Korean Job Discussion Forums

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

"Justin Hale" - who in this thread has fanatically made threats directed at me because (like millions of intelligent people) I believe in the law of karma - posted a 270 million figure as the number of people killed by political (distinguished from religious) Islamics.

He conveniently didn't mention that the article (from an extremist magazine) somehow came up with that figure to cover a period of 1400 years.

Obviously atheistic Marxist doctrine is a more recent phenomenon (as is Social Darwinism.)

Over the past century, the millions of people killed under that purely materialistic, anti-theistic rationale utilized by avowedly atheistic leaders like Stalin and Mao Tse Tung clearly dwarfs the number killed by fanatical religionists.

(Of course, that may not be clear to people with preconceived notions and biases...)

Omkara · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA

It was their karma to be born under the banner of Islam. Jerks! They deserved it.

Better karma is to be born into a Krishna Commune.

I humped a cow in a former life, so I teach ESL.

We make a strange club, guys. Are we all religious freaks? Shocked

Underwaterbob · Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Location: In Cognito

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

We all have them, but I'm implying that any person who is reasonably conversant with 20th Century world history would accept the fact that anti-theistic, materialistic doctrines (ie: Marxism) combined with avowedly atheistic leaders (eg: Stalin and Mao) ostensibly killed way more people than fanatical religious leaders/followers implementing religious doctrines.

Underwaterbob · Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Location: In Cognito

mises · Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired

The difference between:

In the name of god I kill you! (said by religious nut)

In the name of the revolution I kill you! (said by communist nut who happens to be atheist)

properly ends Rteachers argument.

There. Case closed. Please never bring this nonsense up again. It actually lowers the level of debate on the interweb.

Justin Hale · Joined: 24 Nov 2007 Location: the Straight Talk Express

Belief in Karma is a euphemism. It's true reference is that disabled children are responsible for their condition thanks to deeds in previous lives. Imagine how insulted you'd be if you were disabled (religion is a form of mental disability, of course) and someone with all their faculties said your condition is your responsibility and they deserve it. None of which they can demonstrate. Is it possible for there to be any more base and insulting a position? It basically advocates that the disabled are inferior subhumans, when really the only inferior subhumans around here are those who subscribe to these totally disgusting and miserably vulgar faiths. Karma in this life nor any other will ever be demonstrated nor produce a single workable fact or invention.

Secondly, as I've pointed out several times, Stalin and Mao's regimes were essentially Christianity personified but with no afterlife and no eternal life. Stalin and Mao resembled Allah, not Dawkins, because people were the property of the state, like we are the property of Allah. Also they repressed religion as a means to an end - any religion other than state religion (which were indeed religions, because they totally subjugated with threat and baseless faith-based belief) threatened their sovereignty. Do you not understand the difference between a means to an end and an end in itself? Theists kill as a theistic end itself, because their infallible books say they should.

Regardless, discussing 20th century dictatorships is a red herring.

Claim: Muslims killed 270m
Your objection: 20th century dictatorships killed more than religious fanatacism in the same period

The objection changes the subject; it does not provide a refutation. Religions have killed far more than lack of subscription to religions have.

Kuros · Joined: 27 Apr 2004

uberscheisse · Joined: 02 Dec 2003 Location: japan is better than korea.

i strongly believe that stalin and mao would have killed their victims anyway.

had communism had some sort of religious fixation, they still would have done their damage.

what Rteacher repeatedly fails to do is find any tangible link between atheism and genocide.

i'm not well versed on my arguing terminology, but isn't this one of the things they try to teach out of your head in first year philosophy/critical thinking?

"that guy is an atheist whose beliefs about racial equality or dedication to a politcal ideal led him to murder. therefore all atheists are dedicated to a political idea that will eventually lead to murder."

nobody in this thread has said
"that guy is a religious man and a murderer, therefore all religions murder." all we ever did was point out historical facts.

putting stalin/pol pot and the catholic church/islam in different piles is the wrong way to go about it. a murderer is a murderer, no matter which way you slice it.

rteacher keeps focusing on materialism. he's hell-bent on the wrong part of materialism. it's power what made these people kill, not theism or atheism or some weird reading of darwin. the fact he keeps bringing that up is just, well, stupid.

what corrupts a pious, religious person and leads him to murder?

what corrupts an ethical, kind atheist and leads him to murder?

it's not atheism that does it. suggesting there is some causal link between the two is lazy, irresponsible thinking.

suggesting that either religion or atheism is more prone to cause genocide is just wrong. give a dude an idea, guns and power, and he'll do it. doesn't matter if it's theistic or non-theistic.

it just so happens that the most recent ones have been aligned with atheism. theism has a much more consistently shoddy and destructive record. asserting otherwise is biased and retarded, but i've come to expect that from rteacher, as he is a biased, stoned-on-god retard. seriously, chronic potheads and toddlers make way more sense.

perhaps karma made him that way. it has somehow dealt me a much more dashing hand. what did i do in a past life to become so fucking brilliant, well-hung and handsome?

mrgiles · Joined: 09 Jul 2007 Location: Seoul

Omkara · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA

Omkara · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Location: USA

Check this out:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TjGkRFFBd0A&feature=related

(It says something about krishna. . . also, it deals with the miracles. . )

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

"Omkara" evidently doesn't know that the segment he just posted is from the same recycled video that was thoroughly discussed on several threads here.

I can't recall the original name of it at the moment, but I watched the whole thing, and it degenerates into one-sided presentation of conspiracy theories based mostly on half-truths and speculation.

The religious part makes a fairly convincing, graphically impressive case that Christianity and some other religious traditions are derived from earlier pagan traditions and astrology, but what stood out to me was the grossly incorrect date listed for Krishna's appearance.

They use a much too recent - now largely discredited - date propagated by early Christian missionaries and British Indologists as part of their propaganda against India's ancient Vedic culture.

Krishna predates Jesus by over 3000 years (3228 BC is the best estimate.) There is considerable evidence that Buddha's commonly accepted birthdate is also too recent - he appeared about 1400 years after Krishna.

So one can still make the case that the Vedic religion was the original, and all others - including the Egyptian - were copies or adaptations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/reestablishing_the_date_of_buddha.htm
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christianity_and_the_vedic_teachings_within_it.htm

"Mises", "Uber...", "Justin..." and anyone else who argues that Stalin and Mao, etc. were just Communists who happened to be atheists are ignoring the fact that Marxist doctrine is strongly anti-theistic.

The Wikipedia article sheds some further light on that:

...In Soviet Russia the Bolsheviks originally embraced "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy" and "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such." In 1918 "Ten Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "Children were deprived of any religious education outside the home"[5]. Increasingly draconian measures were employed. In addition to direct state persecution, the "League of the Militant Godless" was founded in 1925, churches were closed and vandalised and "by 1938 eighty bishops had lost their lives, while thousands of clerics were sent to ... labour camps"[6]

Militant atheism

The active antitheist stance is sometimes called "militant" atheism.[7] In 1922 Lenin wrote an essay On the Significance of Militant Materialism, in which he commended the journal Pod Znamenem Marksizma as a "militant atheist" journal. He defined this as "carry[ing] on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight".[8] The League of the Militant Godless was established in the Soviet Union as a militant atheist organisation,[9][10] and the term has also been applied to a number of key figures in the development of Marxism, including Karl Marx,[11] Friedrich Engels[12][13] and Joseph Dietzgen.[14]

Today the term militant atheism may be used by theists as an epithet for the "militant evolutionists [who] want to silence the idea of creation".[15]. It is sometimes used pejoratively to describe people who are considered to campaign too actively and outspokenly � or militantly � for atheism and against religion: "those who advocate the elimination of religion" as opposed to "progressive, enlightened people who are simply 'nonbelievers'...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism