Aiza, you keep asserting that Christians were killed in the name of state atheism. I don't think you quite understand the paradox with what you speak. They were killed BY atheist states, yes, but not in the name of state atheism. They were killed in the name of the totalitarian dictator's power. Men, trying to play as god. This is why there are antitheists like me, who reject the godly idea in all of its forms; supernatural or in the form of men. No man has an intrinsic right to pass total judgement and those who feel they do have no real valid claim except by force, and if such is the case then the people he dominates have every right to use strength of their own to resist, and resist they must, that they may establish a non-god-like form of government, whose power must come from agreement, not strength. And god is an unproven entity in its supernatural form, constantly requiring faith to believe in, so allowing the mindset that we must submit ourselves to an invisible deity is also abhorrent to me and anti-theists like me.
To reply back a bit from earlier: Yes, it does prove it because the man was basically punished specifically for atheism. The article and its sources were very clear on that. And even today in an age of nearly-endless data redundancy we STILL have records and information that end up completely lost. The church may have some stellar record-keeping but it's far from perfect, especially considering how it was mostly all written in paper and paper, not stored in a precisely controlled environment [something only possible very recently] will decay and fall apart in less than a couple centuries. Information is bound to slip through the cracks, and those cracks can get pretty big if you think about all the factors that come into play in record keeping, such as passage time, clerical error, decay of the recording medium, destruction of property, revisionist leadership, and all that good stuff.
And yeah they tend to have the higher-educated bombers target more important locations. Unsurprising, that; you give the more important missions to the more capable men. These men can still be religiously brainwashed, though; education does not make someone foolproof to brainwashing, just less susceptible. Pardon the jab here but you were a woman on her way to getting a PhD and you're dropping that to become a Sister. I know, it is what you feel you must do...but from my perspective, I who went the opposite direction [faith to disbelief], it looks more like you succumbed to the kool-aid. Respectfully, I must point out that there are several topics [killing in the name of atheism for one, atheism is punishable by the church is another] that have been discussed where you are refuted on them, but you then bring them back up as if you have forgotten. This is often a clear sign of an unwillingness to change your opinion, and it is likely an unwillingness you are not even aware of. Me, I might continue to fight sometimes but I will never bring up a point I have lost at if I will simply be repeating my assertions unless I can bring up a new point, a new course to take [no argument that is wrong stands up forever after all].
Don't be mistaken; aggressive though I may be in the pursuit of my argument and despite what I will often jokingly say [hard to tell; I have a very dry sense of humor it seems] I do not come to a debate or argument thinking I am right. I want to be proven wrong because then I can learn from my mistakes. The joy of learning is far longer-lived than the far more temporary joy of winning a battle of wits. I would LIKE to be shown that atheism was never a punishable offense by the RCC, but at this point in time we have evidence that, indeed, it was, and no evidence against it beyond a "lack of documentation." I suspect there hasn't really been a huge inquiry into how many atheists were killed by the church for the crime of it; atheists are not a majority anywhere in the world and never really have been, and the idea of the "aggressive atheist" is a relatively new concept. Consider also the secretive nature of a lot of things involving the church and just how many records they really do have and also consider how much of a bureaucracy the church really is [consider its size and scope; over a billion adherents and the entire hierarchy that entails "attending to the flock" as it were] and then consider how very little demand and pressure there is for the church to admit to persecuting atheists given how small our numbers and, worse, how disorganized we are [largely because of the fact that atheism itself is not much of a unifying force, if it is at all]. So virtually no pressure [and where there is, it's from small, poorly-organized groups], being exerted by the little guy, against the secretive behemoth that is well-known for refusing to admits its complicity in things that could make it look morally bankrupt [consider that the church didn't revoke its support of fascism until years after fascism itself had pretty much died, for example]. Whereas at least the pagans were organized [they tended to share very similar beliefs after all and were oftentimes just as organized and tight-knit as the church itself], as were, of course, the Protestants [VERY organized in fact], so naturally the records were bound to be teeming with information about them. Plus they often violently opposed the church. I can't really imagine atheists, who were similar only in that they were atheists and therefore shared no real "belief" or religious customs, really warranted such furious attention by the scribes.
There are far too many indicators that support my argument, some of which I have brought up already, none of which have been decisively or even convincingly refuted yet, so you see where I build my case from on this point. We may never know the exact number of atheists persecuted...or, hell, maybe there WILL be an organized outburst directed at the church to release all records on atheists who were persecuted.
But given how the current pope has stated that atheism is a clear and definite evil and bane of a good society...I don't see that happening until the old Nazi-youth bastard dies. Hopefully sooner rather than later; I'd like to put this argument to bed once and for all at some point in my life, regardless of it being in my favor or another's.
To reply back a bit from earlier: Yes, it does prove it because the man was basically punished specifically for atheism. The article and its sources were very clear on that. And even today in an age of nearly-endless data redundancy we STILL have records and information that end up completely lost. The church may have some stellar record-keeping but it's far from perfect, especially considering how it was mostly all written in paper and paper, not stored in a precisely controlled environment [something only possible very recently] will decay and fall apart in less than a couple centuries. Information is bound to slip through the cracks, and those cracks can get pretty big if you think about all the factors that come into play in record keeping, such as passage time, clerical error, decay of the recording medium, destruction of property, revisionist leadership, and all that good stuff.
And yeah they tend to have the higher-educated bombers target more important locations. Unsurprising, that; you give the more important missions to the more capable men. These men can still be religiously brainwashed, though; education does not make someone foolproof to brainwashing, just less susceptible. Pardon the jab here but you were a woman on her way to getting a PhD and you're dropping that to become a Sister. I know, it is what you feel you must do...but from my perspective, I who went the opposite direction [faith to disbelief], it looks more like you succumbed to the kool-aid. Respectfully, I must point out that there are several topics [killing in the name of atheism for one, atheism is punishable by the church is another] that have been discussed where you are refuted on them, but you then bring them back up as if you have forgotten. This is often a clear sign of an unwillingness to change your opinion, and it is likely an unwillingness you are not even aware of. Me, I might continue to fight sometimes but I will never bring up a point I have lost at if I will simply be repeating my assertions unless I can bring up a new point, a new course to take [no argument that is wrong stands up forever after all].
Don't be mistaken; aggressive though I may be in the pursuit of my argument and despite what I will often jokingly say [hard to tell; I have a very dry sense of humor it seems] I do not come to a debate or argument thinking I am right. I want to be proven wrong because then I can learn from my mistakes. The joy of learning is far longer-lived than the far more temporary joy of winning a battle of wits. I would LIKE to be shown that atheism was never a punishable offense by the RCC, but at this point in time we have evidence that, indeed, it was, and no evidence against it beyond a "lack of documentation." I suspect there hasn't really been a huge inquiry into how many atheists were killed by the church for the crime of it; atheists are not a majority anywhere in the world and never really have been, and the idea of the "aggressive atheist" is a relatively new concept. Consider also the secretive nature of a lot of things involving the church and just how many records they really do have and also consider how much of a bureaucracy the church really is [consider its size and scope; over a billion adherents and the entire hierarchy that entails "attending to the flock" as it were] and then consider how very little demand and pressure there is for the church to admit to persecuting atheists given how small our numbers and, worse, how disorganized we are [largely because of the fact that atheism itself is not much of a unifying force, if it is at all]. So virtually no pressure [and where there is, it's from small, poorly-organized groups], being exerted by the little guy, against the secretive behemoth that is well-known for refusing to admits its complicity in things that could make it look morally bankrupt [consider that the church didn't revoke its support of fascism until years after fascism itself had pretty much died, for example]. Whereas at least the pagans were organized [they tended to share very similar beliefs after all and were oftentimes just as organized and tight-knit as the church itself], as were, of course, the Protestants [VERY organized in fact], so naturally the records were bound to be teeming with information about them. Plus they often violently opposed the church. I can't really imagine atheists, who were similar only in that they were atheists and therefore shared no real "belief" or religious customs, really warranted such furious attention by the scribes.
There are far too many indicators that support my argument, some of which I have brought up already, none of which have been decisively or even convincingly refuted yet, so you see where I build my case from on this point. We may never know the exact number of atheists persecuted...or, hell, maybe there WILL be an organized outburst directed at the church to release all records on atheists who were persecuted.
But given how the current pope has stated that atheism is a clear and definite evil and bane of a good society...I don't see that happening until the old Nazi-youth bastard dies. Hopefully sooner rather than later; I'd like to put this argument to bed once and for all at some point in my life, regardless of it being in my favor or another's.
