The old apologist nugget of citing people like Pol Pot as example atheists is tiring, annoying and, to me, simply not relevant. Cults are cults regardless of whether they worship spooks or terrestrial demagogues. It is the same idiocy, just different spots.

But I had a minor epiphany just recently that can be used to throw back into the face of the next god-freak that plays the Pol Pot card on you -

Pol Pot: Pol Pot became leader of Cambodia in mid-1975. During his time in power, Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in a "Year Zero".

Jim Jones: Jones had first started building Jonestown in 1974 as a means to create both a "socialist paradise" and a "sanctuary" from the media scrutiny which had started in 1972. Regarding the former goal, Jones purported to establish Jonestown as a benevolent model communist community stating, "I believe we’re the purest communists there are."

Both citations are from Wikipedia and therefore lies. Still, it's an interesting, and useful, trick to keep up your sleeve should you get entrapped in an argument with a theotard.

Tags: cambodia, jim jones, jonestown, khmer rouge, people's temple, pol pot

Views: 48

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Unfortunately many theotards still believe Jones was an atheist Communist who mimicked religion to lure people to his 'Temple'.

And it's not only theotards, by the way: see entries #2 and #5 in this list.
Can't say much about an atheist list that includes the clown prince of comedy; born into fundamentalism and born again into fundamentalism. Jones' references are many and varied and not very many that don't think he loved baby jebus. The lists' one redemption is it doesn't have Hitler.
I didn't mean I endorse that list, just pointing out the fact that people of various allegiances might raise an objection to this Pol Pot=Jim Jones counter card of yours.
Gotcha. I couldn't find a source for that list at all. Wasn't sure if it was serious or not.
Try this logic:

Religions are in fact governments. Each has a dictator 'god', a set of laws and a clergy to support and enforce the laws. That is the essence of a government, and it's quite obvious that each religion would like to rule the world, because each thinks they are unquestionably right, and that they know the only true 'god'.

So why would any reasonable leader claim to be a religious person, to endorse any religion, if that entailed subservience to some imaginary 'god' and priesthood. Indeed, why would China or Russia allow the christians or the mormons to enter their country and attempt to convert their citizens?

Tell me you're not aware of the church/state conflicts throughout history. Each vying for dominance until they enter an unholy alliance. Why would Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot want to endorse any superstition? They attempted to rule by reason and failed, because socialism is a failure, and most especially an economic failure. Prices and interest rates can only be set by a free market, because a free market is the instantaneous sum of all the economic forces acting in the world.

Has any religion lifted the poor out of poverty? A little religion might not be bad you're thinking. George Washington et al knew full well that if they established catholicism or any protestant denomination there would not be peace. Witness the terrible wars and conflicts in Europe before America was 'discovered' and 'opened up', so to speak, before the christians killed the Amerindians and put them in concentration camps. America has survived because there is no state religion, not in spite of no state religion.

Repeat after me: A religion IS a government.

And don't forget it.
charles coryn: And don't forget it.

Good-o. I'm not entirely sure what it is that you want to convince me of, or if you even get the point of the post, but it's good that you have interests and that get you excited about them. And no, I don't want to buy any Ayn Rand t-shirts.
Seems pretty straight forward to me...... Is it the economics that is difficult for you?
Or when North Korea Hammers Brazil 50-0 at the baboon-ball World Cup.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

Joseph P replied to Donald L. Engel's discussion The Universal Love Triangle in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
5 minutes ago
Joseph P replied to Donald L. Engel's discussion The Universal Love Triangle in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
9 minutes ago
Joseph P commented on Richard Knight's group Secular Sexuality
17 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Donald L. Engel's discussion The Universal Love Triangle in the group ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
19 minutes ago
Michael Penn replied to Asa Watcher's discussion Dawkins' "love letters"
23 minutes ago
MagetheEntertainer posted a video

Moderately Religious

Moderately Religious In this video I discuss how being moderately religious is hypocritical and doesn't make any sense. If you like this video hit like and s...
24 minutes ago
Michael Penn replied to Matt Gabe's discussion The afterlife should still matter to atheists
27 minutes ago
Steve replied to Jonas Stmichael's discussion The Ever Widening Gap Between Rich and Poor
28 minutes ago

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service