On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:


A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not
attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they
behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base
responses, some more than others.


Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a
religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure,
they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an
adamant stance

They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to
display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control
techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling,
their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that
attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to
threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright
obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a
deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone
else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as
simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their
behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a
similar way.

Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to
behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter.

whereas a religious zealot will.

A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they
can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a
zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and
they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them.


Religion is the main problem.

Human nature is the main problem, not religion.


Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:

“ As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted
religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of
focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own
power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether Christian or
atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if
Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in
the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held
accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who
can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of
others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology
that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their
bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a
religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism
as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass
murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.[9] ”





Vladimir Lenin
Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also
stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but
atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is
still mostly an abstraction."[10]

Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A
Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a
dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against
religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely
theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the
basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is
educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[11]

In 1955, Chinese communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists
are atheists".[12]