You may not have mentioned Hitler specifically, but
hints at Hitler quite obviously, no? If you disagree, I suppose Stalin would be another figure that it is descriptive of.
No it doesn't hint at Hitler at all. Learn some history. Hitler wasn't a Communist.
And yes, I was reffering to Stalin, as well as Mao, Lenin, Kim Il-Sung and others. All of them were overzealous in applying the atheist clause of the Communist Manifesto, which has led to the suffering, imprisonment and death of countless holymen and believers.
Now, to clarify, I'm not blaming the tens of million dead in the Great Leap Forward and the Russian collectivisation effort upon atheism or the atheist clause. They died because of the implications of economic and political decisions which had nothing to do with religion.
What I am blaming them for is the direct and unequivocal suppression of religion (and the suffering which arose from this) as a result of Marx's rant against religion in his Manifesto. Do you think that Falun Gong would have been suppressed if he hadn't mentioned religion? Or that 28 bishops and 1200 Orthodox priests would have been executed in the first five years of Soviet Russia if he hadn't called religion the "opium of the people"?
Once again, I repeat that science is morally neutral, and should not be blamed for its misapplications, rather the group or person who decides to misapply the discoveries it brings.
And once again, I repeat that religion is just as open to interpretation as the results of science, and that any problems which arise should be blamed upon the practitioner, not the ideology they profess.
I do not believe in the possibility of a religion being 'correct' as they all lack and evidence to favour their religion over others. So yes, I hold it that someone who is religious, is instantly wrong (with respect to their views on religion). But I do not, and did not ever, instantly call them immoral. If they are preaching their doctrine like Name_Taken was over in 'Homosexuality in Australia,' and when evidence is presented they still continue peering at the world through a Bronze Age monocle, then that is when I believe they are wrong and immoral - when they fail to change their position because of no other reason than 'faith.'
You think that just yelling at them and calling them wrong is going to make them change? People will only start questioning their beliefs if presented with a reasonable, unbiased and unemotional argument against them. Sure, you can think that all religious people are moronic, misguided fools. But don't
tell them that. They and the conversation will just retreat to childlike insults and bigotry, and both sides will walk away having gained nothing except a belief that they'reeven more right than when they began.
Well, kiddo, you might be simplifying the definition of doctrine a little too much. The definition of doctrine is:
a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
Notice 'fact of life' is not mentioned there, merely belief of the world. And look at the examples! Of all the possible examples they could have chosen - not Darwinism, not atheism - but Catholicism! I wonder why...
I like how you selectively chose to ignore the other entries in dictionary.com as to what "doctrine" means, as they did not suit your argument. Nice try buddy, but I think you'll find that I was right.
doc·trine
/ˈdɒk
trɪn/
Show Spelled[dok-trin]
Show IPA
–noun1.a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2.
something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3.
a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
