Apparently this sentence is true of atheists according to an "unbiased" "agnostic" DU er

[dmallind]

Is it also true of Christians?

Why or why not? If nonbelievers choose their classification and should be accepted as such why should those who claim Christianity be subjected to "definitions" "imposed upon them" (equal snigger)? Phelps? Hitler? Koresh?

No…we trust people to choose their own “Self-identification” and not have any “definition” imposed upon them ;-)

[havocmom]

1. Call out?

[dmallind]

2. Discussion point using relevant quotes? Ever posted this to an Xian post BTW?

If not that might make you a long word beginning with "h" and ending in "ypocrite".

[DeSwiss]

10. Call out of whom pray tell??? n/t

[ironbark]

12. Me, in ‘The score thus far’ .

#2
“Congratulations - you have helped in demonizing and obfuscating thr word "atheist"
So that only a small fraction of those who are one are willing to stand up to the endless opprobrium and ignorant accusations they will get if they say so out loud.
And we trust surveys to define words now?”

#29
“"endless opprobrium and ignorant accusations" are dealt with
by inviting the accusers to prove their point, to substantiate and validate their accusations, to put up or shut up....when the accusers fail to provide any evidence, justification, explanation, substantiation they are exposed for what they are...and little more need be said ;-)


“And we trust surveys to define words now?”

No…we trust people to choose their own “Self-identification” and not have any “definition” imposed upon them ;-)”

.....................

Being called out over the proposition that "people get to choose their own “Self-identification” and not have any “definition” imposed upon them"

???

[Goblinmonger]

17. How is this a callout?

Certainly it takes a question to your post and puts it in a different thread so as to not hijack the original thread. But it seems like a legitimate question given the number of "No True Scotsman" posts in R/T.

[ironbark]

21. "callout"?....don't know, don't care...can't even get a clarification of what the "question" is.

"But it seems like a legitimate question"

Does it?

Great.

Go right ahead and translate/clarify it...because the author of the question declines to do so.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Depends on what 'this' is.

Perhaps you might want to make it clear wtf you are talking about when you refer to "this sentence"?

[dmallind]

4. maybe the bold one at the end perhaps?? wtf? NT

[Warren Stupidity]

6. I'm sure it is perfectly clear to you and whoever it is you are arguing with

in whatever other thread offended you.

[ironbark]

13. Nope. See #12. Don't know what the issue/offence is. nt.

[peacebird]

5. not sure this belongs here but I keep hoping for christians to step up and defend JC from fundies

not holding my breath, because it certainly does not seem to be happening, but if christians don't want to be seen as whack-jobs they should stand up for JC and stand up TO the fundies and the "dinosaurs walked among people" and "world is only 2thousand years old" crowd.
Because the fundies ARE defining christianity and their definition is NOT even close to the love thy neighbor as thyself vision of JC.

[Warpy]

8. I'm afraid too many of the leadership

is still pretending to have some sort of phony Christian solidarity with the Dispensationalists.

Unfortunately, all they're doing is giving all Christians a bad name by association with them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. We do, but it's almost impossible for a non-fundy to gain publicity

Pat Robinson says something dumb, and it's on CNN and the front page of every paper in the country.

Liberal Christians demonstrate in front of the state capitol against the governor's budget cuts that heavily target the vulnerable--a small article in the B section.

Fundies set up a "pregnancy counseling clinic," and it's front page. Liberal Christian agencies sponsor refugees, provide professional clothing for job seekers, provide emergency funds and food, provide studio apartments for people transitioning off the streets, provide support groups for the unemployed or the bereaved, mentor families who are trying to get off welfare, provide free minor medical care for street kids, solicit donations of winter coats and accessories for children from poor families, send volunteers to the Gulf Coast, Haiti, and wherever else there is need, all without proselytizing, and MAYBE a little mention in the Faith and Values section of the paper.

We write LTTEs, and they don't get printed. We respond to online comments, and we get dogpiled by fundies.

Yeah, it's a major frustration. It's reminiscent of the way the Kucinich presidential campaign couldn't get respectful media coverage from the New York Times or TV while losers like Lieberman and Gephardt were getting the full "credible" candidate treatment.

[Warpy]

7. I've never called the Dispensationalists non Christian

I have, however, called them heretics and even bad Christians.

You see, this atheist has actually read the book they're always thumping.

[DeSwiss]

9. We "nonbelievers" don't define Christians with our definitions....

...but with their own.

It is the incongruity between the definition and the reality that stings them.

[PassingFair]

29. LOL ....n/t

[ironbark]

14. “Is it also true of Christians? Why or why not?”

Is there a suggestion that Christians don’t get to “self identify” and determine what their Christianity means to them?

Is there a suggestion that someone other than the claimant to ‘Christianity’ gets to determine and define what it means to them/for them...in a survey on self identification or any other context?


“If nonbelievers choose their classification and should be accepted as such why should those who claim Christianity be subjected to "definitions" "imposed upon them" (equal snigger)? Phelps? Hitler? Koresh? “

I can’t tell if you are you suggesting that someone should seriously consider or accept "definitions" "imposed upon them" or reject such imposed definitions.
Are you putting forward “Phelps? Hitler? Koresh?” as ‘definitions’ of a kind of Christianity that could/shouldn’t be imposed?



My point was clear in relation to “Self-identification”….people get to choose and part of that choice is to “not have any “definition” imposed upon them”-

…………..

“And we trust surveys to define words now?”

No…we trust people to choose their own “Self-identification” and not have any “definition” imposed upon them.
……………..

Can’t work out what your objection to such self identification is and/or why you think a thread/issue should be made of it.

Nor can I work out why you felt obliged to place “"unbiased" in quotation marks >as if< it was something I had claimed as a self identifying "agnostic".

Don't mind the clear calling out...just wish you could clearly articulate what the issue is.

[darkstar3]

15. That sentence is untrue of almost everyone..

No one gets to self-identify for everything. To wit:

Physicality: I can self-identify as a fish. That doesn't make me have fins, gills, or other anatomical necessities to actually BE a fish.

Mentality: Elton John can self-identify as straight. That doesn't change the fact that he likes men, is proud of liking men, and isn't interested in the ladies.

Factuality: The prick pick-up artist in the bar can self-identify as a rich business owner. That doesn't change the fact that he's a used car salesman who will never make it to management.

There are, in fact, very few cases in this world where we are free to self-identify. This is due to the fact that words have meaning. I am a human, and can be nothing else. Elton John is gay, and good for him for being true to himself. The prick pick-up artist will never be a jet-setting CEO, no matter how much he likes to pretend in bars. Similarly, anyone who lacks belief in any gods is an atheist.

And now we come to the root of your question. So many of the topics we've covered so far have firm definitions that are clear to anyone with an elementary grounding in English, but not Christianity. As was shown in a thread long ago called Defining the word "Christian", there is no clear definition at all to the term. In this special case of lacking clarity, we are therefore forced to accept that anyone who self-identifies as a Christian IS a Christian.

It's all about clear definitions, and intellectual honesty in communication. Those with an agenda will continue to distort clearly defined terms and ideas in order to muddy the waters, forcing a communications breakdown and therefore succeeding in stifling debate on the topic of religion. These are the people who have no intellectual honesty, just like the purveyors of the poll in the original thread that quote comes from.

[ironbark]

16. “It's all about clear definitions, and intellectual honesty in communication.”

Yea? Clearly define ‘Communism’ without reference to the core principle of atheism and come back and tell us about “intellectual honesty in communication”

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.” Karl Marx

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“And this demand that men should be changed into atheists par ordre du mufti is signed by two members of the Commune who have really had opportunity enough to find out that first a vast amount of things can be ordered on paper without necessarily being carried out, and second, that persecution is the best means of promoting undesirable convictions! This much is sure: the only service that can be rendered to God today is to declare atheism a compulsory article of faith and to outdo Bismarck’s Kirchenkulturkampf laws by prohibiting religion generally....”
Frederick Engels 1874

“Marxism is materialism. ... We must combat religion - that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of marxism. But marxism is not a materialism that has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion” (Lenin, 1909, Ibid).


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=253928&mesg_id=254111

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=253928&mesg_id=254194


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=253928&mesg_id=254631

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. Communism deals with allocating property and work, and running a state in a certain way.

Their fore-thinkers not liking religion is largely incidental.

[ironbark]

20. The “fore-thinkers” of communism??? Oh…you mean the founders…

The ones quoted in the post your responding to.

The ones who put a great deal of time thought and energy into articulating how and why-
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
“Communism begins from the outset with atheism”
“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."

And yet time and time again this bullshit historical revisionism goes on here… pretending atheism was
“largely incidental”…or “Atheism was a side show” to communism.

The notion of “intellectual honesty” has been evoked.... so put it on public test and display-

We have contemporary atheists telling us atheism is “largely incidental” to communism…(and previously)- “not even a core principle of communism; communism is strictly an economic philosophy”

And we have Karl freaking Marx and Vlad Lennin (“fore-thinkers” of communism) telling us what the core principles of communisms are- “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism." “Communism begins from the outset with atheism”.

And in “intellectual honesty” we are supposed to accept the former and reject the latter?

How much "fore-thinking" went into your re writing of history guys?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. Do I really need to mine quotes from them about wealth, property, and class struggle?

I never said atheism was nonexistent there. I just said economics was the priority.

[ironbark]

23. No, there is no need for such irrelevant diversion…

nor any need for the evasive non issue of “nonexistent” because >nobody< was questioning the existence of atheism within communism.

You had claimed the founders of communism “not liking religion is largely incidental.”

That runs along exactly the same bulldust historical revisionism line that has been running here for years- that atheism was “incidental” to communism, “not even a core principle of communism; communism is strictly an economic philosophy”, that the communists “adopted” atheism to consolidate power, that “Atheism was a side show” to communism.

I am calling these historical revisionist falsifications of history what they are- pure crap.
Atheism was central and essential to communism from the outset…that’s not my opinion…that’s direct from the communist “fore-thinkers” mouth-
“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism." Marx
“Communism begins from the outset with atheism”. Lennin.

And each and every contemporary atheist respondent can successively cut, ignore or seek to evade and obfuscate the facts….but that wont change them.

“I just said economics was the priority.”

And having made the economic point you went on to palm off the role of atheism in communism as “incidental“….some kind of accidental, insignificant or peripheral event.

Wether you are aware of it or not the reality is that palming off State imposed atheism under communist regimes as “incidental” or “sideshow” is just as FALSE and OFFENSIVE as palming off the Holocaust as “incidental” to WWII or a “sideshow” to National Socialist economic objectives.

This is not ancient history…these events, the persecution and death of countless individuals for their faith under various communist/atheist regimes, are within >living< memory and experience. To attempt to dismiss or diminish what was done as “incidental” or “sideshow” is not just historically wrong and demonstrably false…it’s highly offensive to the victims and those who know them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. I was wondering when you'd Godwin.

Bye.

[ironbark]

27. For you it’s a “Godwin” excuse to abandon the issue and discussion…

for me it’s the reality of having lived and worked with those for whom State imposed atheism was not “incidental” to their lives...it was a bloody crushing nightmare.

You put forward the pov that under Communism “economics was the priority” and that “not liking religion is largely incidental” and I’m here to let you know that tens of thousands found that even when their economic conditions had vastly improved the persecution of their beliefs obliged them to leave home, family, country. Russians, Polls, Yugoslavs, Estonians…they had food, they had jobs and they loved their country but they fled a regime that sought to savagely crush their beliefs.

“Communism as interpreted by Lenin and his successors in the Soviet government required the abolition of religion and to this effect the Soviet government launched a long-running campaign to eliminate religion from society. Since some of these Slavic states tied their ethnic heritage to their ethnic churches, both the peoples and their church where targeted by the Soviet”
Anyone can Wiki the basic facts of of the consequences of State imposed atheism ….some of us, having sat and broken bread with those who experienced the purges, don’t need to….for the victims and those who have heard the accounts it’s heartbreaking and personal.

I stand by what I said- “Wether you are aware of it or not the reality is that palming off State imposed atheism under communist regimes as “incidental” or “sideshow” is just as FALSE and OFFENSIVE as palming off the Holocaust as “incidental” to WWII or a “sideshow” to National Socialist economic objectives.

This is not ancient history…these events, the persecution and death of countless individuals for their faith under various communist/atheist regimes, are within >living< memory and experience. To attempt to dismiss or diminish what was done as “incidental” or “sideshow” is not just historically wrong and demonstrably false…it’s highly offensive to the victims and those who know them.”

You wanna cry ““Godwin” and flee….go for it….your absence from the discussion will be “incidental”….having to flee your home and homeland is not “incidental”.

[lazarus]

26. others can google, too

The Nazi attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 forced Stalin to enlist the Russian Orthodox Church as an ally to arouse Russian patriotism against foreign aggression. Religious life revived within the Russian Orthodox Church. Thousands of churches were reopened and multiplied to 22,000 before Khrushchev came to power. The regime permitted religious publications, and church membership grew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

Since you already Godwined the whole thing, I'll mention the Nazis too, and then be on my way.

[ironbark]

28. One question. Do you want to have the discussion, or cry “Godwined” and run?

Or are you prepared to stand and defend your ongoing blatant historical revisionism?

“Since you already Godwined the whole thing, I'll mention the Nazis too, and then be on my way.”

I mentioned the Nazis as a parallel to and indicator of the scale of pain inflicted by State imposed posed atheism, its occurance within living memory and, most importantly, the subsequent attempts to whitewash history.

Below are prime examples and I’m prepared to expose them for what they are…patently false historical revisionism.

“Atheism was a side show, just a part of Stalinism, not the core principle. It's not even a core principle of communism; communism is strictly an economic philosophy. Sure, Marx discusses religion some, but atheism isn't what motivated communism or Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism”

“Marx wasn't motivated by atheism to write Das Kapital. Trotsky wasn't motivated by atheism to work with Lenin.Atheism was a tool, but not a motive.”

“Communism was not used to establish state atheism, it was the other way around”

“You have not shown that communism was instituted in the USSR to bring about state atheism, as you're claimed. You haven't even shown that it was a "major goal",…”

“Communism was the vehicle used to establish state atheism.”
“Wrong. Just wrong”


This is a falsification of the centrality and role of atheism within communism and a denial of the horrendous impact on tens of thousands.

You could alert it as the continuance of objections raised (and ignored) elsewhere, or a “calling out” , or an issue contaminated by “Godwined”...there are lots of ways of avoiding and evading the issue.

And as I said upthread...the issue is historical revisionism...and for those who have been victims of State imposed atheism and those who have known them it's not an "incidental" "sideshow".

[darkstar3]

18. ^^And I feel safe in saying "case in point."^^

[ironbark]

24. Um...responding to your own post with "case in point" establishes "case in point"?

Yea................your "safe" in that ;-)

Whatever that is.