Atheistic bloodthirstiness (by D. D'Souza)

[L.A.F.]

At the Christian Science Monitor website, Mr. D'Souza writes:
"These figures [number of victims due to the Inquisition and the Crusades] are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people."

Afterwards, he refutes some claims that are made in End of Faith (by Sam Harris) and The God Delusion (by Richard Dawkins) in order to show that they are holding Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

He concludes:
"Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history."
(D'Souza, D. (11/26/2006), "Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history", http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html)

Can you spot the fallacies?


PS: The text between square brackets is added by me.

[Rev. Rye]

But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people."

Problem: None of these three dictators did their deeds solely in the name of atheism. Hell, Hitler may not have even been an atheist. And, in these three cases, killing people for religious affiliation was only a small piece of the puzzle. They all persecuted anyone who could potentially be a threat to the state. Even an atheist could suffer at their hands; hell, I recently finished a unit on East Germany in my German History class and it turned out that, there, anything could be perceived a threat, even someone being too patriotic.

Afterwards, he refutes some claims that are made in End of Faith (by Sam Harris) and The God Delusion (by Richard Dawkins) in order to show that they are holding Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

Special pleading. If I didn't even read Sam Harris and know he actually gave some good reasons for his positions, I'd say it comes from both sides.

all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

Even if there were as many people now as they did 2000 years ago, the technology enabling mass murder on such a scale just didn't exist until a few decades ago.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence.

Okay, even Dawkins knows that that's a vast oversimplification. It's not the greatest. It's only one of the greatest.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Can you spot the fallacies?

No, the question is: can you spot any actual facts?

[L.A.F.]

Can you spot the fallacies?

No, the question is: can you spot any actual facts?

Hardly. The original article does not provide links nor footnotes that can aid to validate the posted quotes and statements.

[LastPoet]

Nah, the mythical creatures called vampires, the very real vampire bats, leeches, ticks, etc are bloodthirsty. We atheists love to eat babies



Hmmm, Baby BBQ *drools*

[Tonus]

Can you spot the fallacies?

Anytime I see this argument, the main thought that comes to mind is that it appears as if the argument being put forth by theists is "sure, theists have raped and slaughtered millions of people, but non-theists have done just a bit worse overall." You can almost imagine them wiping their foreheads and sighing with relief.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In Summary: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Minimalist]

No, the question is: can you spot any actual facts?

Hardly. The original article does not provide links nor footnotes that can aid to validate the posted quotes and statements.

They never do. They just know what fucking jesus tells them.

[Simon Moon]

At the Christian Science Monitor website, Mr. D'Souza writes:
"These figures [number of victims due to the Inquisition and the Crusades] are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people."

Afterwards, he refutes some claims that are made in End of Faith (by Sam Harris) and The God Delusion (by Richard Dawkins) in order to show that they are holding Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes committed in their name.

He concludes:
"Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history."
(D'Souza, D. (11/26/2006), "Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history", http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html)

Can you spot the fallacies?


PS: The text between square brackets is added by me.

Hitler was probably not an atheist. He might not have been a Christian, but he did believe in a god of some sort.

But even if he was an atheist, it didn't matter. Because he sure found it easy to exploit the Christian majority of the German people. Germany also had large population of Lutherans, and I'm sure we are all aware of Martin Luther's antisemitism.

Stalin and Mao replaced the bad dogma of an infallible god with the bad dogma of the infallible State. They killed in the name of bad dogma, not atheism. They didn't bring a system of rationality, they replaced one set of irrational beliefs with another set.

A perfect example is 'Stalin's biologist', Lysenko. His anti-Medel and anti-Darwin theories and research set the Soviet Union's agriculture back decades and lead to famine. Stalin's loyalty to Lysenko, despite his failures, was dogma driven, not evidence driven.

[Minimalist]

Hitler was probably not an atheist. He might not have been a Christian, but he did believe in a god of some sort.

Hmmm....

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

This would make him one shitty atheist.