You seem to have gotten several things wrong. I'll point out two.One, there are many people who claim Hitler was an atheist so Dawkins was simply responding to the charge. It wasn't a strawman. Two, Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, from what I can tell is not related to communism at all. In fact, according to Wikipedia, their form of government is Consociationalism, not any form of socialism. Mugabe may be an atheist (I couldn't find any info on that) but you've given no proof that's what lead him to do whatever it is you're accusing him of.Instead of actually dealing with the arguments about Stalin and Hitler, you seem to want to go around discussing them them by listing other individuals who you claim are communist leaders. But, I was unable to find one claim that at least one person wasn't. I didn't bother checking the others.I sure hope your arguments start to get better in the next installment. This is disappointing. I was looking forward to this series. Thus, far you've created strawmen and haven't seemed to check your facts very well. And to top it all off, you've failed to show how a lack of belief causes any problems. European countries sure don't have any of the problems you claim is caused by atheism. That puts a serious dent in your case.You've written two pieces so far and haven't made one serious argument yet.
Anon., Thanks for both your readership and the input.You seem to have gotten several things wrong. I'll point out a few:“Straw man” was in reference to the manner in which Dawkins rephrases his arguments so that they are self-serving and not about the claim that Hitler was an atheist about which I stated,“Personally, I never understood why some people claim that Hitler was an atheist.”If you consulted Wikipedia for Robert Mugabe you will note that they refer to him as a Marxist—this is well known. As to going around Stalin and Hitler and instead listing other individuals; when you are on part 2 of 13 patience must be exercised as you rightly note, the arguments will develop as we go along.aDios,Mariano .
Mugabe may be a Marxist, but he is not a communist leader, as you claimed. He tried to set one up, but that didn't happen. He also is not a leader of any communist country now, so I think my point still stands. You've also failed to link atheism and communism and show how atheism caused these problems, which is the entire point. But, as you say, maybe you will attempt this in a later post. No one else has been able to do this --- even a PhD in Russian history --- so I doubt you will.
1. By definition, Communism is atheistic. They don't even try to deny that. I would like to see one source where we can find a communist deny being an atheist.2. Mariano is right. Mariano never claimed that Hitler was an atheist. Besides, as he pointed out just because someone is anti-christian or ant-semetic. 3. Being a marxist is not the same as being a communist. Mariano never made that mistake either. (just in case anyone is confused).4. The complaints made against this post I'm sure will be addressed later. He did a fabulous article.
1. No, Communism by definition is not atheistic. For one, there have been theistic Communists; two and the author mentioned it before, early christians practiced a form of Communism, but I think he made a mistake because I don't think most people have in mind the communistic like socialism that took place in Russia when they think about that. They think about socialism, which was what Communism was built upon; the common ownership of goods.2. So what? That wasn't Dawkins' point anyway. Dawkins even say very clearly that it's unknown whether or not Hitler was an atheist or Christian and quoted contradicting speeches by Hitler. That's the point. 3. Well, basically yes it does. It's just that what happened in Russia is not what Marx wanted; it was a perversion of his teachings; the totalitarianism that took place. Also, the author lumped Mugabe in with list of who he called "communist leaders." I was just pointing that out. 4. Not at all. This article suffers from the same problems as most other apologetics when it comes to this topic. A misunderstanding of Communism and Russian history. Please read the link I gave in my comment above. That will answer most arguments in this article I'm sure. It blows my mind that so many people actually think this blog makes any decent arguments at all. Look up the facts yourself and you'll see.
I also wanted to add that I think it's silly that the author wants to try to refute Dawkins' arguments, when he is not even a historian and did a decent, but ultimately bad job of arguing this. Why not go rebut someone else's article who actually knows about the history? Hint, I gave his link up there.
Well Anonymous, It's also quite ironic how you point out that M isn't a historian - while dear old (excuse the pun) Richard Dawkins is barking up the wrong tree as well. If I hadn't known better I would swear he has a cult following of his own...Allow me to make an observation that has probably run its course over here at this blog: Why not stick to science? Why all the fuss about something he (R Dawkins) merely writes off as fantastical?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yeah I think you pulled that one off. The cool thing is I'm not much of a swallower, actually I've never had a penis in my mouth, the other way around? well you get the idea. But here's some criticism, why has the sacred and wonderful act of putting ones most privates in your mouth, a means for insults and defamation? There is nothing like those up staring eyes with that mouth full of whatever you've got to offer in the pant's department. Oh God I love that look. I sometimes like to do the surprise shot. Oh man, I need to get a blowjob, stat.
for anonymusI am from Romania, an ex-communist country, and I can assure you that the communism is atheistic by definition. I don't know what have you learned about communism, so I think you should read Leszek kolakowski' s works on marxism.I understand you are not familiar with the saying "religion is opium for masses"...