs concerning their Eucharist (they both think they eat real flesh when they eat a wafer of bread), and they both call men like John Chrysostom (as far as I can tell one of the earliest and most vitriolic innovators of Christian antisemitism) saints.