Friday, September 2, 2011

Git yer Joseph Stalin t-shirts! | True Freethinker

Mariano has posted an article about meeting a young man with a Stalin T-Shirt. He posted the following image but I'm not sure if this was the image on the T-Shirt



My question is: Is the following image what we want which was the result of Stalin's imagination without God?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I don't want that.


Git yer Joseph Stalin t-shirts! | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

25 comments:

  1. Correlation is not causation.

    I'd try to make some historical points, but you'll just throw out the No True Scotsman fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, can we get some background on that image?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Correlation is not causation.

    Agreed. But can you prove that Stalin's atrocities had nothing to do with the way he viewed the world as an atheist?

    I'd try to make some historical points, but you'll just throw out the No True Scotsman fallacy.

    So long as you don't try to pull his "atheist card", bring it. Would you really try to deny the evil things Stalin did?

    Also, can we get some background on that image?

    Film documents brutal story of Stalin's atrocities in Poland

    Ukrainians Protest NY Times' Stalinist Propaganda

    WAR CRIMES TRIALS KATYN:

    Irony

    Josef Stalin Voted 3rd-Greatest Russian

    ReplyDelete
  4. But can you prove that Stalin's atrocities had nothing to do with the way he viewed the world as an atheist?

    I could argue it didn't, but since you don't really know what argue, prove and evidence mean, I'm not going to bother. But you should note that you are requiring I "prove" Atheism had nothing to do with Stalin's atrocities is as impossible as also "proving" his Orthodox upbringing and seminary education had nothing to do with it. But requiring I do so puts you in the awkward position of "proving" that Hitler's evil had nothing to do with Martin Luther's influence or Hitler's christianity in general. Good luck "proving" that.

    Also, from all those links, the best I could confirm was that those were famine victims. I'm not saying Stalin wasn't responsible for more deaths than I want to even think about, but I am saying you are sloppy and lazy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually Marcus, it was at an university area but they guy was circa in his early 50s...which makes it even worse.
    The image I provided is of my own making--and I would wear it on a t-shirt :o)
    His just had Stalin's bust on it.
    For Stalin's atheism, see:
    http://www.truefreethinker.com/adolf-hitler-nazism-communism

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Mariano, for the clarification

    Ryan said:
    I could argue it didn't, but since you don't really know what argue, prove and evidence mean, I'm not going to bother.

    Translation: Ryan said he's sloppy and lazy and can't substantiate that Stalin was influenced by his atheism to kill his own people.

    requiring I "prove" Atheism had nothing to do with Stalin's atrocities is as impossible as also "proving" his Orthodox upbringing and seminary education had nothing to do with it. But requiring I do so puts you in the awkward position of "proving" that Hitler's evil had nothing to do with Martin Luther's influence or Hitler's christianity in general. Good luck "proving" that.

    Ryan is really good at Red Herrings. I would not argue that Stalin's upbringing and Seminary education had nothing to do with how Stalin lived out his life. It did. One is shaped just as much by what they turn against and reject as they are by what they embrace. Stalin rejected the Christianity he grew up with. I would argue that he worked against his upbringing not embrace it. As for Hitler. Was there Christian influence, Yes? In that he rejected what Christianity is. I don't have to prove that Hitler was not influenced by Christianity, he perverted it. We've been over this before and you no closer to showing yourself correct.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, from all those links, the best I could confirm was that those were famine victims.

    And how did you do that? And I think the point was that those who did not through being shot or something direct, died because of his policies - a few of which led to famines.

    I'm not saying Stalin wasn't responsible for more deaths than I want to even think about,..

    Then I don't even understand why you are protesting the post. We agree on that.

    ...but I am saying you are sloppy and lazy.

    If you can prove that Stalin is not responsible for the deaths of the people in that photograph, I'll post a retraction.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Then I don't even understand why you are protesting the post

    Because you are confusing correlation with causation and you've just asserted w/o substantiation that atheism was a primary factor.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, I'm not. I'm saying that atheism was a major factor not the only factor. If it was the primary factor, then I'd be arguing that you would be the totalitarian dictator - but no way that could happen. Not enough people care about what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm saying that atheism was a major factor not the only factor.

    I know you are just saying that, without substantiating it. You have a lot of peaceful, secular, atheists countries to explain away...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I know you are just saying that, without substantiating it. You have a lot of peaceful, secular, atheists countries to explain away..

    Can you name a single one of those "peaceful, secular atheists countries" that did not start out as a "christian" nation?

    Yeah and that background has nothing to do with the "peace" and prosperity (that would also depend on how you would define those terms too wouldn't it?)?

    Waiting.

    But not holding my breath.

    And I still would like to know how you would like to demonstrate that Stalin's atheism did not play a part in the atrocities he committed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marcus, two points, you are right, "peaceful" is a tricky word, and "non-Totalitarian/non-Dictatorship" is closer to what I meant and also, what does being previously "christian" have to do with anything? So excluding Europe and the Americas for no apparent reason, (never mind that the US was founded as a secular state) you can start with Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Cape Verde, Guinea, Mali, Senegal, India, South Korea, Chad, South Africa, Nepal, Gabon, The Gambia, Japan (pretty aggressive and brutal when they did have a national religion I might add), Botswana (beautiful place), Cameroon, Ethiopia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Turkey as states that were "not originally Christian" (whatever that means) and are not dictatorships or totalitarian regimes. Note that I would put a state that bans religion on the same level as the worst theocracies, and not classify it as either "secular" or even "atheist", but as Totalitarian (which is an actual evil you discount with your dishonest agenda).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Marcus, two points, you are right, "peaceful" is a tricky word, and "non-Totalitarian/non-Dictatorship" is closer to what I meant and also,

    Apology accepted

    what does being previously "christian" have to do with anything?

    You claimed that secular states are "peaceful" as if it was because of their atheism. The fact that all of the states that I thought you were talking about have long history of Christianity.

    So excluding Europe and the Americas for no apparent reason, (never mind that the US was founded as a secular state)

    The reason is that you are trying to shore-up a hastily made point. I would not count the united states as a secular state in the way you would Sweden or Norway or France is today. A separation of church and state does not equal "secular". IT is way more complicated than that.

    you can start with Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Namibia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Cape Verde, Guinea, Mali, Senegal, India, South Korea, Chad, South Africa, Nepal, Gabon, The Gambia, Japan (pretty aggressive and brutal when they did have a national religion I might add), Botswana (beautiful place), Cameroon, Ethiopia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Turkey as states that were "not originally Christian" (whatever that means) and are not dictatorships or totalitarian regimes. Note that I would put a state that bans religion on the same level as the worst theocracies, and not classify it as either "secular" or even "atheist", but as Totalitarian (which is an actual evil you discount with your dishonest agenda).

    Not sure what you mean. But by-and-large, states based on atheist ideologies like Marxism and Communism are godless and ban religion. Also on all of the states you do list you can't say that they have always been secular. Not-Christian does not equal non-religious. And would you really claim that every society you listed is peaceful? For example. South Africa isn't. Neither is Ethiopia. Careful what you Google.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You claimed that secular states are "peaceful" as if it was because of their atheism.

    No, I absolutely did not. I said that if atheism was a primary factor to the Soviet's atrocities, then you have to explain away a lot of non-atrocity committing secular states.

    Also on all of the states you do list you can't say that they have always been secular.

    No duh, everything was something else before... Ever hear of the Russian Orthodox Church? Do you have a point? Do you ever?

    Not-Christian does not equal non-religious.

    All those states explicitly have no state religion, i.e. are secular.

    And would you really claim that every society you listed is peaceful? For example. South Africa isn't. Neither is Ethiopia.

    Remember where I clarified "peaceful", and like a moron you thought it was an apology for some reason? But in any case, they are democratic, non-dictatorships, non-totalitarian, generally non-atrocity committing states, you dingbat.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OT, but you are represented on page 16 of this study.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, I absolutely did not. I said that if atheism was a primary factor to the Soviet's atrocities, then you have to explain away a lot of non-atrocity committing secular states.

    So what would you attribute the "non-atrocity committing" to?


    No duh, everything was something else before... Ever hear of the Russian Orthodox Church? Do you have a point? Do you ever?


    You seem to habitually miss the point. The religiousness of the non-secular states you are bringing up plays a role in whatever the state does now. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Grow up.

    All those states explicitly have no state religion, i.e. are secular.

    Where did I say anything against that? Guess you missed the point...again.

    Remember where I clarified "peaceful", and like a moron you thought it was an apology for some reason? But in any case, they are democratic, non-dictatorships, non-totalitarian, generally non-atrocity committing states, you dingbat.

    Way to move the goal post! We were talking about non-atrocity committing regimes, as if all theocracies commit atrocities and secular governments do not. Simple-minded much? I'll keep praying for you. You need it.

    You are double-minded and can't seem to see past your need to think that religion causes atrocities and minimize how an atheist worldview can turn ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The religiousness of the non-secular states you are bringing up plays a role in whatever the state does now. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

    Good point, however you are the one "arguing" that Atheism is to blame for all the bad stuff the Soviet Union did.

    OK Marcus, let me break it down for you and see if you can follow, but basically you're pulling a "Jeffery Dahmer had a moustache, therefore." fallacy.

    Atheism + Totalitarianism = Bad (Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.)
    Religion + Totalitarianism = Bad (Nazi Germany, Syria, Iran, Burma, North Korea, etc.)
    Atheism + Democracy = Better
    Religion + Democracy = Betterish (Israel's the only example I can think of, as Democracies naturally tend towards secularism).

    So what's the common factor for states that are "bad". Take your time.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good point, however you are the one "arguing" that Atheism is to blame for all the bad stuff the Soviet Union did.

    I don't recall arguing that atheism was solely to blame for all the bad stuff the soviet union did. I have referred to Stalin and his worldview. Given your denial objective morality, I wonder how you even know what "bad" is other than your own opinion.

    OK Marcus, let me break it down for you and see if you can follow, but basically you're pulling a "Jeffery Dahmer had a moustache, therefore." fallacy.

    Atheism + Totalitarianism = Bad (Soviet Union, Mao's China, etc.)
    Religion + Totalitarianism = Bad (Nazi Germany, Syria, Iran, Burma, North Korea, etc.)
    Atheism + Democracy = Better
    Religion + Democracy = Betterish (Israel's the only example I can think of, as Democracies naturally tend towards secularism).


    And by what criteria are you using for describing which style of society is "good" or "bad". Where did you get it from? Who says it's right.

    So what's the common factor for states that are "bad". Take your time.

    The common factor is sin and the depravity of people. They are all imperfect. They are all evil in many ways and destructive to some people - it all depends on the criteria and standard you have chosen to adopt. In short without an objective, you have nothing meaningful to say...as per usual nearly every time you comment.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The common factor is sin and the depravity of people.

    Wow, that was a softball question. The common factor is totalitarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow, that was a softball question. The common factor is totalitarianism.

    Poor Ryan. He can't see the forest for all the trees.

    It's because of human sin and depravity we have totalitarianism. What I don't get is why you dodged the question of how you know totalitarianism is wrong and why?

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's because of human sin and depravity we have totalitarianism.

    Why don't we always have totalitarianism then? I don't think you thought this through...

    ReplyDelete
  22. You have failed to think it through. Sin takes all kind of forms. totalitarianism is only one possible result of sin - there are several others. Totalitarianism is not the cause of our problems of atrocities against the weak and the poor in our societies. Totalitarianism is a symptom.

    And you still have not answered my question so I will ask it again: What qualifies you to decide if a society is "bad" or "good" and how do you know? Waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cop out.

    As for your question, I will only answer a particular question for you a bazillion times, after that, I ignore the question.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Um..I think you are confused. What I gave was an answer you didn't like. This is a "cop out"

    As for your question, I will only answer a particular question for you a bazillion times, after that, I ignore the question.

    In case you need help seeing why..I hope this help. You claim that you can't tell the Nazi's they're wrong outside of the fact that most people think they were wrong. Not just a cop out but a weak one.

    ReplyDelete