A common argument against atheism is that it can be just as harmful as religion because people can become intolerant of religious belief (and frequently organized religion) and harm, persecute, discriminate and murder believers. Atheists discard this argument by saying that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god and therefore we can't kill in the name of atheism, but people can kill in the name of religion because there may be dogmas, rules and principles commanding believers to do so. And this is entirely true. However...

This argument makes it look like atheists are not dangerous but believers are because they can kill in the name of god but here's what I was thinking about today - Comparing atheism with religion is unfair and inaccurate because atheism is precisely the contrary of theism - Just like no one can kill in the name of atheism because it is merely a lack of belief in gods and therefore there are no rules about killing people no one can kill in the name of mere theism because it's simply a belief in god and it doesn't come attached in its simplest form to any religion - You can kill in the name of religion and religious dogmas, if a specific god tells you to do so, and an atheist can develop himself into an anti-theist, become hostile towards religion and kill people because of it.

Stalin and other communist figures were much more than atheist and a thing to consider is that religion is fundamentally incompatible with communist doctrine and because Stalin created Stalinist (a totalitarian system) it becomes a sort of religion to worship the leader and having other beings to worship was contrary to the workers' agenda not to mention religion was something considered archaic because it was something the burgueoisie promoted.

My whole reasoning here is - Yes, we can't kill in the name of atheism, but we can develop ourselves into horrible beings who hate religion and kill because of that - But people can't kill in the name of theism as well because it's merely a belief in god, but they can follow terrible religious doctrines and start killing people - One is not worse than the other, people don't kill because of belief in god, that's fundamentally wrong, they kill because they believe and also want others to believe as well. Many religious wars start because a group doesn't believe what the other groups does so pretty much that group is atheist and anti-theist towards the other.

Conclusion - Believing in god is as hazardous to oneself as a lack of thereof, it's what we do after that affects our actions. Am I wrong? 

I agree giving kudos

(April 12, 2015 at 10:19 am)Dystopia Wrote: Stalin and other communist figures were much more than atheist and a thing to consider is that religion is fundamentally incompatible with communist doctrine and because Stalin created Stalinist (a totalitarian system) it becomes a sort of religion to worship the leader and having other beings to worship was contrary to the workers' agenda not to mention religion was something considered archaic because it was something the burgueoisie promoted.

Yet Stalin was mainly a cannibal. He devoured members of his own party, who he perceived as a threat to his power. There was no religious persecution in the sense of being a christian, muslim, jew or anything else made you his target. If you happened to cross him or if he even felt you crossed him, you were fair game.

Of course, as you said, being theist or atheist doesn't automatically make you a better or worse person. Ugly things tend to happen whenever there's an ideology attached and this ideology is allowed to run unchecked.

A bad person (whatever definition of which you may use) is a bad person regardless of what creed/ideology they use on the surface.

(April 12, 2015 at 10:54 am)Spooky Wrote: A bad person (whatever definition of which you may use) is a bad person regardless of what creed/ideology they use on the surface.

No, there's no good or bad person to begin with. It's the environment shaping us into one or the other. Most simply stay average persons for their whole lives. But the Milgram expirement has shown that average persons can be turned into monsters, given the right environmental influence, which ideologies provide.

People can, and have, killed in the name of almost anything, athesim and theism included.

Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism, though; nor Mao. They both killed for a couple of different reasons. Firstly, they both were interested in eliminating rival power-bases. These killings were small in number and generally limited to the political class, such as in the Moscow show trials of the 1930s. Secondly, they both killed in order to instill terror in the populace. They wanted people afraid to raise their voice to complain about even the most trivial issue with governance, for fear of the GULag or re-education camp. These killing comprised a large proportion of the deaths in both regimes. Thirdly, they killed simply as a byproduct of brutal policies that weren't directly intended to kill, but had that as an effect -- say, heavy forced labor on scant rations, or forced resettlement of entire populations.

The only religious group I know of whom Stalin killed solely because of their religion were the Anabaptists, though there were no doubt others.

(April 12, 2015 at 11:01 am)abaris Wrote:

(April 12, 2015 at 10:54 am)Spooky Wrote: A bad person (whatever definition of which you may use) is a bad person regardless of what creed/ideology they use on the surface.

No, there's no good or bad person to begin with. It's the environment shaping us into one or the other. Most simply stay average persons for their whole lives. But the Milgram expirement has shown that average persons can be turned into monsters, given the right environmental influence, which ideologies provide.

This seems to be the Nature Vs. Nurture question.  I respectfully disagree with your assessment.  I believe there are people who are "Bad" by nature.  I come to this opinion from my experience working in treatment.  Most of the kids in treatment (Adolescent Sex Offender Program, 13-20 age range) indeed were themselves victims first, shaped by their environment as you say.  However I met a couple, who regardless of their upbringing/environment were and would have become monsters.

One in particular was a 17 year old boy we eventually put on the Depo Provera shot.  (Female birth control shot).  It was intended as a last resort before chemical castration.  He was extremely intelligent for his age, but liked little girls.  <10 years old were his preference.  He had over 100 victims, the most recent of which (and the one that landed him in treatment) was a 8 year old he drug into a bathroom at a park.

Occasionally (I believe) there are people who are born monsters and will never be anything less.  Whether they claim to be Atheist/Agnostic/Christian/Jewish/Whatever, will never change what they truly are. 

Isn't saying Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung were Atheists therefore Atheists have no problem with killing people "guilt by association"? You hear all these Muhammadan apologists say they hate guilt by association because they don't want to be associated with all the violence that is done in the name of their religion and yet they want to associate Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung with Atheism. If you say to them: "Well, Osma Bin-Laden was a terrorist, therefore..." they will get angry. Yet they say: "Stalin was an Atheist, therefore..."

If they want to talk about genocides I'll be quite happy to talk about the tens of millions of Hindus and others killed during the Mughal rule of the Indian sub-continent, Armenian genocide and the Arabs slave trade.

(April 12, 2015 at 11:19 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Isn't saying Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung were Atheists therefore Atheists have no problem with killing people "guilt by association"? You hear all these Muhammadan apologists say they hate guilt by association because they don't want to be associated with all the violence that is done in the name of their religion and yet they want to associate Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung with Atheism. If you say to them: "Well, Osma Bin-Laden was a terrorist, therefore..." they will get angry. Yet they say: "Stalin was an Atheist, therefore..."

If they want to talk about genocides I'll be quite happy to talk about the tens of millions of Hindus and others killed during the Mughal rule of the Indian sub-continent, Armenian genocide and the Arabs slave trade.

I don't see the relevance of any of this to the OP.

(April 12, 2015 at 11:21 am)Dystopia Wrote:

(April 12, 2015 at 11:19 am)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: Isn't saying Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung were Atheists therefore Atheists have no problem with killing people "guilt by association"? You hear all these Muhammadan apologists say they hate guilt by association because they don't want to be associated with all the violence that is done in the name of their religion and yet they want to associate Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung with Atheism. If you say to them: "Well, Osma Bin-Laden was a terrorist, therefore..." they will get angry. Yet they say: "Stalin was an Atheist, therefore..."

If they want to talk about genocides I'll be quite happy to talk about the tens of millions of Hindus and others killed during the Mughal rule of the Indian sub-continent, Armenian genocide and the Arabs slave trade.

I don't see the relevance of any of this to the OP.

I would disagree. The OP talked about Stalin and Communism so I thought I'd throw that in there. Theists often talk about Stalin in relation to Atheism and make all sorts of claims, such as saying if you put his actions down to something other than his Atheism then you're wrong. Clearly, this is wrong but I felt it necessary to comment about that.