Everything I have read about him (which is not all that much) states he was an atheist, but he was also a megalomanic and paranoid. Pretty much batshit crazy.
It may be that the writers assumed he was atheist because he attempted to abolish religion. Maybe he just didn't want any competition. Or maybe he was just batshit crazy.
Quote:The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
Quote:Throughout Cambodia, deadly purges were conducted to eliminate remnants of the "old society" - the educated, the wealthy, Buddhist monks, police, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and former government officials. Ex-soldiers were killed along with their wives and children. Anyone suspected of disloyalty to Pol Pot, including eventually many Khmer Rouge leaders, was shot or bludgeoned with an ax. "What is rotten must be removed," a Khmer Rouge slogan proclaimed
http://unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/pol_pot.htm
Pol Pot was not an atheist; he understood the power of religion, and he did what any tyrant would do; get rid of something to take over power from the country's heart and mind.
What proof does msn have that he was an atheist? He was "playing" god, and did everything he could to control his world. That's in direct contravention of an atheist.
You mean atheists have a code of conduct?
neologist wrote:You mean atheists have a code of conduct?
No, atheists believes in self-control, not to control others. We worry about ourselves and our own morals; not what others do.
cicerone imposter wrote:neologist wrote:You mean atheists have a code of conduct?
No, atheists believes in self-control, not to control others. We worry about ourselves and our own morals; not what others do.
I wonder if all atheists believe and act as you say. Any statistics?
No stats are needed, because atheism is about ourselves - not about the why's and therefore's - like religionists.
cicerone imposter wrote:Pol Pot was not an atheist; he understood the power of religion, and he did what any tyrant would do; get rid of something to take over power from the country's heart and mind.
What proof does msn have that he was an atheist? He was "playing" god, and did everything he could to control his world. That's in direct contravention of an atheist.
I thought that atheists could hold to their own personal version of morality and practice it as they chose.
Seems he did just that.
You miss the most important point about atheists; we don't impose our non-gods onto others.
Seems like death is quite an imposition.
CI - I'm gong to side with Neo on this one. Atheists aren't guided by a code. I know of no Atheist doctrine, and if there is one, I know zero atheists that base their beliefs or actions on it. Maybe I'm just hung up on the word "code." meh?
Neo - The problem is that Atheists are Atheists for various reasons, and stay Atheists for various reasons. It's a safer statement to say that Atheists abide not by a code but are cognizant of a system. The system in this case being logic.
I just don't see atheists as being a group of like-minded people. It's more like there are individuals with Atheist as a status. I think that the religious will always be challenged to understand the atheist, because they view atheism as a religion itself, because the concept that religion is optional and trivial is a very abstract concept to them.
There are catholic beliefs
There are protestant beliefs
There are mormon beliefs
There are hindu beliefs
There are muslim beliefs
etc.
There is one (singular) atheist belief: No God.
Any speculation on an atheist's moral, ethical, or political views is just that: a speculation.
T
K
O
No, atheists are guided by a code.
It is the same to speculate about the moral, ethical or political views of an atheist as that of the christian.
Just because someone is christian does not make them follow the doctrine of the church. An atheist defines his own views and does not blindly say they agree with an out-dated code of moral conduct when in reality they are going completely against these morals in their actions.
It is impossible to make generalisations such as those you have put forward because of the moral dishonesty shown by a large majority of religious folk.
ZoSo wrote:No, atheists are guided by a code.
Would you consider an edit?
Atheists are not guided by a universal code, only a personal code independent of other atheists.
There is no atheist doctrine I am aware of, and if there was, I'd think it was a bad idea. I don't think atheists need/want somebody else defining their experience or beliefs.
T
K
O
cicerone imposter wrote:You miss the most important point about atheists; we don't impose our non-gods onto others.
You would not, I'm fairly sure.
Before you board the same ship with others, you might wish to check the condition of the life boats.
Diest, The "code" that atheists follow is not written any place; it's still universal in idea that we do not believe in any gods. From that principle follows the ideas that we do not impose our beliefs onto others - which is universally true. It's somewhat like "code of ethics."
I think that perhaps some atheists do try and impose their beliefs. I would theorize that this is a cultural land grab issue; Atheists feel that promoting their ideas are a defensive action to keep themselves safe.
I don't personally think it's necessary, but I can understand it. Even if an atheist does promote atheism, their doing it for personal reasons, not in the name of atheism itself.
T
K
O
Posting in a forum doesn't equate to the Christian majority's relentless, egocentric fervor to force everyone else to live by their small-minded rules.
Arella Mae is a christian, and the best defense is to offer an offense.
Arella Mae, What and when has atheists "preached" to the masses? Have you ever had an atheist try to convert you into atheism? If you say "yes," you are lying.
What atheists are prone to do is point out all of the "contradictions, errors and omissions" in the good book. It's about honesty, logic and ethics. That's nowhere near "preaching atheism," because it has nothing to do with atheism; it's about being true to oneself.
The bible claims that the earth is 7,000 years old. If atheists point out that science negates that claim, it's not based on atheism; it's based on science; geology, paleontology, anthropology, astronomy....
It seems that everytime Arella cannot reply to a post, she quietly slips away. This has happened to me at least three times in the past week or so, and I'm beginning to wonder why I even bother.
